[WikiEN-l] BuddhaInside's behaviour

[Mike]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anthere" <anthere6 at yahoo.com>
To: <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BuddhaInside's behaviour


>
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 14:36:58 +0200
> > From: "Mike" <Mike at cybermaus.com>
> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BuddhaInside's behaviour
> > To: "Discussion list for English-language Wikipedia"
> > <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > Message-ID: <007801c37b86$0f081d50$2101a8c0 at maus1>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >
> > > He then tried to edit the [[Consensus]] page to
> > redefine what a consensus
> > > is, forcing the comment Angela,
> > >
> > > Changing the definition on the [[consensus]] page
> > won't help Buddha . . .
> > > [[User:Angela|Angela]] 18:04, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)
> >
> > In spite of all the irritation he has caused, I
> > would still have been
> > inclined to give him the benefit of doubt, but the
> > above cited act brands
> > him as a troll in my opinion.
> >
> > Mike AKA CyberMaus
>
> Have you look at the page in question ([[consensus]]),
> its history, and the talk page ?
>
> Anthere
>

Yes. I've just gone through it again and I hold to my opinion. What he wrote
on the [[consensus]] page is not wrong.  What bothers me is that he did it
to justify his previous actions in spite of what is written in the rest of
the article. See the second paragraph in the "consensus as collective
thought" section, in particular the last sentence.

As I said, what he wrote is not wrong, but in my experience I have never
heard or seen the word consensus used to mean unanimous. In Meriam-Webster,
it is also mentioned that this usage is "slightly older". In my opinion, it
is obsolete.

Here's another possible meaning: A minority holds an opinion to which the
majority have no objection or differing opinion, thus the minority opinion
is presented as consensus.

Mike AKA CyberMaus