[WikiEN-l] Difficulty making structural changes to WP due to human nature?

[Ray Saintonge]

On 09/17/11 6:04 PM, MuZemike wrote:
> I think that certainly does happen, mainly because some don't like
> change. Many RfCs and proposals contain oppose reasons such as "solution
> in search of a problem" or "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Other than
> what Alan mentioned, this has also applied to any technical changes to
> the system.
>
> Other proposals get so bogged down in endless stalemate and
> filibustering (like with Pending Changes), nothing ever gets done or
> moves forward. That's where the "consensus-based model" fails miserably.
>
> On the other hand, a straight "vote" may not also be desirable,
> especially if the results may be close to 50-50, because you then
> alienate too much of the community that way.
Resistance to change is a chronic disease.  At the same time voting is 
evil for the very reason that you state. That is made worse by framing 
questions in a win/lose context.  I have consistently believed that no 
vote should ever be closed completely.  Action thresholds can be 
defined, but that should not close a vote. People should be allowed to 
continue voting indefinitely, or even change their original vote, until 
a change threshold is reached. That change may never become a reality, 
but even the right to support the obvious gives a feeling of participation.

Ec

> On 9/17/2011 3:54 PM, Alan Liefting wrote:
>> Is it just me or do others find it difficult to instigate any sort of
>> changes to policies, guidelines, layout, Manual of Style and related
>> matters regardless of how minor they are?
>> Could it be that WP is a reflection of human behaviour and has become a
>> talkfest where nothing changes because of our inherently conservative
>> nature?
>> Or am I trying to satisfy the readers of WP rather than editors and
>> readers? Since readers do not edit they never get to have a say so the
>> editors get what they want (yes I know - editors are readers as well).
>>
>>
>>