jf_wikipedia(a)mac.com wrote:
On May 9, 2006, at 9:07 PM, Cheney Shill wrote:
with it. This email subject is very clearly about
applying
existing policy and how consensus obstructs and interferes with
doing so. I do appreciate you providing an interactive case
study.~~~~Pro-Lick
Is this an argument for the sake if argument? The explanations given
by several editors is pretty clear, and I fail to understand what
your point is. Can you succintly explain what is your concern and
what is your proposal (if you have any) to ameliorate the situation?
No.
This subthread got tied up in a discussion of a belief by Fastfission that everything -
every article, every article section - is subject to "social interaction", which
seems to be Fastfission's term for consensus.
This thread, however, is about the application of undue weight per the NPOV policy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight
It has already been determined by consensus. Not just any scrambled together consensus
over a brief period, but including Jimmy too, so trying to undo it with consensus is the
same as trying to rewrite policy on the fly and contradicting actual Wikipedia consensus.
Basically, it's an argument that you can apply policy however the current majority of
an article sees fit. Applying the same principle to the current AFD discussion, it's
an argument to just count votes.
My proposal remains the same. Keep consensus out of application of policy as it applies
to article content ("Article standards") and leave it with the overall
determination of policy and "Working with others".
To quote the consensus guideline itself:
"It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is
consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles - especially NPOV."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_vs._other_polici…
"Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be
the key part of the interpretation of a debate."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_vs._supermajority
The essential problem is that this is repeatedly ignored. Amelioration involves removing
(or at least reducing significantly) ambiguity about this so that consensus is
"consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies".
---------------------------------
Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Yahoo!
Messenger with Voice.