2008/10/18 David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com>
> Changing a previously widely accepted standard should take much wider
> discussion than this has received, and over a longer period of time.
> It's very easy at Wikipedia for a few people to move in fast and get
> something changed; the test is whether it hold up under subsequent
> scrutiny. And even actual consent ahead of time may change quite
> rapidly once people truly see the implications on a large scale in the
> encyclopedia.
>
on 10/18/08 11:30 AM, Zoney at zoney.ie(a)gmail.com wrote:
Just
the usual problems with any decision making at Wikipedia. The paradigm
is inherently flawed, and the word consensus is completely abused and given
a non-standard definition at Wikipedia.
Most decisions made on Wikipedia are *not* by consensus, according to the
proper definition.
Usually a majority of discussion participants, or a dedicated group of
individuals, get their way just through force, persuasiveness, bullying and
wikilawyering. There are even hinderances to broadening discussion, you
might be "canvassing".
Yep to all of this, Zoney. But there are those who like, and take full
advantage of, the lack of a more stable process. It is going to take some
strong leadership to change this.
Marc