5 The Challenges of Consensus

5 The Challenges of Consensus
prev
] [
next
] · [
prev-bottom
] [
bottom
] · [
up
Chapter 5
§1
The
Challenges of Consensus
¶1
Consensus: Any group in agreement about something whose
opinion is the same as yours; antonym of cabal [i.e., those who disagree with
you]. — Wikispeak
¶2
H. G. Wells thought the “World Encyclopedia” should
be more than an information repository, it should also be an institution of
“adjustment and adjudication; a clearinghouse of misunderstandings.”
Wells, “The Idea of a World
Encyclopedia,” 921.
Wikipedia certainly has its share of
misunderstandings, some imported from the conflicted world it documents and
some unique to its own undertaking. An example of a contagious real-world
conflict is the “Creation-Evolution Controversy,”
Wikipedia, “Creation-Evolution
Controversy,” Wikipedia, July 27, 2008,
2008).
discussed in chapter 3. Also, political and ethnic
differences are often mirrored at Wikipedia, prompting the formation of a
“Working Group on Ethnic and Cultural Edit Wars.”
Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Working
Group on Ethnic and Cultural Edit Wars”, Wikipedia, January 23, 2008,
2008).
There are also plenty of local “misunderstandings,”
such as whether every episode of
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
deserves its
own article. I raised this dispute earlier to illustrate two opposing
philosophies at Wikipedia: inclusionism and deletionism. This issue, and the
proliferation of articles, gave rise to an even more trivial — though no less
bellicose — debate: If every television show episode has its own article, how
should these articles be named so as not to conflict with other articles? This
discussion reveals possible misunderstandings about consensus, and the
difficulties of this decision-making practice in an open community.
¶3
In this
chapter, I identify the difficulties of consensus decision making, and its
meaning and practice for collaboration at the English Wikipedia. I consider
this relative to insights from literature about consensus in other communities,
including Quakers and the collaborators who built the Internet and Web using
“rough consensus and running code.”
§2
The Case of Disambiguation
¶4
In the history of the encyclopedia much has been made of
the attempts to organize knowledge and how that dream was eventually superseded
by simple alphabetical order.
On the organization of knowledge, and alphabetization in
particular, see Peter Burke, A Social History of Knowledge: from Gutenberg to
Diderot (Cambridge, MA: Polity Press, 2000), 109-115; Daniel Headrick, When
Information Came of Age (Oxford: Oxfo ...
Wikipedia continued
this trend by avoiding any formal organizational scheme and letting people
simply name articles as seemed fitting; articles are then accessed via other
pages, including user-created categories and search engines.
The new mode of dealing with
information is described by Weinberger, Everything Is
Miscellaneous.
But a problem soon emerged: what happens when
article titles conflict? A page’s title must be unique because it is also
part of the Web address of the page. (Computer scientists call this a
“collision” and it became increasingly common as the number of Wikipedia
articles increased.) For example, what should the “Buffy” article contain?
Should it be about the fictional character, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, or the
related film, TV show, comics, or novels — and which season or episode,
issue, or book? Plus, there have been a few notable real-life Buffys. How
should Wikipedia distinguish between them all?
¶5
In the
case of a collision Wikipedia will likely offer the reader a
“disambiguation” link at the top of an article or a whole page with a list
of links to more specific articles, or both. “Disambiguation in Wikipedia is
the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single
title could be associated with more than one article. In other words,
disambiguations are paths leading to different articles which could, in
principle, have the same title.”
Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Disambiguation,” Wikipedia, July 17,
2008, http://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=226312626 (visited on July 18,
2008).
The “Buffy” article is in fact a disambiguation
page that includes links to articles about the
Buffy the Vampire
Slayer
film and television series, unrelated musical albums,
biographies, and an astronomical object outside the orbit of Neptune.
Wikipedia, “Buffy,” Wikipedia,
July 12, 2008, http://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=225134221 (visited on July 18,
2008).
Furthermore, dozens of naming conventions have emerged
that specify how to disambiguate collisions by qualifying the name with a
parenthetical suffix, such as “Buffy the Vampire Slayer (film).”
¶6
However, must these disambiguators be applied in every case for consistency’s
sake, or just those for which there is already a preexisting article? Answering
this question, and thousands of others like it, is an integral part of
Wikipedia collaboration. As the “Consensus” policy states, consensus is
“how editors work with others,” it is “Wikipedia’s fundamental model
for editorial decision-making.” Wikipedians are supposed to discuss and
reason together, making use of verifiable sources and assuming good faith.
“Policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating
it.”
Wikipedia,
“Wikipedia:Consensus,” Wikipedia, June 1, 2009,
2009).
However, in this case of disambiguation an interesting
problem arose: there was disagreement as to whether there was consensus.
¶7
So
then, what is consensus and how do you know you’ve reached it? This question
eventually reached the Arbitration Committee: “a panel of experienced users
that exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia disputes that neither
communal discussion, administrators, nor mediation have been able to
resolve.”
Wikipedia,
“Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee,” Wikipedia, July 16, 2008,
2008).
Jimmy Wales created the committee in 2004 because of
the growth of the community and the corresponding number of disputes he could
no longer personally attend to. Wales appoints members annually “based on the
results of advisory elections” to arbitrate specific conflicts; however, the
“ArbCom” seems to be evolving toward what might be thought of as
Wikipedia’s high court in definitively interpreting — and some say making
— Wikipedia policy.
10
For
discussion of the extent to which the ArbCom interprets or makes policy see
John Lee, “Re: BADSITES ArbCom Case about to Close,” wikien-l, October 17,
2007,
...
¶8
Presently, an ArbCom decision is documented on a wiki page in which disputants
make statements and marshal evidence for their case.
