On 8/29/07, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/08/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It was supposed to be a guideline, not a robotic policy - i.e., it can only meaningfully be used by people of good will and cluifiability. Are old versions any better?
- d.
The concept of a guideline is problematic in itself. It allows rebuttal on the grounds of "well the guideline is this" or in a different circumstance, the argument "well, it's only a guideline". Certain there's an argument for not being inflexible and not having "one case fits all", but in reality, these situations merely allow those who are most persistent, or successfully push other parties aside through being more influential, having more support, etc. to get their way. That's not doing things by consensus, and isn't even necessarily doing things by majority or by the best arguments.
I agree. We've been using "consensus" as a handy abbreviation for "the Wikipedia decision process" for far too long. Under the Wikipedia decision process, guidelines are used sensibly. Under either consensus or majoritarianism, guidelines are either ignored or treated as rigid sacred commandments.
Johnleemk