wikipedia-l-request@wikipedia.org 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.
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.
Endless discussions are tiring and getting us nowhere.
It may be tiring, but it's hardly getting us nowhere. Ideas and thoughts have steadily been introduced and refined.
Note the "endless" part. Discussions are necessary and useful. But after a while it becomes restating of opinions. Discussions then either end without a solution or don't end. That's bad. It happens a lot.
That's not a desirable situation. Voting could end discussions. But "voting is evil", so what to do then?
Are you willing to admit the basic problems with voting?
I think voting is just fine. Sure, there are some drawbacks, but I don't see them as critical. At least it has the advantage that decisions are made.
An example of how consensus rather than voting can work is in progress at [[Wikipedia:Bots]].
Where? I don't see any decisions being taken, rather a proposal only edited by you and Chas zzz brown - hardly consensus. Also, there's some voting at the top...
Jeronimo