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(a)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...

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(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 6/26/07, White Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko(a)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(a)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