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

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Jan 10, 2008 11:58 AM, Majorly <axel9891 at googlemail.com> wrote:
> There will be opposition to everything proposed on enwiki.

Thats not strictly true. Lots of things happen, even broadly impactful
things, without significant opposition.

> I'd be just as
> annoyed as you if the consensus was, say 55%, much less than what is
> normally considered to be so. People are always scared of new things
> appearing, but that's how it is.

Why is 65% enough but 55% is not?   If we accept "people are always
scared of new things", why isn't 33% enough?  Why isn't 5 really
experienced people enough.. if it's just for the purpose of *trying*
something so that we don't have to be afraid and can make an objective
decision on the merits of the action?

> I honestly can't see why those in
> opposition can't give this a chance, and complain only when something goes
> wrong.

Okay, but something has already gone wrong:  There are thousands and
thousands of good experienced users who do not have rollback.

There are many users who should have rollback but whom probably never
will because they do not want to figure out how to ask for it, or get
involved with righs flagging power games, just like there are many
people who do no want adminship on enwp.

On Jan 10, 2008 12:02 PM, Avi <avi.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Fair enough.  I wasn't attempting to argue that this case was handled
correctly, just pointing out that the inverse of the handling
(continuing to do nothing in the absence of evidence of harm, and with
a non-trivial amount of support)  is probably not correct.