11
“Evidence” is often densely
sourced hyperlinks to various discussions and specific Wikipedia edits; I
remove such references (e.g., “[32]”) from excerpts as they serve no
purpose here.
These are followed by the ArbCom members’
“preliminary decision” (e.g., to take the case and issue temporary
injunctions) and conclude with a final decision that enumerates important
principles of Wikipedia policy, findings of facts, remedies, and enforcement
actions. Wikipedian Yaksha introduced the disambiguation case as follows:
¶9
This dispute is regarding whether articles for TV
episodes which do not need to be disambiguated should have disambiguation.
For example, Never Kill a Boy on the First Date (Buffy episode) has the
disambiguation “(Buffy episode),” even though this disambiguation is not
required. I believe we did reach consensus to follow the existing guideline
of “disambiguate only when necessary.” The straw poll resulted in a
supermajority (80%) support for “disambiguate only when necessary.” The
discussion that followed supported this consensus. A detailed summary of the
discussion, as well as four Request Move proposals all support the existence
of this consensus. Given this, I (and others) begun to move articles which
were inappropriately named.
12
Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration/Naming
Conventions”, Wikipedia, January 20, 2007,
2008).
¶10
However, not everyone agreed with the application of the
use-as-needed
policy and attempted to reverse the moving (or renaming) of articles.
Wikipedian Elonka was of a minority that felt specific “WikiProjects”
(i.e., pages and editors focused on advancing specific topics, such as a
television series) should be able to use disambiguating suffixes consistently
across their topic, whether needed or not. Putting aside “unethical
tactics” that had been employed in the dispute, this minority that favored
consistent-suffixes felt that “WikiProjects can set reasonable guidelines of
their own.” “As television episode articles have been added to Wikipedia,
most series followed the [use as needed] system, but many others chose to use a
‘consistent suffix’ system.”
¶11
Furthermore, the very process of deciding whether specific WikiProjects (e.g.,
television) could consistently use suffixes was troubled. Elonka noted that
there was a poll, but its wording was confusing and contested “with multiple
editors rapidly changing the wording and structure of the poll while it was in
process.” Furthermore, “calls for a cleanly-run poll were belittled as
‘stalling,’ ‘immature delay tactics,’ and the ‘whining’ of ‘sore
losers’ engaging in ‘borderline trolling’ who should just, ‘Give the
fuck up, you lost.’ ”
13
Ibidem.
¶12
Had
there been consensus on the naming of television episodes? Before returning to
the details of this case, it’s best to first review the meaning of consensus
and its seminal role in the development of the Internet.
§3
“Rough” Consensus
¶13
The Wiktionary definitions for consensus speak of
“general agreement,” “without active opposition to the proposed course of
action.” A more scholarly source gives a similar definition: consensus is
overwhelming agreement “which does not mean unanimity.”
14
Wiktionary, “Consensus,”
July 11, 2008, http://en.wiktionary.org/?oldid=4617397 (visited on July 11,
2008); Lawrence E. Susskind, “A Short Guide to Consensus Building,”
chapter 1 in Consensus Building Handbook, ed. Lawrence E. Susskind, Sarah
McKea ...
The encyclopedic article “Consensus
Decision-Making” lists requirements of consensus that, if achieved, can also
be considered benefits: inclusive (“as many stakeholders as possible”),
participatory (“actively solicit the input and participation of all”),
cooperative (“reach the best possible decision for the group and all of its
members”), egalitarian (“equal input” with the “opportunity to table,
amend and veto or ‘block’ proposals”), and solution-oriented
(“emphasize common agreement over differences”).
15
Wikipedia, “Consensus
Decision-Making,” Wikipedia, July 10, 2008,
2008).
This is not unlike the meetings of one of the
better-known practitioners of consensus: the Quakers. Michael Sheeran, a Jesuit
scholar, writes of the history and practice of Quaker consensus in
Beyond
Majority Rules: Voteless Decisions in the Religious Society
of
Friends
. In his study Sheeran notes nine features of Quaker meetings and
decision making.
16
Sheeran is
affirming nine characteristics first articulated by Stuart Chase, Roads to
Agreement: How to Get along Better with Other People. (New York: Harper &
Brothers, 1951), 51-52; Sheeran, Beyond Majority Rule, 51.
One
of those characteristics, central to the Quaker spiritual experience, has no
analog in Wikipedia: silent periods at the start of meetings and when conflict
arises. The characteristic of “small meetings” sometimes holds in the
Wikipedia context for issues local to an article or project, but not at the
larger scale.
17
Andrea
Forte and Amy Bruckman, “Scaling Consensus: Increasing Decentralization in
Wikipedia Governance,” in Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences (Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society,
January 7–10, 2008 ...
The remaining seven characteristics
roughly parallel Wikipedia norms: unanimity and a lack of voting (e.g.,
“voting is evil”); pausing when agreement cannot be reached; participation
by all those with ideas on the subject; listening with an open mind;
facilitators, but no “leaders”; egalitarianism; and a factual-focus.
¶14
Therefore, consensus certainly seems like an appropriate means for decision
making in a community with egalitarian values and a culture of good faith.
Furthermore, this form of decision making has been central to online
collaboration since the Internet’s start. Yet, while consensus might seem
simple enough in theory, it is rarely so in practice, as is evidenced by the
1,176 pages of
The Consensus Building Handbook
18
Lawrence E. Susskind, Sarah
McKearnen, and Jennifer Thomas-Lamar, Consensus Building Handbook (Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage, 1999).
The history and challenges of online
consensus, particularly this question of who decides when one has it, can be
seen in the development of technical standards at the Internet Engineering Task
Force (IETF) and World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).
