on 4/10/07 2:15 PM, Zoney at zoney.ie(a)gmail.com wrote:
Consensus is just a weasel word on Wikipedia that at
various times allows
people to either a) ignore majority, often even significant majority votes
"we don't have consensus" and at other times b) ignore minority
objections,
sometimes significant minorities "too bad you object - we have consensus".
In all cases, those who are persistent, or more agressive Wikipedians
commanding more authority for themselves, get their own way.
Wikipedia is not a democracy, and it is not anything else sensible instead.
People are deluding themselves if they think there's a consistent process
for decision making from everything to RFA, policy, deletions, article
content, heck - even NPOV is acheived by a mish-mash of votes/debate/looking
for "consensus" - of course the result usually is just whatever group shouts
loudest. It does work a lot of the time because often the majority of those
involved will carry the decision despite the "Wikipedia is not a democracy"
line, but really there isn't even a broken decision-making mechanism.
There's usually no consistent mechanism at all.
Very well put, Zoney & right on! You are presenting to an aspect of the very
culture of Wikipedia. But the issue of Wikipedia culture seems to be
radioactive here: nobody seems to want to touch it.
Marc Riddell
--
³Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it
takes to sit down and listen.²
Winston Churchill