On 3/7/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
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.
As a political environment grows, the probability of achieving 100% agreement approaches 0. Therefore there will more and more frequently come times where some dissenting views must be acknowledged but the dominant view carried out; that is, we can't sit around debating until everyone agrees. Eventually we have to take action. That's a vital feature of the democratic political process; it permits dissent but goes with the predominant view anyway.
I don't think anyone can disagree that politics on Wikipedia are going to have to make a turn in this direction some time in the future. (I happen to think that time will be soon but that's another debate) But we can't do it without some kind of parliamentarianism, because we can't expect the "community at large" to be self-regulating about determining the predominant view and executing it fairly. That would be akin to giving a gun to every citizen and saying "Whenever you see someone commit murder, go ahead and execute them." This kind of tribal justice system might work well in a small group, maybe even a few hundred, because everyone knows everyone else and any individual can be held accountable for his actions by the group. But when you do that with thousands of people, they will organize into militias and initiate warfare, each of them thinking both that justice is on their side and that they have a right to execute the law themselves.
Historically that has been solved by taking the power to use violence away from the people and concentrating it into one sovereign power that is accountable to everyone. We have done half of that by only granting the dangerous powers to a select batch of administrators. But as that group grows, we see the need for further stratification and wheel wars emerge. It's a political inevitability, and any of our historical political philosophers could have anticipated it. The suggestion here is to take the next step and create a more organized body so that everyone knows that the power and the responsibility are in the same hands and on the same shoulders.
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.
Well, straight democracy, where any subject is up to a vote and any individual can be sacrificed if 51% of the population votes to do so would have this defect. But very few of these democracies actually exist. In the United States for example, some subjects are emphatically not up for a vote or discussion, and the parliament may not pass laws on them. I would expect that this would be the case with Wikipedia as well.
Ryan