On 6/6/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Three
people saying they like an article *and no-one saying they
don't* is consensus.
It's consensus among those three people, maybe, but it's hardly an
established consensus among Wikipedians.
No, you haven't understood my point. It's a consensus among those
three people AND everyone that read the page and decided there was no
need to comment, which is probably much larger than just 3 people.
OK, I understand your terminology. Of course, then you should agree that
every sentence of every article is a consensus among everyone who has read
that sentence. So that pretty much makes the comment useless, doesn't it?
Generally, it is only necessary to speak up if
you
disagree with something. Yes-men serve little purpose in consensus
driven decision making.
And that's exactly what Tony is doing. He's speaking up, because he
disagrees with something.
No, he made a unilateral decision. He just happened to inform the
mailing list afterwards, he didn't do so in order to get a review of
his decision.
He made an edit. And I don't know why he informed the mailing list, but it
certainly shows that he wasn't trying to be sneaky or hide anything. Surely
he informed the mailing list knowing full well that if the community
disagrees with his edit they will reverse it.
Tony has both objected and started this discussion.
To say that these
articles have a consensus of support for FA
status is nonsense. Three
people agreeing on something doesn't automatically bind the rest of us
to
refrain from correcting their mistake.
The discussion should have come first. "Bold-revert-discuss" only
applies when there hasn't been a discussion before hand.
That's at least an assertion which is reasonable, though not one I agree
with.