You don't "get consensus" in the way you "get a bunch of bananas from the store." You "get consensus" in the way you "get the joke."
Consensus isn't something you obtain, demand, husband, or cite. It's something that happens.
In fact it is something I cite and try to obtain. We work toward obtaining a cunsensus on article.
Consensus follows action. To believe otherwise is to obviate the prime directive of Wikipedia, which is to '''be bold'''.
The prime dirrective is to make an encyolpedia. in this case someone else was bold by revting the chage instantly.
The cooperative counterparts in a community of bold people are those who accept the boldness of those who are right, regardless of the prior consensus.
Should I be bold and block you under the "don't dissagree with geni" rule and wait to see if a consensus forms or not?
This concept of cooperation imbues every organization that relies on the truth. Ask Galileo sometime. Or ask your 5th-grade science teacher why you were taught about Galileo's legal problems. (Not that I think I'm Galileo or these noobs are the Inquisition; but a boy's got to get out the ''reductio ad absurdum'' sometimes to put a point across.)
--Blair
I fail to see the anology.