JAY JG wrote:
From:
"Blair P. Houghton" <blair(a)houghton.net>
Consensus isn't something you obtain, demand, husband, or cite. It's
something that happens.
More typically, it is something you build based on discussion or
debate. Talk: pages are a great place for that.
Consensus follows action. To believe otherwise
is to obviate the
prime directive of Wikipedia, which is to '''be bold'''.
I hadn't heard "Be bold" referred to as Wikipedia's "prime
directive"
before; I'm not sure everyone here would agree. In any event, while I
don't know the details of this particular case, it amazes me how often
people attempting to make major, usually contentious, and often highly
POV re-writes to articles cite "Be bold", yet fail to note that the
majority of that policy is devoted to when you *should not* "Be
bold". In particular, much of the policy clearly points out that on
disputed issues and controversial subjects one should, instead, get
consensus on Talk: pages first.
Clairvoyance isn't my strongest skill. I don't know who will complain
until I do what I have a right to do. And I suspect I'm "only human" in
that regard, as is everyone else.
The
cooperative counterparts in a community of bold people are those
who accept the boldness of those who are right, regardless of the
prior consensus.
I believe we are straying into "argument from silence" logical fallacy
territory here.
It's the basis for most of the Wikipedia. What doesn't get munged is
accepted. And if you see a problem, you fix it. Has a lot to do with
the way life works, too. Which is one of the attractive features of the
place.
This concept of cooperation imbues every organization
that relies on
the truth.
Cooperation is something that comes from both sides; it cannot be
unilaterally imposed by "Bold" individuals.
Tell that to the guy who reverted me, hollering "consensus!" from the
back of his mule, then having me jailed for arguing the point, then
including everything I added (but retaining a bit of stuff that is soon
to be gone anyway).
--Blair