Consensus is a favorite word on Wikipedia, pulled out on all occasions whether on AfD, policy decisions, or simple article content matters. Going by the dictionary definition of "consensus" (e.g. on Wiktionary) or our own encyclopaedia article on consensus, can we really claim that decision-making on Wikipedia is by consensus?
Historically many decisions seemed to mostly go by majority (of small group of debate/vote participants) or large majority for change. Now, partly on the basis of "voting is evil", there seems to be more and more decisions made after "debate", where realistically, the action taken afterwards (or during) is either arbitrary, majority wish (going by comment counting/argument weighting rather than vote counting), or simply rule by the strong-minded who just do what they wish when they've at least some people to back them up (indeed perhaps not even that). I would suggest few decisions are made from truly forming consensus between debate participants, let alone considering the wider community.
Really - is there any hope of having a fixed method of decision-making on Wikipedia, rather than a shambolic pretence of achieving consensus that just allows groups to make decisions in different circumstances according to different methods as it suits them?
Zoney
Zoney schrieb:
Consensus is a favorite word on Wikipedia, pulled out on all occasions whether on AfD, policy decisions, or simple article content matters. Going by the dictionary definition of "consensus" (e.g. on Wiktionary) or our own encyclopaedia article on consensus, can we really claim that decision-making on Wikipedia is by consensus?
Historically many decisions seemed to mostly go by majority (of small group of debate/vote participants) or large majority for change. Now, partly on the basis of "voting is evil", there seems to be more and more decisions made after "debate", where realistically, the action taken afterwards (or during) is either arbitrary, majority wish (going by comment counting/argument weighting rather than vote counting), or simply rule by the strong-minded who just do what they wish when they've at least some people to back them up (indeed perhaps not even that). I would suggest few decisions are made from truly forming consensus between debate participants, let alone considering the wider community.
Really - is there any hope of having a fixed method of decision-making on Wikipedia, rather than a shambolic pretence of achieving consensus that just allows groups to make decisions in different circumstances according to different methods as it suits them?
Zoney
No.
on 6/26/07 6:01 PM, Zoney at zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
Consensus is a favorite word on Wikipedia, pulled out on all occasions whether on AfD, policy decisions, or simple article content matters. Going by the dictionary definition of "consensus" (e.g. on Wiktionary) or our own encyclopaedia article on consensus, can we really claim that decision-making on Wikipedia is by consensus?
Historically many decisions seemed to mostly go by majority (of small group of debate/vote participants) or large majority for change. Now, partly on the basis of "voting is evil", there seems to be more and more decisions made after "debate", where realistically, the action taken afterwards (or during) is either arbitrary, majority wish (going by comment counting/argument weighting rather than vote counting), or simply rule by the strong-minded who just do what they wish when they've at least some people to back them up (indeed perhaps not even that). I would suggest few decisions are made from truly forming consensus between debate participants, let alone considering the wider community.
Really - is there any hope of having a fixed method of decision-making on Wikipedia, rather than a shambolic pretence of achieving consensus that just allows groups to make decisions in different circumstances according to different methods as it suits them?
Zoney
Zoney,
Yes, there is hope; if we can put our individual egos and emotions aside - and start using our heads in a responsible way.
Marc Riddell
If large amount of votes fail to meet common sense they are to be ignored. If something is a copyvio despite a mass amount of votes [baseless] contradicting this, they should be ignored. Ideally closing admin shouldn't have views on the discussion weighting the comments in an unbiased manner.
Historically AFD was never intended to be a vote. Polls can help to determine consensus but they are not absolute. Each closure can have special circumstances. Admins should delete/keep something despite votes if necessary. This is good practice.
Otherwise you are promoting sock/meatpuppetry. There are plenty of non-problem free articles where different approaches on the topic exist. So a group of politically motivated people can infest a series of AfDs and get otherwise good articles deleted. Or the contrary, a group of politically motivated people can '''keep''' a nonsense/useless article even if it would be deleted otherwise.
We do have far too many deletion discussions on en.wikipedia, in a stable encyclopedia not many deletion discussions should occur. I believe the number of deletion discussions will decrease on the long run but in the meanwhile I expect it to sky rocket more. We may consider hourly listings at this rate rather than the current daily.
Also AfD, MfD, RfA, CfD has a group of resident voters. Decisions there are made by this "elite" group that is representing the minority of the general wiki. IMHO this should be discouraged.
- White Cat
On 6/27/07, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
Consensus is a favorite word on Wikipedia, pulled out on all occasions whether on AfD, policy decisions, or simple article content matters. Going by the dictionary definition of "consensus" (e.g. on Wiktionary) or our own encyclopaedia article on consensus, can we really claim that decision-making on Wikipedia is by consensus?
