A true consensus requires everyone to agree (or, at least, not object).
You're right.
That is why things like RFA work on "rough consensus", which actually just means a vote.
See, my vision of "rough consensus" is something like "If you eliminate people who !vote without leaving any comment to debate upon, and who hasn't participate in the debate elsewhere, or who do something like WP:WHYNOT, WP:NOTNOW, or WP:I[DON'T]LIKEIT what do you get?" I guess this would be a vote in a sense, albeit a very skewed one.
Emily
On Aug 27, 2009, at 8:28 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/8/28 Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com:
On 8/28/09, Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
Polling and voting is a good way to see what people think without having to wade through a mass of comments.
If you can't be bothered to engage in discussion, I agree that voting or "!voting" is the way to go.
You can't build consensus by polling or "!polling". You can't make a decision based on consensus if you can't be bothered to read.
You can't make a decision based on consensus when there are dozens of interested parties, full stop. A true consensus requires everyone to agree (or, at least, not object). That just isn't going to happen for even vaguely controversial issues if there are dozens of people. That is why things like RFA work on "rough consensus", which actually just means a vote.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l