[WikiEN-l] Consensus is dying...

[Cheney Shill]

The "definitive threshold" suggestion was meant specifically for counting sources, not to editor voting.  Editor voting at an article level is original research.

It's best viewed as setting a 3RR threshold to content sources.  If the threshold isn't met, then it's simply up to the users that want the change to find additional repubtable/reliable sources, not to re-argue endlessly or to find more puppets to vote for their cause.

So whether or not there is a really good point is left to the external sources, not to a group of editors of unkown expertise.

Because the threshold would be preset, there would be no arguing over whether or not x% represents consensus every time.  We would count up the reputable/reliable sources for any proposed change to see if the threshold is reached.  If reached, then change.

To put it another way, we, or more likely Jimbo and higher-level admins or the same group that arrived at 3RR, would define a set level at which to decide whether there is a consensus of sources for any given article.  From there, that threshold would be used like 3RR for any change to any article.  If the source level is reached, that change would be made.  No voting.  Just counting the sources.

I think this would take care of the ongoing libel issue too.  You really don't have to create yet another policy.  If 90%, or 80%, of verifiable sources say somebody said "macaca", then the libel is with the sources, not somebody reporting what the sources are saying, which is the somebody Wikipedia is supposed to be.  You may, however, still need some monitoring mechanism, other than the supposed efficiency of the grand "Wiki way".

Akash Mehta <draicone at gmail.com> wrote:

>But what did you intend as a definitive threshold? To ensure accuracy
>for any important decision it would have to be around 90%. Surely if
>one person raises a valuable point, and one that is worth voting 'not
>yet' for, at least 10% will follow. But 90% will help reduce the
>effect of mild sockpuppet use etc. Then again, if we allow experienced
>users to strike votes, we should be going for 95%...

>On 9/3/06, Cheney Shill wrote:
>> >On 9/1/06, Angela wrote:
>> >> On 9/1/06, Cheney Shill wrote:
>> >> > User voting, whether by poll or by discussion until one side stops
>> >> > discussing (aka, into the ground), is original research. So, yes,
>> >> > consensus applied this way should die.
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps consensus polling should be tried instead.
>> >>
>> >> http://icannwiki.org/Consensus_Polling
>> >>
>> >Perhaps we should stop calling it consensus in those places where
>> >there is no desire to find a solution everyone can agree upon.
>>
>> The main problem is that it is still original research. That's fine for a group of experts deciding whether to call Pluto a planet, call it something else, or to simply describe it without any name. In terms of the encyclopedia, it leaves the decision to the editors, not the sources.
>>
>> I do like the Yes/Not Yet concept. I wish that a definitive yes/not yet threshold would be defined in determining whether something is sourced (and therefore can be included in the article) or not yet adequately sourced (and therefore left out).



~~Pro-Lick
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick 
http://www.wikiality.net/index.php?title=User:Pro-Lick


--spam may follow--
 		
---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low  PC-to-Phone call rates.