wikipedia-l-request(a)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