A true consensus requires everyone to agree (or, at
least, not
object).
You're right.
That is why things like RFA work on "rough
consensus", which
actually just means a vote.
See, my vision of "rough consensus" is something like "If you
eliminate people who !vote without leaving any comment to debate upon,
and who hasn't participate in the debate elsewhere, or who do
something like WP:WHYNOT, WP:NOTNOW, or WP:I[DON'T]LIKEIT what do you
get?" I guess this would be a vote in a sense, albeit a very skewed one.
Emily
On Aug 27, 2009, at 8:28 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/8/28 Tony Sidaway <tonysidaway(a)gmail.com>om>:
On 8/28/09, Al Tally
<majorly.wiki(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
Polling and voting is a good way to see what people think without
having to
wade through a mass of comments.
If you can't be bothered to engage in discussion, I agree that voting
or "!voting" is the way to go.
You can't build consensus by polling or "!polling". You can't make a
decision based on consensus if you can't be bothered to read.
You can't make a decision based on consensus when there are dozens of
interested parties, full stop. A true consensus requires everyone to
agree (or, at least, not object). That just isn't going to happen for
even vaguely controversial issues if there are dozens of people. That
is why things like RFA work on "rough consensus", which actually just
means a vote.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l