[WikiEN-l] Re: BuddhaInside

[Björn Lindqvist]

 >>75% is not a consensus,
 >
 >
 > Actually it is. A consensus is generally interpretated as meaning a 
clear
 > and unambiguous majority. In democratic systems, a consensus is 
generally
 > defined as two-thirds plus one. Three quarters is described as an
 > 'overwhelming consensus'.  Lynch and Jones, ''Political Decision 
Making in

Two-thirds majority is, if my dictionary is correct, called absolute
or relative majority. Two-thirds plus one is called super majority. I
have never heard a definition of consensus where 75% majority
constitutes a "consensus". Generally when consensus is used with
"exceptions" it is called consensus minus one, minus two, minus 1%
etc.

Regardless, it is to misuse the term of consensus to call a decision
approved by 75% of the voters and disapproved by 25% of the voters a
consensus decision. Consensus decisions are aimed to take into account
everyone's opinion and to take a decision everyone is satisfied
with. If 25% of the voters are unhappy that has not happened.

Btw, I think consensus is a very stupid form of "democracy" that leads
to a techno-cracy or a shout-o-cracy or a
post-on-the-mailing-list-o-cracy. It would be good if Wikipedia had a
better way to make decisions.

 > Divided Societies'' pp.214-215. Whyte and Reynard, ''Consociational
 > Democracy and Consensus Building: From the Lebanon to Belgium: Case 
Studies
 > in Democractic Consensus'' p. 190.
 >
 > Most deletions on wiki occur because of votes by a small number. Very 
few
 > votes attract nearly 30 voters and those with large numbers rarely 
produce
 > 75% agreement.
 >
 >
 >>I can understand a user getting angry if it is a page s/he has spent 
a lot
 >>of time on. This user seems to rather be in a deep disagreement with the
 >>majority of Wikipedia users/sysops rather than a genuine troll. In 
general
 >>I agree.
 >
 >
 > The people he has fallen out with are people who that he show the 
community
 > the respect of following agreed conventions and methodologies, rather 
than

I thought the whole controversy started with his pet page getting
deleted? Besides, the evidence for his wrongdoings presented for the
mailinglist jury hasn't been to compelling imho.

Besides, "agreed conventions and methodologies" are they really so
generally agreed if rule-breakers always have to be referred to them?

 > act like a spoiled child who throws tantrums because he cannot get 
things
 > his way. Many of the people he has fallen out with are sysops. Many 
are not.

Why did you divide the people he has "fallen out with" in sysops and
non-sysops?

I don't know who I think is the spoiled kid who throws tantrums... :-)
Many times it seems like it is the Wikipedia sysops themselves that
are the least willing to compromise.  What we are talking about is a
few hundred bytes of text, likely smaller than this message I'm
sending to you. It is really so important to get pages like that one
deleted that it is worth all the effort, anger and fuss it costs?
Couldn't a more sensible solution have been reached if Budda's stupid
heterosexual page had remained? It is not the end of time we are
talking about!

 > Some agree with his opinions. Some don't. But all find his behaviour 
well
 > beyonds the bounds of respect for the community.

Isn't it just as much yours and mine, and everyone else who considers
themselves Wikipedia veterans responsibility as the new users
responsiblity to make them behave within the bounds of respect for the
community?

BL