"White Cat" wrote: It is not supposed to be a vote at all. Vote based decisions happen in democracies and we are not one.
"Vote calls" and "democracies", that's mob, er, "majority" rules, right?
And it really means: "majority of voters" rule (or more accurately: "majority of vote COUNTERS" rule).
Actually, democracies, constitutional democracies, republics, capitalist constitutional democracies - they all work differently, and sadly, I find that few people who live within them really understand how they work ... or how that don't work. We only revisit the "what are we/what kind of governance do we have?" question when someone who thought they were in power finds they've been ousted or bested by someone else.
Let's define our terms in a way that we all can agree on (oh, is that "consensus"?), but that really requires that we pre-agree to subsequently agree on something that meets a standard, and that's usually called a "constitution" of founding documents or rules (all subject to interpretation by anyone wielding power!). So, if I were to suggest that our terms should be defines by a processional order of references, perhaps like this:
Is it in Google [define:x]? Yes, no? Then try Dictionary.com, yes, no? ... and so on.
We need more than one place for a definition, and Wikipedia.org probably should NOT be a primary, original research, non-neutral (self concerned) point of view resource for what's acceptable and what's not at Wikipedia.org! Waaaa!
So, let's share the meaning of our words before we end up arguing over different things. Then we can argue! ;-) That "should" make sure we're talking about the same thing, and might even reduce arguments. For instance, put 3 people in one room and ask them to define "democracy" and I'll bet in 5 minutes you'll have 6 different answers!
Here goes:
Consensus = majority (Dictionary.com)
Constitution = fundamental set of laws (Dictionary.com)
Democracy = people-rule (versus God rules, or the Boss rules, versus anarchy rules, er, where no one rules and there are no rules - Dictionary.com)
... so what do you all think the way it "should" be here on Wikipedia.org?
Democracy?
Anarchy?
Boss-based?
Constitution based?
In the US, I see a respect for (the evils of) human nature - that everyone will want power - so, in order to prevent anyone from (completely) taking over (forever), they split power across (at least) 3 groups: - rule makers, - rule executers, and - rule assessors. They all refer to a "constitution" which states that all powers come from the people, and the state has no powers except what the people give the state. All three divisions argue over that constitution. The rule makes try to modify it. The rule assessors try to toss out the modifications. The rule executors try to get around it or ignore it. It's not pretty, but, given people's greed and hunger for power, this pivots strong and highly motivated groups of people against each other (rather than against the people and the little guy, which still happens anyway). This all conspires somehow to (a) prevent all hell from breaking loose and (b) maybe actually, occasionally, by accident, perhaps, but maybe actually doing some good ... now and again. Maybe.
My point, and I do have one, is for us all to stay *on point*, to refine our understanding of each other, and what words mean to each other, and make sure we're talking about the exact same specific thing before we go off half cocked. Then we can go off half cocked! ;-)
--
I thought a wiki was "come one come all". I see some people want ownership, and not just in response to vandalism.
So, if we are not a constitutional democracy with division of powers, if we're not a mob, er, "majority" rules organization, then what are we?
-- Peter Blaise
PS - I think there's a truism to the fact that wikis grow most when so-called "authority" and security are invisible, where anonymity is not an impediment to immediate contribution, and patience, tolerance, acceptance, and equivalent consideration are a well practiced virtues
See: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Aauthority http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Apatience http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolerance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_consideration_of_interests http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Avirtue
On 28/06/07, Monahon, Peter B. Peter.Monahon@uspto.gov wrote:
"White Cat" wrote: It is not supposed to be a vote at all. Vote based decisions happen in democracies and we are not one.
"Vote calls" and "democracies", that's mob, er, "majority" rules, right?
And it really means: "majority of voters" rule (or more accurately: "majority of vote COUNTERS" rule).
To re-iterate; allegedly we don't do vote counting, but have discussion leading to consensus. However, consensus is not usually reached in discussions, but rather a majority or super-majority (vote/comment counting) in favour/against some change or strong influence success by some individuals on the people making the action.
My problem is that perpetuating the lie that decision-making on Wikipedia is by consensus, we don't strictly adhere to any other decision-making form ( e.g. majority voting). In consequence, decisions are "whatever people can get away with". Of course if there's an actual real consensus (general agreement) then there's a valid reason for a decision not being challenged. But more often than not all it means is that influencial individuals ensure they get their way and others give up (that isn't forming consensus by the way), or else we have majority/mob rule.
Besides, usually decisions are challenged on an on-going basis after they're made - that doesn't suggest consensus. I'll be quite clear, I am saying that I do not believe consensus is usually possible.
Zoney
On 6/29/07, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
My problem is that perpetuating the lie that decision-making on Wikipedia is by consensus, we don't strictly adhere to any other decision-making form ( e.g. majority voting). In consequence, decisions are "whatever people can get away with".
I think that's a cynical way of putting it. Decisions are more likely closer to "whatever offends the least number of people". This is sometimes less than optimal--I could give my list of things I think are poor decisions and you could probably give yours. The result is that nobody is ecstatic but we have something we can move ahead with.
On 29/06/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/29/07, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
My problem is that perpetuating the lie that decision-making on
Wikipedia is
by consensus, we don't strictly adhere to any other decision-making form
(
e.g. majority voting). In consequence, decisions are "whatever people
can
get away with".
I think that's a cynical way of putting it. Decisions are more likely closer to "whatever offends the least number of people". This is sometimes less than optimal--I could give my list of things I think are poor decisions and you could probably give yours. The result is that nobody is ecstatic but we have something we can move ahead with.
That's a less cynical and fairer way of putting it, and probably closer to the truth, but it still shouldn't be described as doing things by consensus.
