jf_wikipedia@mac.com wrote:
On May 9, 2006, at 9:07 PM, Cheney Shill wrote: > with it. This email subject is very clearly about applying > existing policy and how consensus obstructs and interferes with > doing so. I do appreciate you providing an interactive case > study.~~~~Pro-Lick
Is this an argument for the sake if argument? The explanations given by several editors is pretty clear, and I fail to understand what your point is. Can you succintly explain what is your concern and what is your proposal (if you have any) to ameliorate the situation?
No.
This subthread got tied up in a discussion of a belief by Fastfission that everything - every article, every article section - is subject to "social interaction", which seems to be Fastfission's term for consensus.
This thread, however, is about the application of undue weight per the NPOV policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight It has already been determined by consensus. Not just any scrambled together consensus over a brief period, but including Jimmy too, so trying to undo it with consensus is the same as trying to rewrite policy on the fly and contradicting actual Wikipedia consensus. Basically, it's an argument that you can apply policy however the current majority of an article sees fit. Applying the same principle to the current AFD discussion, it's an argument to just count votes.
My proposal remains the same. Keep consensus out of application of policy as it applies to article content ("Article standards") and leave it with the overall determination of policy and "Working with others".
To quote the consensus guideline itself: "It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles - especially NPOV." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_vs._other_policie...
"Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_vs._supermajority
The essential problem is that this is repeatedly ignored. Amelioration involves removing (or at least reducing significantly) ambiguity about this so that consensus is "consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies".
--------------------------------- Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2ยข/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.