[WikiEN-l] No RFAs in progress...

[Anthony]

On 8/23/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Actually, the problem is Wikipedia's decision-making apparatus in general.
> > It's allegedly "by consensus" - but if it really were, there would be
> > paralysis (as most of the time, there are dissenters who don't back down -
> > or even quite simply a clear lack of consensus - contributors to the
> > particular decision-making discussion split pretty evenly two or more ways).
> > It's allegedly not by voting (although that begs the question, why there are
> > frequent votes), by majority or supermajority (although realistically, often
> > decisions are taken on the basis of "most contributors to the discussion
> > support it"). Despite idealists chosing to believe it doesn't happen,
> > frequently the status quo is just determined by a small but persistent
> > group, or even an individual. Considering people on the project are
> > volunteers, no-one should have their impact on decisions decided solely by
> > how much time they can afford, and so frequently contributors choose not to
> > participate in decision-making (plenty of people like myself have stepped
> > back from regular contribution due to the hassle it entails).
>
> Yep, that's the problem. We all know that. Do you have a solution?
>
The first step is to stop lying about it: stop calling it consensus,
stop saying it isn't a vote.  Describe what's really happening.  Admit
there's a problem.  Stop drinking the cool-aid.