[WikiEN-l] Bus Uncle

[Anthony]

On 6/6/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Three people saying they like an article *and no-one saying they
> > > don't* is consensus.
> >
> >
> > It's consensus among those three people, maybe, but it's hardly an
> > established consensus among Wikipedians.
>
> No, you haven't understood my point. It's a consensus among those
> three people AND everyone that read the page and decided there was no
> need to comment, which is probably much larger than just 3 people.


OK, I understand your terminology.  Of course, then you should agree that
every sentence of every article is a consensus among everyone who has read
that sentence.  So that pretty much makes the comment useless, doesn't it?

> Generally, it is only necessary to speak up if
> > > you disagree with something. Yes-men serve little purpose in consensus
> > > driven decision making.
> >
> >
> > And that's exactly what Tony is doing.  He's speaking up, because he
> > disagrees with something.
>
> No, he made a unilateral decision. He just happened to inform the
> mailing list afterwards, he didn't do so in order to get a review of
> his decision.


He made an edit.  And I don't know why he informed the mailing list, but it
certainly shows that he wasn't trying to be sneaky or hide anything.  Surely
he informed the mailing list knowing full well that if the community
disagrees with his edit they will reverse it.

> Tony has both objected and started this discussion.  To say that these
> > articles have a consensus of support for FA status is nonsense.  Three
> > people agreeing on something doesn't automatically bind the rest of us
> to
> > refrain from correcting their mistake.
>
> The discussion should have come first. "Bold-revert-discuss" only
> applies when there hasn't been a discussion before hand.


That's at least an assertion which is reasonable, though not one I agree
with.