JAY JG wrote:
From: "Blair P. Houghton" blair@houghton.net
Consensus isn't something you obtain, demand, husband, or cite. It's something that happens.
More typically, it is something you build based on discussion or debate. Talk: pages are a great place for that.
Consensus follows action. To believe otherwise is to obviate the prime directive of Wikipedia, which is to '''be bold'''.
I hadn't heard "Be bold" referred to as Wikipedia's "prime directive" before; I'm not sure everyone here would agree. In any event, while I don't know the details of this particular case, it amazes me how often people attempting to make major, usually contentious, and often highly POV re-writes to articles cite "Be bold", yet fail to note that the majority of that policy is devoted to when you *should not* "Be bold". In particular, much of the policy clearly points out that on disputed issues and controversial subjects one should, instead, get consensus on Talk: pages first.
Clairvoyance isn't my strongest skill. I don't know who will complain until I do what I have a right to do. And I suspect I'm "only human" in that regard, as is everyone else.
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.
I believe we are straying into "argument from silence" logical fallacy territory here.
It's the basis for most of the Wikipedia. What doesn't get munged is accepted. And if you see a problem, you fix it. Has a lot to do with the way life works, too. Which is one of the attractive features of the place.
This concept of cooperation imbues every organization that relies on the truth.
Cooperation is something that comes from both sides; it cannot be unilaterally imposed by "Bold" individuals.
Tell that to the guy who reverted me, hollering "consensus!" from the back of his mule, then having me jailed for arguing the point, then including everything I added (but retaining a bit of stuff that is soon to be gone anyway).
--Blair