[Foundation-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikinews

[Erik Moeller]

Anthere-
> Since voting for the new project wikinews is well
> under way... I would like to mention 2 things.

> When Erik set the vote, he set the voting bar at 50%.
> That means that if the number of approval is just over
> the number of disapproval, the project will be
> accepted (and obviously, it will be, since much more
> than 50% of people are supportive).

What matters is not just whether people support or oppose, but also to  
which degree. As you say, in a simple majority vote, 51% of people could  
say "Uh yeah, let's give this a try", and 49% "IF WE DO THIS, WE'RE ALL  
DOOMED! THE SKY WILL FALL DOWN ON US! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!" Obviously, this  
is not a very good basis to start a project on. So I think we should  
experiment with voting systems which account for the degree of preference.

In general, however, as an innovative organization, I believe we should be  
willing to try out new things if a majority is enthusiastic about them,  
and if no significant flaws in the proposal have been pointed out. Those  
who do not try new things do not learn new things. I fully accept the  
possibility that Wikinews may be a failure. Even if it will be, it will  
provide us with many valuable lessons - for the peer review process in  
Wikipedia, for new projects which operate in a time-critical fashion, for  
neutrality on current issues, and so forth. And if it succeeds, it will be  
tremendous.

I also hold the notion that we can find consensus on any project  
substantially different from the existing ones to be very noble, but very  
unrealistic. On a project like the Wikimedia Commons, where its usefulness  
is not in dispute by anyone - yes. But something like Wikiversity or  
Wikifiction - no.

The consensus principle is great for reasonably small groups of  
contributors working on an article. It can even scale to some extent when  
certain objections can be ruled out on the grounds of not being  
"actionable", as they can be on [[en:Wikipedia:Featured article  
candidates]].

As one example of consensus going awry, take my  
[[en:Wikipedia:Quickpolls]] proposal. In this case, I refined the proposal  
as best as I could to make everyone happy. The result was a lowest common  
denominator idea which didn't have some of the safeguards in place that I  
originally wanted. A consensus process with a large group of people, even  
if it ever arrives at a conclusion, will *not* magically result in the  
best possible solution. In some cases, it will result in the worst.

While it is important to listen, it is also important to maintain the  
integrity and the consistency of an idea. Therefore, even if future  
project decisions should not use a simple majority rule, I strongly advise  
against using a consensus rule.

Regards,

Erik