¶15
Both of these institutions host technical working groups that develop standard
specifications for Internet protocols (e.g., TCP/IP) and Web formats (e.g.,
HTML). They work primarily over mailing lists, though teleconferences and
occasional face-to-face meetings are common. The IETF is one of the oldest
existing collaborative institutions on the Internet — it can be said to have
built the Internet. And the W3C, responsible for many Web technologies, might
be thought of as an institutional fork resulting from, in part, frustration
over the slow pace of work at the IETF. Much of this frustration was a result
of trying to come to consensus over technical philosophical differences. One of
the most contentious issues had to do with naming/identifying things on the Web
— further evidence that naming things is not as easy as one might initially
think. In this case the disagreement was about whether the string of characters
one types into the address bar of a browser should be thought of as a stable
identifier for that Web resource (i.e., URI) or just a locator (i.e.,
URL).
19
Berners-Lee, Weaving the Web, 62-63.
(This
distinction is confusing, might seem trivial to most, and has become less of an
issue, but it was of great concern to those involved at the time.) And while
the W3C, unlike the IETF, has a paying membership that helps support a
full-time staff (to hopefully speed the work along) and has Tim Berners-Lee as
director to lend coherence and direction to Web architecture, consensus
decision making at the working group level was retained.
20
A history of the IETF, including
its own sometimes troubled relationship with the traditional International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) can be found in Andrew L. Russell,
“’Rough Consensus and Running Code’ and the Internet-OSI Standards
...
The W3C process document states: “Consensus is a core
value of W3C. To promote consensus, the W3C process requires Chairs to ensure
that groups consider all legitimate views and objections, and endeavor to
resolve them, whether these views and objections are expressed by the active
participants of the group or by others (e.g., another W3C group, a group in
another organization, or the general public).”
21
Ian Jacobs, “World Wide Web
Consortium Process Document,” W3C, October 14, 2005,
October 14, 2005).
Ironically, as the W3C matured, it too
would be characterized as overly slow because of growing bureaucracy and the
difficulty of achieving consensus in large and interdependent groups.
Furthermore, Berners-Lee’s leadership role, which was intended to mitigate
these problems and lend architectural coherence to the emerging standards, was
occasionally challenged as not in keeping with the consensus practice of the
working groups.
22
The
W3C’s — and Berners-Lee’s — influence is questioned in Simson
Garfinkel, “The Web’s Unelected Government,” Technology Review (November
1998), http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=11776
(visited on September 2, 2007). ...
In turn, Jon Bosak, a
“father” of XML, a data-markup and exchange format — and one of W3C’s
most prominent successes — created an institutional fork for subsequent XML
work. The Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards
(OASIS) jettisoned the ideas of appointing a director and consensus in favor of
the parliamentary, and more clockwork-like, Robert’s Rules of Order.
¶16
In
any case, it was at the IETF in 1992 that computer scientist David Clark
characterized IETF collaboration: “We reject: kings, presidents and voting.
We believe in: rough consensus and running code.”
23
David D. Clark, “A Cloudy
Crystal Ball: Visions of the Future,” IETF, July 1992,
1999), 19.
This “IETF Credo” would become one of the
foundational aphorisms of collaborative culture on the Internet. Furthermore,
this simple statement reflects the egalitarianism — and meritocracy — seen
in previous chapters of this book. It also hints at a source of skepticism of
some Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) developers toward Wikipedia since
encyclopedic articles cannot be compiled and “run.” Returning to the
question of whether 80 percent support for a Wikipedia policy constituted
consensus, in the IETF Credo we also see the intriguing notion of “rough
consensus” as documented in the IETF’s “Working Group Guidelines and
Procedures”:
¶17
IETF consensus does not require that all
participants agree although this is, of course, preferred. In general, the
dominant view of the working group shall prevail. (However, it must be noted
that “dominance” is not to be determined on the basis of volume or
persistence, but rather a more general sense of agreement.) Consensus can be
determined by a show of hands, humming, or any other means on which the WG
agrees (by rough consensus, of course). Note that 51% of the working group
does not qualify as “rough consensus” and 99% is better than rough. It is
up to the Chair to determine if rough consensus has been reached.
24
Scott Bradner, “RFC 2418: IETF
Working Group Guidelines and Procedures”, IETF, September 1998,
1999).
¶18
Yet, even 70 percent of a group, for example, as determined by a chair seems
like a far cry from “general agreement without opposition” as described
earlier. Indeed, to understand consensus one must consider a handful of issues
including the character of the group, the constraints of time, the role of the
facilitator, and group dynamics; all of which are made more difficult in the
Wikipedia context.
§4
Deliberation and Openness
¶19
There are numerous methods for making group decisions;
one might flip a coin, vote, or seek consensus — among others. Each has its
merits and difficulties, and is more appropriate to some situations than
others. Unlike the first two methods, consensus is not so much about quickly
yielding a “yes” or “no,” but in arriving at the best possible
solution. While the progress and the outcome of consensus are rarely assured,
the focus is on the potential benefits of deliberation rather than the speed of
the decision. (However, if consensus is achieved, the legitimacy of the
decision will likely exceed that of a coin toss or vote.) As Wikipedia’s
“Consensus” policy notes: “Achieving consensus requires serious treatment
of every group member’s considered opinion…. In the ideal case, those who
wish to take up some action want to hear those who oppose it, because they
count on the fact that the ensuing debate will improve the consensus.” And
even though polling may be a part of the consensus process, it is “often more
likely to be the start of a discussion than it is to be the end of
one.”
25
Wikipedia,
“Wikipedia:Consensus,” Wikipedia, July 5, 2008,
2008).
