Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 10/26/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/26/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam at inbox.org> wrote:
If an actual no-foolin' expert dissents, then there isn't consensus in the first place.
And if an actual no-foolin' expert supports the consensus?
Supports what consensus? I just said, if people can't come to a general agreement, then there *is* no consensus. You seem to be mistaking majority with consensus.
"Consensus" is AFD jargon for "66% delete votes, for any reason or none." Really. It is.
I'm seeing myself describe how it actually works on AFD/VFU at present and people here seem incredulous. Go to AFD, participate in the "discussions" and see for yourself if you don't believe what I'm saying.
- d.
- d.
On 10/26/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 10/26/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com http://gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/26/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam at inbox.org http://inbox.org>
wrote:
If an actual no-foolin' expert dissents, then there isn't consensus
in the
first place.
And if an actual no-foolin' expert supports the consensus?
Supports what consensus? I just said, if people can't come to a general agreement, then there *is* no consensus. You seem to be mistaking
majority
with consensus.
"Consensus" is AFD jargon for "66% delete votes, for any reason or none." Really. It is.
I know, but that doesn't mean I have to accept such newspeak. I can accept the process (not sure I do yet), but I'll never accept the redefinition of the word, and, especially when it's thrown around like this on the mailing list, I'll occassionally point out the fact that the VFD process as implemented has nothing to do with consensus.
I'm seeing myself describe how it actually works on AFD/VFU at present
and people here seem incredulous. Go to AFD, participate in the "discussions" and see for yourself if you don't believe what I'm saying.
- d.
On 10/26/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/26/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 10/26/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com http://gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/26/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam at inbox.org http://inbox.org>
wrote:
If an actual no-foolin' expert dissents, then there isn't consensus
in the
first place.
And if an actual no-foolin' expert supports the consensus?
Supports what consensus? I just said, if people can't come to a general agreement, then there *is* no consensus. You seem to be mistaking
majority
with consensus.
"Consensus" is AFD jargon for "66% delete votes, for any reason or none." Really. It is.
I know, but that doesn't mean I have to accept such newspeak. I can accept the process (not sure I do yet), but I'll never accept the redefinition of the word, and, especially when it's thrown around like this on the mailing list, I'll occassionally point out the fact that the VFD process as implemented has nothing to do with consensus.
Unfortunately, you must accept such newspeak if you're not the closing admin. You also must if your "keep" close of an AfD with 66% or more delete votes doesn't satisfactorily explain your reasoning to the 66%.
Further, try getting anything undeleted and you'll see that no matter what the arguments are, you'll find at least one user voting "KD, valid Afd" if there were 66% or more votes because for them, it's the process that matters. This is the very same process that defines "consensus" as 66%.
And since recreation of a deleted article is speedy-deletable, you must accept this silly newspeak in the particular venue of Wikipedia, if your article on an obscure topic has had the misfortune of catching the attention of someone who doesn't agree with your POV regarding notability.
Somewhere along the way, the deletion forums have effectively redefined the term "consensus" for the purposes of deletion.
I hope that the redefinition can be rubbed out, however, most proposals regarding deletion reform seem to take the flavor of "how can we make this deletion process stronger" rather than the more humble admission that true consensus actually requires the consent of the minorty.
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Michael Turley wrote:
Further, try getting anything undeleted and you'll see that no matter what the arguments are, you'll find at least one user voting "KD, valid Afd" if there were 66% or more votes because for them, it's the process that matters. This is the very same process that defines "consensus" as 66%.
Hmm. I've not looked at VfU, but I wonder if having an article nominated for undeletion by an Admin who voted for its deletion might make a difference.
I ask this because I nominated an article about a person some weeks ago that I thought was a hoax (I even asked another Wikiepdian who I believed knows more about Ethiopia than I as a sanity check), but since have found verification that said person *did* exist. (Is Emperor Haile Selassie's autobiography reliable enough?)
FWIW, I probably won't get around to writing the article from scratch for 6 months, but if it was undeleted I'd likely add the information that I found within a few days.
Geoff