| Revision as of 15:58, 5 June 2013 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 1d) to User talk:Mrt3366/Archive 9.← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:44, 6 June 2013 edit undoWikid77 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users67,096 edits →Re essay on consensus: new thread, reviewedNext edit → | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
| TYPE YOUR QUESTION OR COMMENT BELOW THIS LINE...thanks :) --> | TYPE YOUR QUESTION OR COMMENT BELOW THIS LINE...thanks :) --> | ||
| {{tb|Ratnakar.kulkarni}} -] (]) 13:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC) | {{tb|Ratnakar.kulkarni}} -] (]) 13:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC) | ||
| == Re essay on consensus == | |||
| Hello, ] here. I have read your essay about ], and understand the frustrations with the current system. In many cases, "management by consensus" has become a slanted form of "]" as "management by self-appointed committee" rather than control by a broad consensus of active Wikipedians. To overcome the current powerplays, in gaming the consensus viewpoints, I think Misplaced Pages will need to run wide-ranging user surveys to gain "1,001 random opinions" (3% ]) as done with ]s. However, I think your point about "governance" is a valid priority, if only those in charge were more objective and pro-active to stop the games. The core concept behind "consensus" was to be a near unanimous consent, focused around a mutual compromise agreement, of editors working together in good faith (not insulting others, or else removed from the agreement). The deduction I have used is: "Two people discuss an issue, and one says they have reached consensus but the other disagrees". The way true "consensus" would stop the committee could be a lone voice insisting, "I object" and then the decision would be stopped, until a true consensus was formed. Unfortunately, such mutual agreements (as compromises) are very time-consuming, and the result in practice has been, instead, "We discussed this issue in an RfC last year which established consensus, and '' 'You do not have consensus' '' to change that viewpoint". For people who want to control the rules, then majority vote (with "consensus thumping") is the preferred method (as "]"), and they often drag any dissenter to ] claiming the dissenter's repeated requests to change consensus as ] "disruptive" to so-called harmony on Misplaced Pages. So, we are back to "governance" which depends on fair-minded admins to police the consensus games, and declare "consensus dissolved" when dissenters say no. Hence, I think the solution is to have more fair-minded admins, and they could block the biased admins who do not respect a broad consensus which includes most people but instead favor the majority-vote style of powergames. -] (]) 08:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:44, 6 June 2013
About me Talk Archives Essays Photos Barnstars
Welcome to my talkpage
Let's talk. I'm Michael. If you have any query feel free to post it on this talk page.
Date: Thursday, January 2. Time: 19 hrs 24 min(s) 49 second(s) (UTC)
I am willing
To educate you on pograms should you wish to learn. I suspect your mind is closed, but can perhaps be opened. I am quite willing to teach you on this if you wish, feel free to use my talk page, you will however have no option but to accept the truth because in the end, that is all that is ever left. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- "pograms"? hahaha...You cannot even spell pogroms correctly, let alone educate me about it. This is the last time I am willing to listen to your nonsense. I don't care what you believe or anyone believes. Those are not the common names.
- My mind is closed, huh? WOW. I don't particularly wish to converse with you here. Do not comment on my talk page ever again. Mr T 16:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Note: "you will however have no option but to accept the truth because in the end" implies that I don't accept the truth now or in some way resist it. My mind is closed, DS says. Mr T 17:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- (ec)I am so terribly sorry for my typographical error, however shall I live that down? Your response to my offer has shown me but one thing, I was entirely correct in my previous assessment of you. Good luck, you are most certainly going to require it. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Darkness Shines, I have had enough of your incivility for a lifetime , and you defended that on WP:AN, then again on your talk page by questioning the block itself. Now, you have the gumption to claim on my talk that my mind is closed?
Leave my talk page alone, I will delete it next time I see any of your comments here. Mr T 17:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Darkness Shines, I have had enough of your incivility for a lifetime , and you defended that on WP:AN, then again on your talk page by questioning the block itself. Now, you have the gumption to claim on my talk that my mind is closed?
Talkback
Message added 17:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
OrangesRyellow (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Talk Back
Comment by Ratnakar.kulkarni (talk · contribs) at 13:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. -sarvajna (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Re essay on consensus
Hello, Wikid77 here. I have read your essay about wp:consensus, and understand the frustrations with the current system. In many cases, "management by consensus" has become a slanted form of "management by committee" as "management by self-appointed committee" rather than control by a broad consensus of active Wikipedians. To overcome the current powerplays, in gaming the consensus viewpoints, I think Misplaced Pages will need to run wide-ranging user surveys to gain "1,001 random opinions" (3% margin of error) as done with political polls. However, I think your point about "governance" is a valid priority, if only those in charge were more objective and pro-active to stop the games. The core concept behind "consensus" was to be a near unanimous consent, focused around a mutual compromise agreement, of editors working together in good faith (not insulting others, or else removed from the agreement). The deduction I have used is: "Two people discuss an issue, and one says they have reached consensus but the other disagrees". The way true "consensus" would stop the committee could be a lone voice insisting, "I object" and then the decision would be stopped, until a true consensus was formed. Unfortunately, such mutual agreements (as compromises) are very time-consuming, and the result in practice has been, instead, "We discussed this issue in an RfC last year which established consensus, and 'You do not have consensus' to change that viewpoint". For people who want to control the rules, then majority vote (with "consensus thumping") is the preferred method (as "tyranny of the majority"), and they often drag any dissenter to wp:ANI claiming the dissenter's repeated requests to change consensus as wp:DE "disruptive" to so-called harmony on Misplaced Pages. So, we are back to "governance" which depends on fair-minded admins to police the consensus games, and declare "consensus dissolved" when dissenters say no. Hence, I think the solution is to have more fair-minded admins, and they could block the biased admins who do not respect a broad consensus which includes most people but instead favor the majority-vote style of powergames. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)