[WikiEN-l] Arbcom

[Thomas Dalton]

> Interestingly, I just watched the movie "12 Angry Men"... it's
> interesting to note that, under the prevailing Wikipedia community
> culture at the moment, the guy who, early on, was the one juror who
> voted to acquit when the other 11 were saying "guilty", would
> probably be labeled a "troll".  After all, he was going against
> community consensus, and couldn't even (at first) articulate a good
> reason behind believing the defendant was innocent -- in fact, he
> sounded like he didn't really believe the guy was innocent himself,
> just that fairness required more of a debate than a quick 12-0 vote
> to convict.  Somebody who acted like that in any of the many
> wikidrama debates that go on here would be labeled as disrupting
> things to prove a point, and ignored and dismissed (and maybe labeled
> a sockpuppet of a banned user and summarily removed)... then
> everybody else could go on with their unanimous verdict to fry the
> defendant, and the other juror would make it to the ballgame he had
> tickets to that night.

"Going against consensus" doesn't really make sense. If someone wants
to go against it, then there isn't really a consensus. "Vast majority"
and "consensus" are not the same thing.