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