[Wikipedia-l] Re: No voting? Then what?

[Ray Saintonge]

Jeroen Heijmans wrote:

>>Please give the dismissive tone some time off. Wikipedia is a silly name
>>too.
>>
>My point was rather there's no reason why anything on any other Wiki should apply here. And I'd
>rather hear arguments from you than reading an extensive discussion between other, non-involved
>persons. 
>
If at some point very early in the project someone had not made a 
decision on the name, we would still be debating it.  

>So, suppose voting is evil. Then how do we make decisions? Because with the
>current number of members on this list, there's never going to be something
>like consensus.
>
>>That's simply not true.
>>
>Consensus means everybody agrees, right? I've never seen that so far on the list, but I may have
>missed it.
>
Supeficially, that's what consensus is.  When it's working well 
everybody is happy with it.  At its worse it can be a means of wearing 
down opposition.  One of the most severe drawbacks of consensus is that 
it requires the time and leisure for making patient and reasoned 
decisions, and that time and leisure is often unavailable.  Inclusivity 
and decisiveness are often at odds.
Eclecticology