Yes, Gregory, excellent points, reminiscent of Clay Shirkey.
Whatever the (sub)-optimal solution, one person making a decision that on
the face of it contradicts the decision made in a near identical situation
last time; and not allowing at least a months discussion; and this person
not being accountable him or herself to someone else, is _not_ the answer.
--Avi
On Jan 10, 2008 11:58 AM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 10, 2008 11:51 AM, Avi
<avi.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Alex, the more important point here is not the
goodness or badness of
rollback, it is the gross disregard for the wikipedia community that
JuLef
(sp?) had by implementing this procedure in the
face of significant
clear
and present opposition.
[snip]
Not taking an action is itself an action.
The status quo is not that special.
Consensus is strongly preferred, sure, but why is it that you would
think a non-consensus minority-willed preservation of the status quo
is right, when a non-consensus majority-willed change is wrong?
If we reach a point where the user base is so large and diverse that
many important issues can not achieve a clear consensus by numerical
standards, what then? Shall Wikipedia be forever frozen in whatever
state it was already in by historical chance or by past unilateral
decisions? Is that really a road to success?
--
en:User:Avraham
----
pub 1024D/785EA229 3/6/2007 Avi (Wikipedia-related) < aviwiki(a)gmail.com>
Primary key fingerprint: D233 20E7 0697 C3BC 4445 7D45 CBA0 3F46 785E
A229