-------------- Original message --------------
On 10/8/05, steve v wrote:
- that your (or other's) implied or stated assumption
that tag-teaming an issue is simply an aspect of consensus is false down to its toe fungus.
I'm sorry that's simply incorrect. Your use of the term "tag teaming" here is prejudicial and misrepresents what is happening: one person tries to impose his will on an article while two or more oppose him. This is an informal consensus, and the solo editor is ignoring that consensus.
No, the solo editor may well be responding to that "consensus" on both the talk page and the edit summaries. That "consensus" on a backwater article may have repeatedly beaten of editors trying to bring the same kind of balance to an article. That "consensus" may not therefore even be the true "consensus" of that article if we integrated over time.
It may not be the true "consensus" that wikipedia would have arrived at if the article had received the broader attention of the wikipedia community. Even, if the true consensus of the wikipedia community agreed with the local consensus on a particular issue, they may not agree with the local consensus that a minor point was one worth a revert war over.
Even, the true consensus of the wikipedia community may be so biased by the over-representation of a certain POV, that it is not the consensus a broader community would have reached.
Your use of the term "consensus" is prejudicial and misrepresents what is happening, there is a common misperception that consensus decisions are more likely to be correct or find the truth than individual ones. History has shown us that consensus decisions need to be limited and checked as they can tend towards the intelligence, fairness and justice of the mob.
-- Silverback
When to parties disagree on what is consensus they should ask for outside opinion rather than start an edit war.
--Mgm
On 10/9/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
When to parties disagree on what is consensus they should ask for outside opinion rather than start an edit war.
--Mgm
Who cares what consensus is? What matters is what is right. Edit waring has it's uses. For some reason it seems to be an effective way of increaseing the number of citations.
-- geni
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
geni wrote:
Who cares what consensus is? What matters is what is right. Edit waring has it's uses. For some reason it seems to be an effective way of increaseing the number of citations.
This comment baffles me. There are a lot of things I find wrong with it, but I'll stick with this: Maybe a better way to increase the number of citations, rather than edit warring, would be to /add them/.
Ryan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Ryan Delaney wrote:
geni wrote:
Who cares what consensus is? What matters is what is right. Edit waring has it's uses. For some reason it seems to be an effective way of increaseing the number of citations.
This comment baffles me. There are a lot of things I find wrong with it, but I'll stick with this: Maybe a better way to increase the number of citations, rather than edit warring, would be to /add them/.
Not something that requires /thinking/! YOUR HEAD A SPLODE!
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
On 10/9/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Who cares what consensus is? What matters is what is right. Edit waring has it's uses. For some reason it seems to be an effective way of increaseing the number of citations.
Well you're entitled to your opinion, but we have to work on Wikipedia, where the arbitrators think differently:
*Edit warring is harmful to the purpose of Wikipedia and to the morale of its editors. *
(Adopted 5-0 in the Yuber case, which is about to be closed)
And they've just warned one of their own number to stop edit warring.
geni wrote:
On 10/9/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
When to parties disagree on what is consensus they should ask for outside opinion rather than start an edit war.
Who cares what consensus is? What matters is what is right. Edit waring has it's uses. For some reason it seems to be an effective way of increaseing the number of citations.
The problem with believing that being right is paramount is that it tends to shut out other views which may be just as right.
Ec