>
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I could make out the last sentence
>>>>> which
>>>>> contained the phrases, "meaning of consensus", and
"consent of the
>>>>> entire
>>>>> community". No one has yet defined for me the "meaning of
>>>>> consensus",
>>>>> nor
>>>>> described for me how the "consent of the entire community"
is
>>>>> determined.
>>>>>
>>>>> Marc
>>>>>
>>>> on 2/1/11 7:52 PM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> We discuss policy issues at length, consider the reasons for
>>>> adopting
>>>> alternatives, and come to agreement.
>>>>
>>> C'mon Fred, isn't that rather vague? What I'm asking (again) is,
>>> after
>>> the
>>> discussion is other, how is it determined that a consensus of the
>>> Community
>>> has been reached?
>>>
>>> Marc
>>
> on 2/1/11 9:24 PM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net wrote:
>
>> People agree and support the decision.
>>
> Fred, who are these people that are making these decisions and
> declaring
> that there in Community consensus, knowing that this "consensus"
> cannot
> be
> factually validated?
>
> Marc
on 2/1/11 10:16 PM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net wrote:
The rising of the sun could not be factually validated if we thought
like
that. People write on the talk page of the policy that they agree; do
not
change the language of the policy, which anyone can edit, remember; and
follow it.
And how many of these Talk Page "votes" are usually cast before the
results
are announced as being the "consensus" of the entire Wikipedia Community?
Marc
That depends on how important and significant the issue is. Remember
watch lists. A change that is consistent with existing policy does not
call for debate; a major change to one of the "pillars of policy" would
call forth major participation and debate.
Fred
Fred