On 6/30/06, Rob <gamaliel8(a)gmail.com> wrote:
If the majority of editors on the page agree that the
block quote is
inappropriate, this is concensus. If you disagree with this
decision, you can initiate a discussion on the talk page, and ideally
these editors would discuss the issue with you.
I'm still trying to sort out exactly what your complaints are, so I
don't want to accuse you of saying or advocating something you are not
saying, as I inadvertantly did regarding the 3RR. So I have some
questions: What would have been the ideal outcome in this case? Do
you think the editors should be forced to discuss the issue with you
before removing this block quote? Do you think consensus should not
be used to guide decisions regarding Wikipedia content? If so, then
what decision making process should replace it?
I hope I'm not putting words in Jon Awbrey's mouth by stating that he
things the problem is that when consensus can be defined as "Me and
three of my friends I IM'd to come and agree with me", there's a
problem. Especially when a "consensus" among like-minded people on
the same side of an issue can be used to trump core Wikipedia policies
and standard Wikipedia ways of working.
Part of the issue is that there's always tension between deciding an
issue for good on the one hand, and having every single opinionated
person coming along to any article being able to re-open things for
which an adequate conclusion has already been reached.
Standard Wikipedia policy / practise here is that there are no
permanent decisions on Wikipedia apart from core policy, but that if
an issue has been decided by strong rough consensus, we're resistant
to re-opening the issue unless the one wishing to re-open it can
convince enough people that the previous rough consensus no longer
holds.
"Strong rough consensus" in my opinion means an issue that for the
vast majority of contributors has a result they can live with - even
if not outright approve - and that has been reached after a
satisfactory discussion, a satisfactory attempt at compromise, a
respect for policy, and with sufficient editors involved that are
representative on the issue.
IMO, a rough consensus is not a strong one, a good one, if it has been
arrived at without discussion, without attempts to find common ground,
without regard for over-riding policy, or without sufficient numbers
of contributors or variety of points-of-view to be truly
representative.
There are many editors on Wikipedia who want to truly do the right
thing and achieve good results. There are enough others, however, who
want articles to say exactly what THEY wish them to say, and who will
game the rules and do everything they can to get their way. (There
are probably other categories of editors, of course, but this is
simplifying).
I have a feeling that another issue Jon has is that some contributors
are too willing to remove things from articles if they don't like
them, regardless of the work that went into them, the usefulness of
the content, or in any way trying to achieve consensus for that
removal.
Jon, do I have your positions right?
-Matt