Zoney
On 6/29/07, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/06/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/29/07, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
My problem is that perpetuating the lie that decision-making on
Wikipedia is
by consensus, we don't strictly adhere to any other decision-making form
(
e.g. majority voting). In consequence, decisions are "whatever people
can
get away with".
I think that's a cynical way of putting it. Decisions are more likely closer to "whatever offends the least number of people". This is sometimes less than optimal--I could give my list of things I think are poor decisions and you could probably give yours. The result is that nobody is ecstatic but we have something we can move ahead with.
That's a less cynical and fairer way of putting it, and probably closer to the truth, but it still shouldn't be described as doing things by consensus.
I disagree. While it doesn't conform to the idea of people sitting down and working out a solution "on paper" in a deliberative fashion prior to executing it, I would say that the concept of deliberative consensus when applied to wikis is of limited use. My basic view of how wikis work can be condensed into "We all try to nail jelly to the wall and keep the stuff that sticks." All editors with a pragmatic, realistic view of how things work can accept that they won't always get a solution they're completely happy with.
People who aren't of a pragmatic view, and tend to have unrealistic expectations, will tend to recoil with horror from the realities of working on a wiki. It is probably from those people that our sternest critics are drawn.
Of course they have a point: the word we use, consensus, means something fundamentally different to us than it does to those people with their tidy, fair-minded, idealistic views. But we're too busy writing an encyclopedia to listen to them much, though we'll probably come back for a sanity check every now and then to see if their criticisms indicate that we could be pursuing our breakneck speed, slapped together, version of consensus in a more productive way (or failing that, a more entertaining one).
On 29/06/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
My basic view of how wikis work can be condensed into "We all try to nail jelly to the wall and keep the stuff that sticks." All editors with a pragmatic, realistic view of how things work can accept that they won't always get a solution they're completely happy with.
The flaw in that rationale is that decision making on Wikipedia does not exclusively involve only editors with a pragmatic realistic view of how things work (indeed can one tie down "how things work" on Wikipedia? It's as much in flux as heavily edited articles are). Considering how the editors that one could under this rationale classify as "unrealistic" are not in agreement with the rest of those involved in discussion leading to a decision, I still do not see why we should call it "consensus". Consensus among one group of like-minded (at least perhaps in approach) editors perhaps - that's something else entirely.
What about the situations where one lot of people just want their way and bully opponents into submission? (perhaps classifying them as "unrealistic", trolls, biased, un-wiki, whatever) Indeed perhaps where those responsible for changing things or maintaining the status quo are just are more persistent (or have more time to devote to Wikipedia) than others.
This isn't even beginning to get to the cases where most people *are* in consensus, but the stubborn few are those who are actually in the right (you know, the cases where people post indignantly to the mailing list - "how can this be permitted on Wikipedia?").
Sorry if I'm labouring the point, but I did in the past admire Wikipedia, and I'd like to be in a situation where it doesn't now seem so irretrievably broken to me. While it does seem so, I can't so much justify to myself spending my time, talents and energy on it.
Zoney
On 6/29/07, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/06/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
My basic view of how wikis work can be condensed into "We all try to nail jelly to the wall and keep the stuff that sticks." All editors with a pragmatic, realistic view of how things work can accept that they won't always get a solution they're completely happy with.
The flaw in that rationale is that decision making on Wikipedia does not exclusively involve only editors with a pragmatic realistic view of how things work (indeed can one tie down "how things work" on Wikipedia? It's as much in flux as heavily edited articles are). Considering how the editors that one could under this rationale classify as "unrealistic" are not in agreement with the rest of those involved in discussion leading to a decision, I still do not see why we should call it "consensus". Consensus among one group of like-minded (at least perhaps in approach) editors perhaps - that's something else entirely.
Well, I'd suggest that non-pragmatists are being unreasonable if they expect us to sit down and hammer out an agreement prior to every edit. Wikipedia benefits so immensely from pragmatism and irreverence for rules that it probably makes far more sense to license the pragmatists to tweak noses on an ongoing basis than it would to clip the wings of the pragmatists and make them sit through weeks and weeks of dull and largely irrelevant discussions prior to each policy tweak or article edit.
What about the situations where one lot of people just want their way and bully opponents into submission? (perhaps classifying them as "unrealistic", trolls, biased, un-wiki, whatever) Indeed perhaps where those responsible for changing things or maintaining the status quo are just are more persistent (or have more time to devote to Wikipedia) than others.
Well, an editor on Wikipedia who cannot work well with others may often seek refuge in proceduralism, so if we've got a situation where a heap of people want to ahead and edit the encyclopedia while a few are digging their heels in and insisting that the other chaps are going "out of process", the impetus tends to lie with the cleverer pragmatists who will find a way around the procedure. I don't think we need to sanction those people, indeed I think that in Wikipedia's larrykin culture they're liable to be the ones in control.
Is that bullying? Well if the proceduralists are repeatedly thwarted and fail to get their way they'll feel that their efforts are unappreciated and probably find something more productive to do. I see that as a good thing. Your mileage may vary. More usually there is enough procedure around to satisfy both the proceduralists (who think it is necessary) and the larrykins (who would often be at a loss if there wasn't a suitably silly process to subvert).
This isn't even beginning to get to the cases where most people *are* in consensus, but the stubborn few are those who are actually in the right (you know, the cases where people post indignantly to the mailing list - "how can this be permitted on Wikipedia?").
Often either proceduralists who think the place is going to pot because a process is being subverted, or larrykins who pragmatically choose to appeal to the mailing list, calculating that it will improve their chances of success.
I'm only half-joking here. There do genuinely seem to be two tribes. Much of our policy is written by (or more accurately, is continually innovated by) the larrykins and much of our process is written by the proceduralists as an attempt to contain the policy. The two are both useful in different ways.