On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Marc Riddell
<michaeldavid86(a)comcast.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?
on 2/1/11 10:34 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert(a)gmail.com wrote:
It is in the nature of online collaborative communities that this
general question has no exact answer.
This is fundamentally unsatisfying to a number of people, including
those who prefer various not-yet-universally-supported changes;
scientists, observers, critics, and journalists from outside the
community trying to understand or quantify it; many others.
That's the way it works, though.
I appreciate your point, which is that this way of doing things is
often infuriating, insane, or impossible to actually get anything done
in. The reality is that we're there. That's how Wikipedia works (for
whatever definition of "work" you care to apply to the state of the
project here, which you and others feel are unsatisfactory).
George, it may be "how it works", but it also misleading - or worse. To
state that any decision made in this manner is a "consensus of the Wikipedia
Community" is fundamentally dishonest.
Marc