[WikiEN-l] So, has the need for consensus in wikipedia been eliminated?

[Avi]

Yes, Gregory, excellent points, reminiscent of Clay Shirkey.

Whatever the (sub)-optimal solution, one person making a decision that on
the face of it contradicts the decision made in a near identical situation
last time; and not allowing at least a months discussion; and this person
not being accountable him or herself to someone else, is _not_ the answer.

--Avi


On Jan 10, 2008 11:58 AM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 10, 2008 11:51 AM, Avi <avi.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Alex, the more important point here is not the goodness or badness of
> > rollback, it is the gross disregard for the wikipedia community that
> JuLef
> > (sp?) had by implementing this procedure in the face of significant
> clear
> > and present opposition.
> [snip]
>
> Not taking an action is itself an action.
>
> The status quo is not that special.
>
> Consensus is strongly preferred, sure, but why is it that you would
> think a non-consensus minority-willed preservation of the status quo
> is right, when a non-consensus majority-willed change is wrong?
>
> If we reach a point where the user base is so large and diverse that
> many important issues can not achieve a clear consensus by numerical
> standards, what then? Shall Wikipedia be forever frozen in whatever
> state it was already in by historical chance or by past unilateral
> decisions?   Is that really a road to success?
>



-- 
en:User:Avraham
----
pub 1024D/785EA229 3/6/2007 Avi (Wikipedia-related) < aviwiki at gmail.com>
   Primary key fingerprint:  D233 20E7 0697 C3BC 4445 7D45 CBA0 3F46 785E
A229