[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Fred Bauder]

>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I could make out the last sentence
>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>> contained the phrases, "meaning of consensus", and "consent of the
>>>>>>> entire
>>>>>>> community". No one has yet defined for me the "meaning of
>>>>>>> consensus",
>>>>>>> nor
>>>>>>> described for me how the "consent of the entire community" is
>>>>>>> determined.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Marc
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> on 2/1/11 7:52 PM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud at fairpoint.net wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> We discuss policy issues at length, consider the reasons for
>>>>>> adopting
>>>>>> alternatives, and come to agreement.
>>>>>>
>>>>> C'mon Fred, isn't that rather vague? What I'm asking (again) is,
>>>>> after
>>>>> the
>>>>> discussion is other, how is it determined that a consensus of the
>>>>> Community
>>>>> has been reached?
>>>>>
>>>>> Marc
>>>>
>>> on 2/1/11 9:24 PM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud at fairpoint.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> People agree and support the decision.
>>>>
>>> Fred, who are these people that are making these decisions and
>>> declaring
>>> that there in Community consensus, knowing that this "consensus"
>>> cannot
>>> be
>>> factually validated?
>>>
>>> Marc
>
> on 2/1/11 10:16 PM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud at fairpoint.net wrote:
>>
>> The rising of the sun could not be factually validated if we thought
>> like
>> that. People write on the talk page of the policy that they agree; do
>> not
>> change the language of the policy, which anyone can edit, remember; and
>> follow it.
>>
> And how many of these Talk Page "votes" are usually cast before the
> results
> are announced as being the "consensus" of the entire Wikipedia Community?
>
> Marc

That depends on how important and significant the issue is. Remember
watch lists. A change that is consistent with existing policy does not
call for debate; a major change to one of the "pillars of policy" would
call forth major participation and debate.

Fred

Fred