Historically many decisions seemed to mostly go by majority (of small group of debate/vote participants) or large majority for change. Now, partly on the basis of "voting is evil", there seems to be more and more decisions made after "debate", where realistically, the action taken afterwards (or during) is either arbitrary, majority wish (going by comment counting/argument weighting rather than vote counting), or simply rule by the strong-minded who just do what they wish when they've at least some people to back them up (indeed perhaps not even that). I would suggest few decisions are made from truly forming consensus between debate participants, let alone considering the wider community.
Really - is there any hope of having a fixed method of decision-making on Wikipedia, rather than a shambolic pretence of achieving consensus that just allows groups to make decisions in different circumstances according to different methods as it suits them?
Zoney
~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds... _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/26/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
If large amount of votes fail to meet common sense they are to be ignored. If something is a copyvio despite a mass amount of votes [baseless] contradicting this, they should be ignored. Ideally closing admin shouldn't have views on the discussion weighting the comments in an unbiased manner.
Historically AFD was never intended to be a vote. Polls can help to determine consensus but they are not absolute. Each closure can have special circumstances. Admins should delete/keep something despite votes if necessary. This is good practice.
Otherwise you are promoting sock/meatpuppetry. There are plenty of non-problem free articles where different approaches on the topic exist. So a group of politically motivated people can infest a series of AfDs and get otherwise good articles deleted. Or the contrary, a group of politically motivated people can '''keep''' a nonsense/useless article even if it would be deleted otherwise.
We do have far too many deletion discussions on en.wikipedia, in a stable encyclopedia not many deletion discussions should occur. I believe the number of deletion discussions will decrease on the long run but in the meanwhile I expect it to sky rocket more. We may consider hourly listings at this rate rather than the current daily.
Also AfD, MfD, RfA, CfD has a group of resident voters. Decisions there are made by this "elite" group that is representing the minority of the general wiki. IMHO this should be discouraged.
- White Cat
On 6/27/07, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
Consensus is a favorite word on Wikipedia, pulled out on all occasions whether on AfD, policy decisions, or simple article content matters. Going by the dictionary definition of "consensus" (e.g. on Wiktionary) or our own encyclopaedia article on consensus, can we really claim that decision-making on Wikipedia is by consensus?
Historically many decisions seemed to mostly go by majority (of small group of debate/vote participants) or large majority for change. Now, partly on the basis of "voting is evil", there seems to be more and more decisions made after "debate", where realistically, the action taken afterwards (or during) is either arbitrary, majority wish (going by comment counting/argument weighting rather than vote counting), or simply rule by the strong-minded who just do what they wish when they've at least some people to back them up (indeed perhaps not even that). I would suggest few decisions are made from truly forming consensus between debate participants, let alone considering the wider community.
Really - is there any hope of having a fixed method of decision-making on Wikipedia, rather than a shambolic pretence of achieving consensus that just allows groups to make decisions in different circumstances according to different methods as it suits them?
Zoney
~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
I don't really see articles closed against the consensus, though. They seem to be closed with the consensus, after all, that's what a consensus is, basically a vote. Occassionally something strange happens, but generally it's the vote.
KP
It is not supposed to be a vote at all. Vote based decisions happen in democracies and we are not one.
- White Cat
On 6/28/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/26/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
If large amount of votes fail to meet common sense they are to be
ignored.
If something is a copyvio despite a mass amount of votes [baseless] contradicting this, they should be ignored. Ideally closing admin
shouldn't
have views on the discussion weighting the comments in an unbiased
manner.
Historically AFD was never intended to be a vote. Polls can help to determine consensus but they are not absolute. Each closure can have
special
circumstances. Admins should delete/keep something despite votes if necessary. This is good practice.
Otherwise you are promoting sock/meatpuppetry. There are plenty of non-problem free articles where different approaches on the topic exist.
So
a group of politically motivated people can infest a series of AfDs and
get
otherwise good articles deleted. Or the contrary, a group of politically motivated people can '''keep''' a nonsense/useless article even if it
would
be deleted otherwise.
We do have far too many deletion discussions on en.wikipedia, in a
stable
encyclopedia not many deletion discussions should occur. I believe the number of deletion discussions will decrease on the long run but in the meanwhile I expect it to sky rocket more. We may consider hourly
listings at
this rate rather than the current daily.
Also AfD, MfD, RfA, CfD has a group of resident voters. Decisions there
are
made by this "elite" group that is representing the minority of the
general
wiki. IMHO this should be discouraged.