¶20
But
if consensus is a discussion, who is invited to the conversation? The IETF
Guidelines notes: “It can be particularly challenging to gauge the level of
consensus on a mailing list.” A mailing list probably has many more
subscribers than actual active participants, and the number of messages is not
a good indicator of consensus “since one or two individuals may be generating
much of the traffic.”
26
Bradner, “RFC 2418,” section 3.3.
Furthermore, the W3C makes allowances for notions such as quorum,
supermajority, and members in good standing; these can be specified at the
beginning of a group’s work in its charter.
27
Jacobs, “World Wide Web
Consortium Process Document,” section 3.3.
Wikipedia, and
its topical projects, have no charter or formal list of members in good
standing. It lacks many of the mechanisms other communities have to make the
process of coming to consensus a little easier. Its openness is particularly
problematic because it is susceptible to trolling and “forum shopping.” In
the case of trolling, someone who simply wants to annoy others can ensure
unanimity is never achieved and increase the chances that the group will
collapse in frustration. With respect to forum shopping, the consensus policy
notes: “It is very easy to create the appearance of a changing consensus
simply by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group
of people will discuss the issue.”
28
Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Consensus
(oldid=223708449)”.
For example, during a dispute about
removing articles on “marginally notable characters” it was suggested that
a policy about such biographies be documented. Another Wikipedian responded:
“The problem is that we have nowhere near consensus for such a policy. A
large number of editors support it, and a large number of editors oppose it.
Different specific cases have gone different ways, mostly depending on who
showed up to the debate that day.”
29
Delirium, “Re: Writing Style (Was: a Valid Criticism),”
wikien-l, October 7, 2005, http://marc.info/?i=4346DE10.8030902@hackish.org
(visited on October 7, 2005).
Wikipedia consensus policy
counsels that this “is a poor example of changing consensus, and is
antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works” and turns, again, toward
reasoned deliberation: “Wikipedia’s decisions are not based on the number
of people who showed up and voted a particular way on a particular day; they
are based on a system of good reasons.”
30
Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Consensus
(oldid=223708449)”.
§5
Time and Precedence
¶21
If consensus is a process whereby participants discuss
and reason together, openness has another challenging implication beyond the
question of who is contributing to the conversation: in an open and
forever-changing group, how long might any decision be considered the group’s
consensus? On first blush — and beside those Wikipedia “foundation
issues” considered to be beyond debate such as neutral point of view —
“consensus is not immutable.”
31
Wikimedia, “Foundation Issues,” Wikimedia, March 26, 2006,
“Wikipedia:Consensus (oldid=223708449)”; for mutability of consensus, see
Travis Kriplean et al., “Community, ...
¶22
Consider a Wikipedia discussion related to how annoying it is when a bookmark
or link to a Web page no longer works. Tim Berners-Lee, in the essay “Cool
URIs Don’t Change,” writes, “Pretty much the only good reason for a
document to disappear from the Web is that the company which owned the domain
name went out of business or can no longer afford to keep the server running.
Then why are there so many dangling links in the world? Part of it is just lack
of forethought.”
32
Tim
Berners-Lee, “Hypertext Style: Cool URIs Don’t Change.,” W3C, 1998,
2008).
The (English) Wikipedia, understandably, suffered from
such a lack of forethought when it succeeded beyond expectation and wanted a
home for other language versions. What should the URI
“http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Chernobyl,” which used to identify the
English article on Chernobyl, point to now? If “www.wikipedia.org” became a
portal for all large language editions, and the English article was moved to an
English namespace (i.e., “http://wikipedia.com/en/Chernobyl”), should the
old URI “break” (i.e., return an “uncool” 404 error message) or
redirect to the new location? Wikipedian Rowan Collins wrote, “I think
talking of this as a ‘contract’ [to not break URLs] is somewhat overdoing
it — it’s an important point that this was the compromise reached during a
previous discussion, but unless there’s a *very* strong statement promising
to uphold it ‘forever,’ we generally treat all consensus policies as
re-negotiable.”
33
Rowan
Collins, “Re: Multilingual Redirect,” Wikipedia-l, October 21, 2005,
October 21, 2005).
This is in keeping with the consensus
policy, which states, “It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the
community to change its mind.”
34
Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Consensus,” Wikipedia, August 23,
2007, http://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=153141886 (visited on July 16,
2008).
Change is sometimes reasonable, but eternally arguing
about the same thing is not, as Wikipedian Philip Sandifer notes: “I’ve
been fighting with the same people over issues with reliable sourcing for well
over a year, for instance, and yet those fights still continue despite,
seemingly, a substantial shift in opinion away from the former hardline
positions (things that included overbroad statements about blogs ‘never’
being reliable sources).”
35
Philip Sandifer, “Reflections on the End of the Spoiler
Wars,” wikien-l, November 14, 2007,
November 14, 2007).
¶23
As
in many of the issues facing Wikipedia, Wikipedians must achieve a delicate
balance, this time between rehashing tired issues and reconsidering vital ones:
between “the need for open and fair consideration of the issues against the
need to make forward progress.” On this point, the IETF and W3C have some
means for judging the merit of an issue. First, working group charters are
carefully constructed so as to focus on issues that are amenable to resolution
within a specified time frame. Second, the working group chair has a critical
job in summarizing and recording discussion; while “it is occasionally
appropriate to revisit a topic, to reevaluate alternatives or to improve the
group’s understanding of a relevant decision,” “unnecessary repeated
discussions” can be avoided with careful records of previous arguments and
conclusions.
36
Bradner,
“RFC 2418,” section 3.3.
