Kelly Martin wrote:
Robert was surely aware of the early evolutionary development of parliamentary procedure in the English House of Lords resulting in a movement from "consensus," in its original sense of unanimous agreement, toward a decision by majority vote as we know it today. This evolution came about from a recognition that a requirement of unanimity or near unanimity can become a form of tyranny in itself. In an assembly that tries to make such a requirement the norm, a variety of misguided feelings--reluctance to be seen as opposing the leadership, a notion that causing controversy will be frowned upon, fear of seeming an obstacle to unity--can easily lead to decisions being taken with a psuedoconsensus which in reality implies elements of default, which satisfies no one, and for which no one really assumes responsibility.
In a consensual system the risk of pseudoconsensus is definitely there, as is the risk of institutional paralysis. An effective system of consensus depends on both assuming and exercising good faith, and the belief that if people work toward it a mutually satisfactory solution will be found. It is inimical to those who want a quick solution favoring their individual objectives. Paradoxically consensus cannot be achieved by *making* it the norm; such "making" is contrary to the spirit of consensus. If we recognize the above-stated and very real difficulties of a consensual system that should be a first step for finding a solution to those difficulties, not an excuse for abandoning the system.
I think it's time we reconsider whether "consensus" is a valid principle of governance in as large and contentious a community as this one has become, and whether we need to make more of an effort to move to parliamentarianism as a method of governance.
Obviously, the larger and more contentious the community, the bigger the challenge of consensus. But we cannot undertake such a debate without an open analysis of parliamentarianism's defects. Such a system encourages the forming of parties that will promote and protect particular policies, and who will be happy to have their POV succeed by a bare majority. It leads to the tyranny of the majority.
I'm not quite crazy enough to sign Karmafist's manifesto,
Any manifesto is like the opening gunshots in a battle of bad faith.
but I am now convinced -- after reading the discussions here and in other places -- that Wikipedia needs a strict rule prohibiting administrative "wheel wars": if an admin performs ANY admin action and any other admin objects to it, it MUST be reverted and the matter referred for discussion and decision amongst a proper deliberative body. The current methods are yielding "pseudoconsensus" -- or sometimes multiple pseudoconsensuses -- and are magnifying disputes instead of tempering them. Until something is done, things will only get worse. Continuining on this course cannot be the best thing for Wikipedia.
Admins must be held to a higher standard of behaviour than a simple user. For example, if a policy allows any admin to block a user for a maximum of 24 hours, there isabsolutely no excuse for blocks that exceed that length of time. Perhaps that admin himself should be blocked for the amount of the excess time. I would not go so far as to support having ALL admin actions immedialtely revertible, but the ones that aren't should be clearly defined. Where an admin has removed a clearly libellous statement from an article the discussion should happen first.
Ec