On 29/08/2007, David Gerard <dgerard(a)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