Additionally, reasonable criteria
for the consideration of an issue are articulated by the IETF Guide:
¶24
To facilitate making forward progress, a Working
Group Chair may wish to decide to reject or defer the input from a member,
based upon the following criteria: Old: The input pertains to a topic that
already has been resolved and is redundant with information previously
available; Minor: The input is new and pertains to a topic that has already
been resolved, but it is felt to be of minor import to the existing decision;
Timing: The input pertains to a topic that the working group has not yet
opened for discussion; or Scope: The input is outside of the scope of the
working group charter.
37
Ibidem.
¶25
Such criteria can be applied to not only newcomers, but also those who were
present, but silent, or changed their minds. Despite all the focus on
conversation and the cacophony that sometimes accompanies the consensus
process, silence is one of the greatest challenges to successful decision
making. In a working group, silence in response to a request for comments or
objections is rarely a good thing; hopefully participants will at least say,
“Sounds good to me.” While one would like to think that “silence implies
consent, if there is adequate exposure to the community,” as Wikipedia’s
consensus policy states,
38
Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Consensus
(oldid=223708449)”.
this can be a risky inference. Instead,
silence often indicates confusion or a lack of interest. (On working-group
teleconferences one might hear members speaking to colleagues at their office,
their children at home, and even snoring!) At the IETF and W3C this prompted a
step in their processes called “Last Call”: before engineers begin
seriously implementing and testing the specification, those who have the right
to deliberate in consensus also have an obligation to make their views known.
This sentiment is also famously captured in the Anglican wedding ceremony:
before two newlyweds are married those who would object must “speak now; or
else for ever hold your peace.” Or, in the less politic words of a
Wikipedian, people should “either put up or shut up”: people don’t have
to participate, “but when they don’t they should not moan when their voice
is not considered.”
39
Gerard
Meijssen, “Re: New Request for Cantonese Wikipedia: Vote at 29-6”,
Wikipedia-l, September 25, 2005,
2005).
§6
The Facilitator
¶26
In many consensus-based communities a facilitator
performs a number of tasks, the most important of which is positing a consensus
statement. The articulation of such a statement and asking for objections is
central to Jane Mansbridge’s definition of consensus in her comparative study
of decision making titled
Beyond Adversary Democracy
; she uses the
term
consensus
to “describe a form of decision making in which,
after discussion, one or more members of the assembly sum up prevailing
sentiment, and if no objections are voiced, this becomes agreed-on
policy.”
40
Jane J.
Mansbridge, Beyond Adversary Democracy (New York: Basic Books, 1980), 32,
2005).
This offering of an understanding and asking for
objection is also part of the answer to the question of how a group knows
consensus has been reached: when there are no objections. The IETF recommends
that when the chair of the working group believes she discerns a consensus she
should articulate her understanding of the consensus position and ask for
comments; then, “It is up to the Chair to determine if rough consensus has
been reached.”
41
Bradner,
“RFC 2418,” section 3.3.
A similar understanding exists at
the W3C. However, determinations by the chairperson must be tenable to the
working group and are reviewable by higher-ups, particularly after Last Call,
in each institution (e.g., IETF area directors and W3C director and advisory
committee).
¶27
Among Quakers, Michael Sheeran notes that facilitators are known as humble
“clerks” — reminiscent of a Wikipedia discussion equating administrators
with “janitors”; nonetheless, they can wield significant influence beyond
their seemingly simple responsibilities, much as is often alleged in the case
of Wikipedia administrators. (On this point, Mailer Diablo’s Second Law of
Wikipedia is adapted from Stalin to read: “The Wikipedians who cast the votes
decide nothing. The sysop/[bureau]’crat who count the votes decide
everything.”
42
Wikipedia,
“User:Raul654/Raul’s Laws (oldid=301373968)”.
) In his
chapter on leadership, Sheeran notes, “The clerk’s responsibilities”
might also serve as “devices for hidden control” with respect to setting
the agenda (i.e., scheduling which issues are discussed and when), stating
questions (i.e., in an even-handed manner), facilitating the discussion (i.e.,
encouraging participation and discouraging obstructionists), judging what is
important (i.e., whether something is substantive or trivial), and judging the
sense of the meeting (i.e., is there consensus?).
43
Sheeran, Beyond Majority Rule,
92-98.
These devices might be used for good (e.g., structuring
the agenda so that a working group gains momentum from easier issues) or ill
(e.g., scheduling an unwelcome item at the end of a full agenda).
¶28
These communities benefit from the (hopefully) wise guidance of a trusted
community member, be it a working group “chair” or meeting “clerk.” In
much of Wikipedia decision making there is rarely any such formally identified
resource at the start. (Though through requests for comments, mediation, or
arbitration such a person might become involved.) The effects of this can be
seen in the naming controversy with which I opened the chapter. Wikipedian
Wknight94 summarized the issue in his statement this way:
¶29
A clear-cut case of supermajority consensus has
become a nasty all-out war with a very vocal minority. A poll which is now
visible here included a question of whether television episode articles
should only be disambiguated when necessary…. The result was 26 people
choosing to support disambiguating only when necessary and seven choosing to
oppose. The poll was well-publicized. Nonetheless, a few members of the
minority, mostly Elonka and occasionally MatthewFenton, have declared that
there was no consensus and that the dispute is still open. The reason most
often given is that the poll was modified several times while in progress.
While that is true, it was mostly modified from a one-question poll with
three choices to a two-question poll, each with two choices, and the meaning
of the most contentious issue remained unchanged (not to mention Elonka
herself modified the poll…)
44
Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration/Naming
Conventions (oldid=101952465)”.
