[WikiEN-l] Consensus

[Anthere]

> > From: "Mike" <Mike at cybermaus.com>

> > > 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.

So, you mean that in spite the fact he is not wrong,
in spite the fact Angela has agreed he was not wrong,
"the above cited act brands him as a troll" anyway.

And you further justify it by the fact what he put
down (not wrong) is perhaps not consistant with other
things written down in the article.

Do you mean he should also have edited what was below
to make it more fit ?

>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 In my opinion, it is obsolete.

I did. Several times. 

Such as "C'est un processus dans lequel aucune
décision ne peut être prise tant que tous les
participants ne l'acceptent." 

Which means "it is a processus in which no decision
may be taken as long as all participants do not agree"

Or " Lors d'une décision consensuelle, il peut y avoir
différents degrés d'accord et de nombreuses nuances au
regard des engagements que les différents membres
assument par rapport à une décision déterminée,
cependant le tout a lieu de façon explicite et
globalement accepté. "

Which means "When there is consensus, there may be
different degree of agreement, and many nuances as
regards acceptance of a decision by the different
participants. However, the whole must be globally
accepted"

But right, this is an ideal, and agreement by all is
hard to achieve. We seek the ideal. 

>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.

Of course, since it is globally accepted

Anthere

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com