[WikiEN-l] Why are veterans so militant of late; The Future. (was Bus Uncle)

[Thomas Dalton]

> The problem here relates to the fallacy of the excluded middle.  It's
> the mentality that says, "You're either with us or agaiunst us."  It
> justifies having two people in a street fight working together to beat
> up anybody who would dare to try to break up their fight.  When you
> start by saying that there are only two possible solutions you probably
> insure that the best solution is frozen out.  In the context of the
> BJAODN dispute it leads us to a keep it all versus a delete it all
> choice, and avoids forging a solution that would have wider satisfaction.

There often is a third option, but if no-one suggests it, it doesn't
really matter. In my hypothetical scenario, there were two suggestions
and everyone was happy with one of them, so no-one was likely to
suggest another one. Often people get irrationally attached to their
chosen idea and won't listen to new suggestions put forward, so my
scenario isn't very unlikely.

> It is also a fallacy to say that consensus and democracy are somehow
> opposing concepts.  Consensus is clearly more democratic than voting.
> Voting implies a pe-defined question.

I'm no political scientist, but in everyday usage, democracy mean
voting - they are the same thing.

> The other fallacy to be avaided is saying that all policy decisions are
> final.  We have shown ourselves ill-equipped to deal with subtle changes
> in circumstances when people insist on the strict leteral application of
> rules.  Rather then defending hard-wired rules we need to be sensitive
> to changes, and the need to consider the opinions of those who did not
> participate in the formation of the rules for whatever reason.  These
> reasons include not having been a part of the Wikipedia community at the
> time the rule was adopted.  We need to recognize that the young people
> who will be most affected by rules did not have a vote in the way that
> the older generations chose to fuck it up.

True, but I don't think it's relevant to this discussion.

> >That's the main problem with large groups - consensus becomes
> >impossible to achieve. We've already had to switch to "rough
> >consensus" in most places, which causes no end of problems since there
> >is no real definition of what "rough consensus" is.
> >
> Then we need to make it less impossible.  Rough consensus is nothing
> more than an intermediate stage.

An intermediate stage between what and what? No agreement and full
consensus? If so, we very rarely reach the end stage.

> >The only idea I've had for dealing with this situation once it gets
> >unmanageable is some kind of parliament. The community elects a
> >certain number of MPs, and the MPs make policy decisions (just making
> >policy - enforcing policy in individual cases remains with the
> >community) based on consensus. Basically, mixing democracy and
> >consensus. It is a far from ideal solution, but it is getting harder
> >and harder to make policy decisions, and sooner or later it will
> >become impossible and we will need something.
> >
> What makes it harder for policy decisions is the unwillingness of some
> to consider alternative solutions.  MPs don't exactly inspire confidence
> in the real world; what makes you think that wikiMPs would do any
> better?  Maybe we should be looking at entirely new ways of adopting
> policy.  Are we capable of the imagination that such an approach would
> require?

I don't think wikiMPs would do very well, but I fear that keeping
things the same as they are now will end up being even worse. We
absolutely should be looking at entirely new solutions - I just can't
think of any. If you can, please speak up.