Steve Bennett wrote:
On 8/21/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Who in this case are you asking to do the
"determining genuine consensus"?
Why should I accept their resoning over that of someone else? You see
the problem.
I see the problem in *theory* but not in *practice*. In practice there
are very few disputes over consensus. The people who close these
discussions tend to be clueful and have been around a while. They're
not just random people - they deserve some respect.
When your friend says "hey I asked around and everyone wants to go
bowling", do you say "what do you mean, 'everyone'? Did you get at
least 75%?" No, you accept that they're not out to screw you over, and
a good result will be achieved...
... except that sometimes, you need to put your foot down and say "There
is no way that we're going bowling; you guys /always/ suggest we go
bowling, and it's a dumb idea, because we always end up complaining how
boring and stupid it is. We're going ice skating" and everyone realises
"Oh yeah, you're right, how stupid of us" and you end up going ice
skating, which is a far better idea than going bowling.
I forget who said it (probably David Gerard), but it's incredibly true:
Wikipedia doesn't scale. "Consensus" works when you're confident that
everyone who's involved Has A Clue. When you've got a thousand wolves in
sheep's clothing, and you can't tell who is which (because there are so
bloody many of them! ever tried counting sheep?), that's when
"consensus" falls flat on its face.
--
Alphax -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP