wikipedia-l-request@wikipedia.org wrote:
Please give the dismissive tone some time off. Wikipedia is a silly name too.
My point was rather there's no reason why anything on any other Wiki should apply here. And I'd rather hear arguments from you than reading an extensive discussion between other, non-involved persons.
So, suppose voting is evil. Then how do we make decisions? Because with the current number of members on this list, there's never going to be something like consensus.
That's simply not true.
Consensus means everybody agrees, right? I've never seen that so far on the list, but I may have missed it.
Endless discussions are tiring and getting us nowhere.
It may be tiring, but it's hardly getting us nowhere. Ideas and thoughts have steadily been introduced and refined.
Note the "endless" part. Discussions are necessary and useful. But after a while it becomes restating of opinions. Discussions then either end without a solution or don't end. That's bad. It happens a lot.
That's not a desirable situation. Voting could end discussions. But "voting is evil", so what to do then?
Are you willing to admit the basic problems with voting?
I think voting is just fine. Sure, there are some drawbacks, but I don't see them as critical. At least it has the advantage that decisions are made.
An example of how consensus rather than voting can work is in progress at [[Wikipedia:Bots]].
Where? I don't see any decisions being taken, rather a proposal only edited by you and Chas zzz brown - hardly consensus. Also, there's some voting at the top...
Jeronimo
Jeroen Heijmans wrote:
Please give the dismissive tone some time off. Wikipedia is a silly name too.
My point was rather there's no reason why anything on any other Wiki should apply here. And I'd rather hear arguments from you than reading an extensive discussion between other, non-involved persons.
If at some point very early in the project someone had not made a decision on the name, we would still be debating it.
So, suppose voting is evil. Then how do we make decisions? Because with the current number of members on this list, there's never going to be something like consensus.
That's simply not true.
Consensus means everybody agrees, right? I've never seen that so far on the list, but I may have missed it.
Supeficially, that's what consensus is. When it's working well everybody is happy with it. At its worse it can be a means of wearing down opposition. One of the most severe drawbacks of consensus is that it requires the time and leisure for making patient and reasoned decisions, and that time and leisure is often unavailable. Inclusivity and decisiveness are often at odds. Eclecticology
So, suppose voting is evil. Then how do we make
decisions? Because with the
current number of members on this list, there's
never going to be something
like consensus.
That's simply not true.
Consensus means everybody agrees, right? I've never seen that so far on the list, but I may have missed it.
Ah no. Consensus is not when everybody is *happy*. A decision is taken only when everybody agree for the decision to be taken, which is very slightly different. The acceptance of each member of the group is necessary. In the end, it is not only that the decision is build in a cooperative way, it is also that everybody is more satisfied, because each had the occasion to give his own advice, to provide input, to feel he is important in the process, to feel he is not left behind, unlistened.
There is a right for everybody to say "no, this is absolutely NOT acceptable to my point of view", and this must be accepted by the others (right of veto ?). This must stop the decision to be taken, and *require* that further discussion occur.
Sometimes, the veto is asked because one believe the decision to be *wrong*, sometimes it is because one believe a better option could be found through more discussion, and ask for more time.
But, except for the absolute veto, it is still possible *at the end* for somebody to say "well, I am not happy with that decision because - I think it is an error - I think that is useless -... but, I won't prevent that decision to be taken".
This is just stating we are not really *happy* with the final decision, but that it's ok nevertheless. Things can go on.
Or we can drop the discussion, and go do something else for some time.
And the decision is taken with more satisfaction for all than through a classical voting system...
Anthere
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 07:45:39AM -0800, Anthere wrote:
Ah no. Consensus is not when everybody is *happy*. A decision is taken only when everybody agree for the decision to be taken, which is very slightly different.
Some serious problems with consensus that I'm sure you're aware of but bear mentioning anyway:
* It only works well when the population has quite similar views and attitudes,
* It slows everything down,
* It is biased in favour of whatever the status quo is,
* It gives a heavily disproportionate advantage to those willing or able to shout longer and louder.
--- Jason Williams jason@jasonandali.org.uk wrote:
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 07:45:39AM -0800, Anthere wrote:
Ah no. Consensus is not when everybody is *happy*.
A
decision is taken only when everybody agree for
the
decision to be taken, which is very slightly different.
Some serious problems with consensus that I'm sure you're aware of but bear mentioning anyway:
- It only works well when the population has quite
similar views and attitudes,
Absolutely. The fr.wiki is democratically voting.
- It slows everything down,
Agree. We have time in this case
- It is biased in favour of whatever the status quo
is,
Very true. Notice that in the current case, nobody (I think) voted for option 1) keep www.wikipedia.org just as it is. So this point is not valid in the current case.
- It gives a heavily disproportionate advantage to
those willing or able to shout longer and louder.
Hum, yes. However, right now, it doesnot seem obvious to me that those still shouting, or shouting very loudly are having a clear advantage over the others. Or, am I wrong ?
Which are the other drawbacks ?
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org