On 29/06/07, Tony Sidaway <tonysidaway(a)gmail.com> wrote:
My basic view of
how wikis work can be condensed into "We all try to nail jelly to the
wall and keep the stuff that sticks." All editors with a pragmatic,
realistic view of how things work can accept that they won't always
get a solution they're completely happy with.
The flaw in that rationale is that decision making on Wikipedia does not
exclusively involve only editors with a pragmatic realistic view of how
things work (indeed can one tie down "how things work" on Wikipedia? It's
as
much in flux as heavily edited articles are). Considering how the editors
that one could under this rationale classify as "unrealistic" are not in
agreement with the rest of those involved in discussion leading to a
decision, I still do not see why we should call it "consensus". Consensus
among one group of like-minded (at least perhaps in approach) editors
perhaps - that's something else entirely.
What about the situations where one lot of people just want their way and
bully opponents into submission? (perhaps classifying them as "unrealistic",
trolls, biased, un-wiki, whatever) Indeed perhaps where those responsible
for changing things or maintaining the status quo are just are more
persistent (or have more time to devote to Wikipedia) than others.
This isn't even beginning to get to the cases where most people *are* in
consensus, but the stubborn few are those who are actually in the right (you
know, the cases where people post indignantly to the mailing list - "how can
this be permitted on Wikipedia?").
Sorry if I'm labouring the point, but I did in the past admire Wikipedia,
and I'd like to be in a situation where it doesn't now seem so irretrievably
broken to me. While it does seem so, I can't so much justify to myself
spending my time, talents and energy on it.
Zoney
--
~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...