-------------- Original message --------------
On 10/8/05, steve v wrote:
- that your (or other's) implied or stated assumption
that tag-teaming an issue is simply an aspect of consensus is false down to its toe fungus.
I'm sorry that's simply incorrect. Your use of the term "tag teaming" here is prejudicial and misrepresents what is happening: one person tries to impose his will on an article while two or more oppose him. This is an informal consensus, and the solo editor is ignoring that consensus.
No, the solo editor may well be responding to that "consensus" on both the talk page and the edit summaries. That "consensus" on a backwater article may have repeatedly beaten of editors trying to bring the same kind of balance to an article. That "consensus" may not therefore even be the true "consensus" of that article if we integrated over time.
It may not be the true "consensus" that wikipedia would have arrived at if the article had received the broader attention of the wikipedia community. Even, if the true consensus of the wikipedia community agreed with the local consensus on a particular issue, they may not agree with the local consensus that a minor point was one worth a revert war over.
Even, the true consensus of the wikipedia community may be so biased by the over-representation of a certain POV, that it is not the consensus a broader community would have reached.
Your use of the term "consensus" is prejudicial and misrepresents what is happening, there is a common misperception that consensus decisions are more likely to be correct or find the truth than individual ones. History has shown us that consensus decisions need to be limited and checked as they can tend towards the intelligence, fairness and justice of the mob.
-- Silverback