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

[Marc Riddell]

> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.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?
>> 
>> on 2/1/11 10:34 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert at gmail.com wrote:
>>> 
>>> It is in the nature of online collaborative communities that this
>>> general question has no exact answer.
>>> 
>>> This is fundamentally unsatisfying to a number of people, including
>>> those who prefer various not-yet-universally-supported changes;
>>> scientists, observers, critics, and journalists from outside the
>>> community trying to understand or quantify it; many others.
>>> 
>>> That's the way it works, though.
>>> 
>>> I appreciate your point, which is that this way of doing things is
>>> often infuriating, insane, or impossible to actually get anything done
>>> in.  The reality is that we're there.  That's how Wikipedia works (for
>>> whatever definition of "work" you care to apply to the state of the
>>> project here, which you and others feel are unsatisfactory).
>> 
>> George, it may be "how it works", but it also misleading - or worse. To
>> state that any decision made in this manner is a "consensus of the Wikipedia
>> Community" is fundamentally dishonest.

on 2/1/11 11:12 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert at gmail.com wrote:
> 
> Consensus is the method which was chosen for Wikipedia to determine
> things (in general).  Raw majority voting (or supermajority voting)
> was intentionally not chosen.
> 
> It's entirely fine to point out that this leads to existential angst
> over what consensus is, means, or how anyone ever determines it.  But
> that's what we do, every day for the last 10 years.  Something worked,
> at least some of the time.
> 
> You're looking for a deeper meaning (fair) and a way to legitimately
> and concretely get approval for changes (fair to ask for) that gives
> you an answer you feel was unambiguously arrived at.
> 
> We have no guarantee that the last clause will ever be satisfied under
> the consensus system.  Some issues are uncontroversial and it's not
> really challenged that consensus exists.  Some issues are very
> controversial, and calling the consensus either way is ambiguous.
> 
> I understand and acknowledge that the ambiguity is a pain point for
> you.  That is the system, for better or worse.  There is no magic
> wand.
> 
George, your equivocation surprises me. My assessment of the Wikipedia
"consensus" process remains the same. And your implied suggestion that it
works because Wikipedia is still here and going strong: you are mistaking
size for strength, mass for solidity. Wikipedia's structure may be massive,
but it is by no means solid. My prognosis if some basic lifestyle changes
aren't made: Poor.

Marc