----- Original Message ----- From: "Anthere" anthere6@yahoo.com To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 4:20 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BuddhaInside's behaviour
Message: 2 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 14:36:58 +0200 From: "Mike" Mike@cybermaus.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BuddhaInside's behaviour To: "Discussion list for English-language Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Message-ID: 007801c37b86$0f081d50$2101a8c0@maus1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
He then tried to edit the [[Consensus]] page to
redefine what a consensus
is, forcing the comment Angela,
Changing the definition on the [[consensus]] page
won't help Buddha . . .
[[User:Angela|Angela]] 18:04, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)
In spite of all the irritation he has caused, I would still have been inclined to give him the benefit of doubt, but the above cited act brands him as a troll in my opinion.
Mike AKA CyberMaus
Have you look at the page in question ([[consensus]]), its history, and the talk page ?
Anthere
Yes. I've just gone through it again and I hold to my opinion. What he wrote on the [[consensus]] page is not wrong. What bothers me is that he did it to justify his previous actions in spite of what is written in the rest of the article. See the second paragraph in the "consensus as collective thought" section, in particular the last sentence.
As I said, what he wrote is not wrong, but in my experience I have never heard or seen the word consensus used to mean unanimous. In Meriam-Webster, it is also mentioned that this usage is "slightly older". In my opinion, it is obsolete.
Here's another possible meaning: A minority holds an opinion to which the majority have no objection or differing opinion, thus the minority opinion is presented as consensus.
Mike AKA CyberMaus