You don't "get consensus" in the way you
"get a bunch of bananas from
the store." You "get consensus" in the way you "get the joke."
Consensus isn't something you obtain, demand, husband, or cite. It's
something that happens.
In fact it is something I cite and try to obtain. We work toward
obtaining a cunsensus on article.
Consensus follows action. To believe otherwise is to
obviate the prime
directive of Wikipedia, which is to '''be bold'''.
The prime dirrective is to make an encyolpedia. in this case someone
else was bold by revting the chage instantly.
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.
Should I be bold and block you under the "don't dissagree with geni"
rule and wait to see if a consensus forms or not?
This concept of cooperation imbues every organization
that relies on the
truth. Ask Galileo sometime. Or ask your 5th-grade science teacher why
you were taught about Galileo's legal problems. (Not that I think I'm
Galileo or these noobs are the Inquisition; but a boy's got to get out
the ''reductio ad absurdum'' sometimes to put a point across.)
--Blair
I fail to see the anology.
--
geni