¶30
Wikipedian Josiah Rowe spoke of a possible confusion about the meaning of
consensus and the seeming triviality of the issue:
¶31
Of course, consensus does not mean unanimity, but as
long as we were short of unanimity, Elonka (and one or two others) insisted
that the poll needed to be re-run…. The core issue of this debate, how to
name articles about television episodes, is really quite unimportant in the
greater scheme of Wikipedia. I really don’t understand why the debate got
to this point, and it saddens me that it has. Any resolution would be
welcome.
45
Ibidem.
¶32
Beyond affirming the principle that one should abstain from personal attacks
— particularly of a sexual nature — the ArbCom responded to this dilemma by
focusing on the failure to “close” the discussion.
46
My selective portrayal of this
case should not be construed as representative of the case or the
participants.
This focus on closure is puzzling in that most
users believed the case was about naming policy and “about consensus —
whether it was reached.” Wikipedian Yaksha continued: “The result i’m
hoping for is just a declaration that we got consensus, and that people should
respect consensus.”
47
Wikipedia,
“Wikipedia Talk:Requests for Arbitration/Naming Conventions”, Wikipedia,
February 12, 2007, http://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=107562939 (visited on
July 16, 2008).
Yet, the ArbCom characterized the issue as a
procedural one, as noted in the affirmed principles of the decision:
¶33
1.3) After extended discussion, to be effective, the
consensus decision making process must close…. In other, less structured,
situations, as in the case of how to structure the titles of television
episodes, there is no formal closer. Nevertheless, considering the
alternatives proposed, the extended discussion engaged in, expressions of
preference, there is a result which should be respected. Absent formal
closing, it is the responsibility of users to evaluate the process and draw
appropriate conclusions.
48
Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration/Naming
Conventions (oldid=101952465)”.
¶34
This is somewhat surprising and confusing. One must look closely in the
decision’s “finding of fact” to see that consensus is presumed by the
ArbCom (“a consensus decision was reached”) without stating how this
conclusion is arrived at, and most importantly, how Wikipedians can convince a
recalcitrant minority when this is the case? As Yaksha noted, he believed there
was consensus and began to rename articles to disambiguate only when necessary,
but “Elonka, however, claimed that there was no consensus, to move the
articles, and that the moves were disruptive.” And so the “edit war”
began. Wikipedians found the decision ultimately unsatisfying, and so in the
following thread Wikipedian badlydrawnjeff asked who was responsible for
knowing when to close, and ArbCom member Fred Bauder attempted to respond:
¶35
The final decision notes that “It is the
responsibility of the administrators and other responsible parties to close
extended policy discussions they are involved in.” What is a “responsible
party?” What sort of expectation is it to close an “extended policy
discussion?” At what point is it “extended,” and at what stage is it
okay to throw in the towel? At an arbitrary moment or simply when the
discussion becomes “disruptive?” Thanks. —badlydrawnjeff 22:15, 21
January 2007 (UTC)
¶36
An established and respected user who is not an administrator could close a
discussion. An extended policy discussion is one in which most aspects of the
question ha[ve] been discussed, alternatives considered, in short, a full
discussion. Good judgement is needed to determine when consensus has been
reached or when it is obvious there is no consensus. When the discussion
becomes disruptive, more heat than light, it is probably past time to close
the discussion and declare a result. Fred Bauder 22:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
¶37
So nothing really specific, per se? —badlydrawnjeff 01:21, 23 January 2007
(UTC) The subject does not lend itself to bright line rules. The question is
whether the question has been fully discussed and a decision reached. Fred
Bauder 01:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
¶38
However, it is still difficult to see how this situation could have been
avoided. Wikipedian Ned Scott joined the conversation by noting that Bauder’s
response wasn’t really useful:
¶39
It’s basically saying “If you think you’re
right then say so and tell everyone to shut up.” Won’t everyone think
they’re right in a discussion/dispute/etc? If the situation is reasonably
clear one way or the other then we usually don’t have to resort to
something like this to end it. The situations this is supposed to be helpful
in are usually too unclear to actually use this. — Ned Scott 05:24, 24
January 2007 (UTC)
¶40
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions involved a matter where
there was a consensus, but no closing. Based on lack of closing, an
opposition party engaged in move warring. That was the problem we were trying
to address. Fred Bauder 03:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
¶41
guess that’s one way to look at it, but the solution offered still isn’t
helpful. Nothing personal. — Ned Scott 04:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
¶42
Fortunately, Wikipedian Ace Class Shadow offered some useful advice while
recognizing there is no perfect solution: one could use templates to mark that
a discussion page is now archived, or one could “ask an impartial closer to
do the deed, stating that you’ll respect their common sense judgment. To this
day, I’ve only encounter[ed] one closing that, using this method, seemed at
all inaccurate.”
¶43
For
this dispute, it is not clear if this guidance could have convinced the
minority supporting consistent-suffix use of the legitimacy of the “use as
needed” policy. Therefore, beyond the censure on personal attacks and
“given the existence of some uncertainty regarding how to determine if there
is consensus in a particular case,” no punishment was proposed on any of the
parties to the case “for past violations of policy.”
49
Wikipedia, “Wikipedia
Talk:Requests for Arbitration/Naming Conventions
(oldid=107562939)”.
Such is the ambiguity and challenge of
consensus practice, and a possible source of temptation to use some system of
voting.
§7
Polling and Voting
¶44
Consensus is the preferred method of making decisions
at Wikipedia. This is as much because of this method’s merits (e.g.,
discovering mutually beneficial solutions) as its alternatives’ demerits.
While consensus can be difficult, Wikipedians frequently cite the aphorism that
“Voting Is Evil.”
50
Wikipedia,
“Wikipedia:Voting Is Evil,” Wikipedia, August 6, 2007,
is ...