- White Cat
On 6/27/07, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
Consensus is a favorite word on Wikipedia, pulled out on all occasions whether on AfD, policy decisions, or simple article content matters.
Going
by the dictionary definition of "consensus" (e.g. on Wiktionary) or
our
own encyclopaedia article on consensus, can we really claim that decision-making on Wikipedia is by consensus?
Historically many decisions seemed to mostly go by majority (of small group of debate/vote participants) or large majority for change. Now, partly
on
the basis of "voting is evil", there seems to be more and more
decisions
made after "debate", where realistically, the action taken afterwards
(or
during) is either arbitrary, majority wish (going by comment counting/argument weighting rather than vote counting), or simply rule
by
the strong-minded who just do what they wish when they've at least
some
people to back them up (indeed perhaps not even that). I would suggest
few
decisions are made from truly forming consensus between debate participants, let alone considering the wider community.
Really - is there any hope of having a fixed method of decision-making
on
Wikipedia, rather than a shambolic pretence of achieving consensus
that
just allows groups to make decisions in different circumstances according
to
different methods as it suits them?
Zoney
~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
I don't really see articles closed against the consensus, though. They seem to be closed with the consensus, after all, that's what a consensus is, basically a vote. Occassionally something strange happens, but generally it's the vote.
KP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/27/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
It is not supposed to be a vote at all. Vote based decisions happen in democracies and we are not one.
- White Cat
On 6/28/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/26/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
If large amount of votes fail to meet common sense they are to be
ignored.
If something is a copyvio despite a mass amount of votes [baseless] contradicting this, they should be ignored. Ideally closing admin
shouldn't
have views on the discussion weighting the comments in an unbiased
manner.
Historically AFD was never intended to be a vote. Polls can help to determine consensus but they are not absolute. Each closure can have
special
circumstances. Admins should delete/keep something despite votes if necessary. This is good practice.
Otherwise you are promoting sock/meatpuppetry. There are plenty of non-problem free articles where different approaches on the topic exist.
So
a group of politically motivated people can infest a series of AfDs and
get
otherwise good articles deleted. Or the contrary, a group of politically motivated people can '''keep''' a nonsense/useless article even if it
would
be deleted otherwise.
We do have far too many deletion discussions on en.wikipedia, in a
stable
encyclopedia not many deletion discussions should occur. I believe the number of deletion discussions will decrease on the long run but in the meanwhile I expect it to sky rocket more. We may consider hourly
listings at
this rate rather than the current daily.
Also AfD, MfD, RfA, CfD has a group of resident voters. Decisions there
are
made by this "elite" group that is representing the minority of the
general
wiki. IMHO this should be discouraged.
- White Cat
On 6/27/07, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
Consensus is a favorite word on Wikipedia, pulled out on all occasions whether on AfD, policy decisions, or simple article content matters.
Going
by the dictionary definition of "consensus" (e.g. on Wiktionary) or
our
own encyclopaedia article on consensus, can we really claim that decision-making on Wikipedia is by consensus?
Historically many decisions seemed to mostly go by majority (of small group of debate/vote participants) or large majority for change. Now, partly
on
the basis of "voting is evil", there seems to be more and more
decisions
made after "debate", where realistically, the action taken afterwards
(or
during) is either arbitrary, majority wish (going by comment counting/argument weighting rather than vote counting), or simply rule
by
the strong-minded who just do what they wish when they've at least
some
people to back them up (indeed perhaps not even that). I would suggest
few
decisions are made from truly forming consensus between debate participants, let alone considering the wider community.
Really - is there any hope of having a fixed method of decision-making
on
Wikipedia, rather than a shambolic pretence of achieving consensus
that
just allows groups to make decisions in different circumstances according
to
different methods as it suits them?
Zoney
~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
I don't really see articles closed against the consensus, though. They seem to be closed with the consensus, after all, that's what a consensus is, basically a vote. Occassionally something strange happens, but generally it's the vote.
KP
Yes, just one of many things that is what it isn't supposed to be.
KP
On 28/06/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
I don't really see articles closed against the consensus, though. They seem to be closed with the consensus, after all, that's what a consensus is, basically a vote. Occassionally something strange happens, but generally it's the vote.
KP
Well, my point is that people are making decisions going by a majority or "most people being in favour" (yes, essentially vote counting even if just discussion comments), strong arguments during a discussion, etc. That's not consensus (i.e. general agreement).
I'd really like people to stop using the word on Wikipedia, as most of the time it is a falsehood and gives the image to people that there is general agreement on Wikipedia - whereas in reality there seldom is.
Zoney