[WikiEN-l] Re: Consensus

[Joseph Reagle]

On Monday 18 July 2005 06:33, Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
> >> "Consensus" can only mean everyone agrees - and when the hell that
> >> does that happen? Next to never.

A metric other than unanimity is to reach for better than BATNA:
[[ Lawrence E. Susskind, A short guide to consensus building
We want to differentiate the idea of maximizing joint gain from the 
simple-minded language of "win-win" negotiating. We are interested in 
helping parties do better than what no agreement probably holds in store 
for them. Doing better than one's BATNA (Best Alternative To A Negotiated 
Agreement) is the way to measure success in consensus building. There are 
few, if any situations, where everyone can get everything they want (which 
is what "winning" sounds like to us). (Susskind 1999)
]]

(In the same volume, a great practitioner chapter is Mckearnam and Fairman 
(1999) on Producing consensus:
  http://reagle.org/joseph/2005/06/search.cgi?query=Mckearnam%20and%20Fairman%201999
)

> > Consensus may be a slightly fuzzy term, but it doesn't mean that.   

It's a very rich, and complex notion, as evidenced by some musings on 
consensus in the W3C/IETF context:

[[ http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/reagle/regulation-19990326.html#_Consensus
If one is still looking for a more concrete definition, one is unlikely to 
find it. The notable characteristic of consensus mechanisms as a means of 
preference aggregation is that they are flexible and informal, and that 
they work best in small communities such that differences can be easily 
documented, considered, and resolved. The method of reaching consensus 
alone does not scale well to large communities; however, when combined with 
the characteristics below, it often scales better than a ballot among a 
million people! This is because of competitive scaling: a small group of 
people get to produce their best work under consensus, and then compete, 
coordinate, cooperate, and learn with other groups.
]]

Also, as an aside, the recent debate on pseudo-science and labels is 
reminiscent of other encyclopedic debates:

[[Richard R Yeo, Encyclopedic Visions 
From the evidence of his correspondence, however, it seemed that this 
balance account of the state of play was sometimes difficult to achieve, 
especially in subjects undergoing rapid and pure core theoretical 
development. In such cases, the question was: should scientific articles 
seek to express the consensus of the scientific community, however defined, 
what should they include the most recent, controversial hypotheses? (Yeo 
2001:270)
]]

In any case, I rather like the notion -- and problem -- articulated by 
Sanger:
[[ Sanger,  The early history of Nupedia and Wikipedia: a memoir 
For our purposes, a "consensus" appeared to consist of (1) widespread common 
practice, (2) many vocal defenders, and (3) virtually no detractors. 
(Sanger 2005ehn)
]]