¶45
Yet, as seen earlier, polling is an available technique within the consensus
process. When a poll is taken on Wikipedia, individuals are invited to list
their position under one of the specified options (e.g., A or B; accept,
reject, abstain) with an explanation, which then might prompt further
commentary and discussion. How is polling different from voting? While people
may confuse polling with voting — or even speak of voting as “a quick
shorthand for what we are actually doing”
51
Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Straw
Polls,” Wikipedia, May 23, 2008, http://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=214504581
(visited on October 3, 2008).
— polling should prompt and
shape discussion, rather than terminate it:
¶46
Wikipedia operates on discussion-driven consensus,
and can therefore be regarded as “not a democracy” since a vote might run
counter to these ends. Some therefore advocate avoiding votes wherever
possible. In general, only long-running disputes should be the subject of a
poll. Even then, participants in the dispute should understand that the poll
does not create a consensus. At best, it might reflect how close those
involved are to one.
52
Wikimedia, “Don’t Vote on Everything,” Wikimedia, 2007,
2007).
¶47
In
fact, even polling is considered suspect — and “evil” — by some as it
is thought to discourage consensus, encourage groupthink, be unfair, be
misleading, and encourage confusion;
53
Wikimedia, “Polls Are Evil,” Wikimedia, 2007,
Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Polling Is Not a Substitute for Discussion,”
Wikipedia, September 10, 2008, http://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=2
...
the botched poll in the disambiguation case is evidence
enough of possible pitfalls.
¶48
To
be fair, consensus doesn’t work well in all circumstances. It is best suited
to small groups of people with some common interests and acting in and assuming
good faith. It requires a community, not just an electorate. Jane Mansbridge,
in her study of decision making, finds that groups with the largest number of
interdependent friendships were those most likely to achieve a consensus that
“did not paper over an underlying divided vote.”
54
Mansbridge, Beyond Adversary
Democracy, 175.
But as a group grows the “Community May Not
Scale,” as is noted at Meatball (the wiki about wiki collaboration).
Meatball’s consensus page states that as the size of the group (n) increases,
so does the chance of conflict between individuals (n^2) and between subgroups
(2^n):
¶49
Voting is one of the best ways to quantify opinions
in a large group. Online communities that have a common goal will be
continually in need of making decisions. In a small group of similar-minded
individuals, a consensus decision can often be found by discussion. In such a
group, VotingIsEvil. However, as the group grows larger,
CommunityMayNotScale. For each member of the group, there’s a certain
likelihood that he disagrees with one of the existing members. The likelihood
of conflict between two individuals grows geometrically, according to
MetcalfesLaw. The likelihood of conflict between two sub-groups grows
exponentially, according to ReedsLaw. If individuals with contrary opinions
are CommunityExiled, the group may succumb to GroupThink. If not excluded,
they may delay consensus decisions indefinitely. Therefore,
VotingIsGood.
55
Meatball, “VotingIsGood,” January 27, 2005,
Meatball still uses the historic “CamelCase” wiki method of linking to
other pages by concatenating the capitalized words of th ...
¶50
Clay Shirky writes that social software must be designed so as to protect a
group from becoming “its own worst enemy” by finding a way “to spare the
group from scale.”
56
Clay
Shirky, “A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy,” Keynote at O’Reilly Emerging
Technology Conference, shirky.com, April 24, 2003,
14.
In fact, theorists and members of online community alike
cite “Dunbar’s number” or “the Rule of 150” to indicate the
challenges of community growth. (This idea of a maximum limit on the number of
stable interpersonal relationships that we can maintain was popularized by
Malcolm Gladwell in
The Tipping Point
; he gives many examples
including the Hutterites, a communal branch of Anabaptists, who split a colony
in two once it reaches 150 members.
57
Malcolm Gladwell, The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make
a Big Difference (Boston, MA: Little Brown, 2000), 181.
¶51
Additionally, consensus is not a panacea for the difficulties inherent to group
decision making. The Wikipedia “Consensus” article notes that consensus can
take a long time, be frustrating in circumstances where there is little hope of
agreement, and, when understood as unanimity, can give a self-interested
minority veto power over group decisions.
58
Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Consensus
(oldid=223708449)”.
Furthermore, the “Consensus
Decision-Making” article notes that consensus is inherently conservative
(i.e., preserves the status quo), susceptible to disruption, and can give rise
to groupthink by which members suppress their own opinions for the sake of
conformity or group harmony. This can even yield a paradox in which the
group’s final position is held by few members, such as when members falsely,
for harmony’s sake, support a “cascading” but minority position because
it benefited from being expressed first.
59
Sunstein, Why Societies Need
Dissent, 59.
¶52
And
while voting may be appropriate in some circumstances, or at least a last
resort if consensus fails, the openness of Wikipedia, again, contributes to the
sentiment that voting “is evil.” Meatball notes “online voting suffers
badly” because people can “stuff the ballot box” or bias the framing of
the poll.
60
Meatball,
“VotingIsEvil,” November 16, 2007,
2008).
The “sock puppet,” a cousin of the “troll,” is
an account used to “create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to
mislead others, to artificially stir up controversy, to aid in disruption, or
to circumvent a block.”
61
Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Sock Puppetry,” Wikipedia, March 5,
2009, http://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=275114814 (visited on March 6,
2009).
(Think of a literal sock puppet on your hand, agreeing
with everything you say.) These types of problems are particularly prominent in
the voting associated with “Articles for Deletion” (AfD, where Deletionists
and Inclusionists duel) and “Requests for Adminship” (RfA, where bitter
rivalries flourish).
62
Ben
McIlwain, “We Need a Policy against Vote-Stacking,” wikien-l, May 4, 2006,
Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion (oldid=128043238)”; Wikipedia,
“Wikipedia:Requests f ...
