[WikiEN-l] "Consensus" and decision making on Wikipedia

[Monahon, Peter B.]

> "White Cat" wrote: It is not supposed to 
> be a vote at all.  Vote based decisions 
> happen in democracies and we are not one. 

"Vote calls" and "democracies", that's mob, er, "majority" rules, right?


And it really means: "majority of voters" rule (or more accurately:
"majority of vote COUNTERS" rule).

Actually, democracies, constitutional democracies, republics, capitalist
constitutional democracies - they all work differently, and sadly, I
find that few people who live within them really understand how they
work ... or how that don't work.  We only revisit the "what are we/what
kind of governance do we have?" question when someone who thought they
were in power finds they've been ousted or bested by someone else.

Let's define our terms in a way that we all can agree on (oh, is that
"consensus"?), but that really requires that we pre-agree to
subsequently agree on something that meets a standard, and that's
usually called a "constitution" of founding documents or rules (all
subject to interpretation by anyone wielding power!).  So, if I were to
suggest that our terms should be defines by a processional order of
references, perhaps like this:

Is it in Google [define:x]? Yes, no?
Then try Dictionary.com, yes, no?
... and so on.

We need more than one place for a definition, and Wikipedia.org probably
should NOT be a primary, original research, non-neutral (self concerned)
point of view resource for what's acceptable and what's not at
Wikipedia.org!  Waaaa!

So, let's share the meaning of our words before we end up arguing over
different things.  Then we can argue! ;-)  That "should" make sure we're
talking about the same thing, and might even reduce arguments.  For
instance, put 3 people in one room and ask them to define "democracy"
and I'll bet in 5 minutes you'll have 6 different answers!

Here goes:

Consensus = majority (Dictionary.com)

Constitution = fundamental set of laws (Dictionary.com)

Democracy = people-rule (versus God rules, or the Boss rules, versus
anarchy rules, er, where no one rules and there are no rules -
Dictionary.com)

... so what do you all think the way it "should" be here on
Wikipedia.org?

Democracy?

Anarchy?

Boss-based?

Constitution based?

In the US, I see a respect for (the evils of) human nature - that
everyone will want power - so, in order to prevent anyone from
(completely) taking over (forever), they split power across (at least) 3
groups: 
- rule makers, 
- rule executers, and 
- rule assessors.
They all refer to a "constitution" which states that all powers come
from the people, and the state has no powers except what the people give
the state.  All three divisions argue over that constitution.  The rule
makes try to modify it.  The rule assessors try to toss out the
modifications.  The rule executors try to get around it or ignore it.
It's not pretty, but, given people's greed and hunger for power, this
pivots strong and highly motivated groups of people against each other
(rather than against the people and the little guy, which still happens
anyway).  This all conspires somehow to (a) prevent all hell from
breaking loose and (b) maybe actually, occasionally, by accident,
perhaps, but maybe actually doing some good ... now and again.  Maybe.

My point, and I do have one, is for us all to stay *on point*, to refine
our understanding of each other, and what words mean to each other, and
make sure we're talking about the exact same specific thing before we go
off half cocked.  Then we can go off half cocked!  ;-)

--

I thought a wiki was "come one come all".  I see some people want
ownership, and not just in response to vandalism.

So, if we are not a constitutional democracy with division of powers, if
we're not a mob, er, "majority" rules organization, then what are we?

-- Peter Blaise

PS - I think there's a truism to the fact that wikis grow most when
so-called "authority" and security are invisible, where anonymity is not
an impediment to immediate contribution, and patience, tolerance,
acceptance, and equivalent consideration are a well practiced virtues

See:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Aauthority
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Apatience
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolerance 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_consideration_of_interests
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Avirtue