¶53
While the distinction between polling and voting might blur as an argument
grinds on and the possibility of consensus declines, the spirit and mechanics
of the two are different. Consider that in consensus, if a group has not
succumbed to groupthink, one should feel free to speak of and identify with a
minority position. People will need to know whom to engage with and potentially
learn from. Yet in democratic voting, the secret ballot has significant
advantages. In a thread about a resolution of the Wikimedia Foundation Board,
Danny Wool, a foundation employee, wrote that he found questions about who
voted for or against a resolution troubling: “In a true democratic system,
the secret ballot allows people to vote their conscience, rather than voting
for popularity, material reward, fear of censure, and whatnot. A commitment to
openness should not be misused so cynically.”
63
Danny Wool, “[Foundation-l]
Breaking Promises (Was Re: Where We Are Headed),” Foundation-l, June 5,
2006, http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-June/020815.html
(visited on August 8, 2006).
Additionally, consensus presumes
good faith and sometimes sustains it; voting can operate without good faith and
sometimes depletes it altogether. Mansbridge argues the differences between
voting and consensus can be understood thus: “Voting symbolizes, reinforces,
and institutionalizes division…. while a decision by consensus includes
everyone, reinforcing the unity of the group.”
64
Mansbridge, Beyond Adversary
Democracy, 10.
This can also be seen in different Internet
standards organizations. Granted, “politics” are present in every venue,
but in consensus organizations participants might be more likely to show up
with an open mind and willingness to engage others. In voting-based
institutions, “stuffing the ballot box” can get out of hand. This was
demonstrated most effectively in a case that merits a brief digression.
¶54
In
response to the growing popularity of the OpenDocument Format (ODF) standard,
an alternative to the proprietary format used by MS Word, Microsoft offered a
new version of its formats through a “fast-track” international standard
process.
65
Ryan Paul,
“XML Spec Editor: OOXML ISO Process Is ‘Unadulterated BS’,” March 2,
2008,
(visited on August 6, 2008).
For supporters of open standards
this could be a significant gain except that the format is said to be complex,
vendor biased, that it does not make full use of other standards, and is
difficult to fully implement.
66
Edward Macnaghten, “ODF/OOXML Technical White Paper,”
May 2, 2007,
(visited on August 6, 2008).
When it came time to vote
Microsoft is alleged to have pressed allies to acquire voting (“P”)
memberships in an International Organization for Standardization (ISO) working
group for the purpose of approving the format (i.e., identified as ECMA 376 /
ISO 29500). It appears the standardization effort has been successful, although
some claim the voting process was abused.
67
Scott M. Fulton III, “Evidence
of Microsoft Influencing OOXML Votes in Nordic States”, BetaNews, August 28,
2007,
(visited on August 6, 2008). ...
And there has been an
interesting — and unfortunate — side effect. In one of his final reports as
chair of the responsible working group, Martin Bryan noted, “The second half
of 2007 has been an extremely trying time for WG1. I am more than a little glad
my 3 year term is up, and must commiserate with my successor on taking over an
almost impossible task.” In addition to the short time frame, and the
interdependencies and complexity of the task, the arrival of otherwise
uninterested members made subsequent work impossible to complete because those
who joined to vote on this single issue subsequently disappeared, preventing a
quorum:
¶55
As ISO require[s] at least 50% of P members to vote
before they start to count the votes we have had to reballot standards that
should have been passed and completed their publication stages at Kyoto….
The days of open standards development are fast disappearing. Instead we are
getting “standardization by corporation,” Something I have been fighting
against for the 20 years I have served on ISO committees. I am glad to be
retiring before the situation becomes impossible. I wish my colleagues every
success for their future efforts, which I sincerely hope will not prove to be
as wasted as I fear they could be.
68
Martin Bryan, “Report on WG1 Activity for December 2007
Meeting of ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34/WG1 in Kyoto,” November 29, 2007,
2008).
¶56
At
Wikipedia, additional confusion arises about the gray area between consensus
and voting. In voting systems, it is not uncommon for like-minded individuals
to advocate, campaign, and horse trade (i.e., exchanging votes on different
issues).
69
I discuss
similar arguments over trading votes and advocacy that took place in the KDE
development community when their bug tracking system adopted a feature allowing
...
In a thread on the English Wikipedia list, Wikipedian
Johntex advocated that “We Need to Recognize That Advocating Is a Basic
Right”; he argued users should be able to “influence policy in ways that
they believe are beneficial to the project,” including “building up groups
of people who agree with you and who will help you bring about the beneficial
change.” Advocating for a cause or recruiting those who already agree with
you is “a Good Thing”:
¶57
Let’s stop insulting people by calling them
“meat puppets” or “vote stackers.” Let’s stop confusing the issue
by calling it “spamming.” It is not spamming. Spamming is
indiscriminately notifying people that are probably not interested in the
hopes that a few people will be. This is practically the opposite. Attempting
to stifle advocacy is harmful to the consensus building process and it is
harmful to the project. If we try to prohibit it, it will just be taken
off-wiki, which would be a huge shame.
70
John Tex, “We Need to
Recognize That Advocating Is a Basic Right,” wikien-l, May 4, 2006,
(visited on May 4, 2006).
¶58
But
others disagreed, finding these practices from the democratic sphere to be
counter to consensus practice. Wikipedian Tony Sidaway responded, “We don’t
do advocacy or campaigning on Wikipedia. Our decision-making processes are
deliberative rather than democratic.”
71
Tony Sidaway, “Re: We Need to
Recognize That Advocating Is a Basic Right,” wikien-l, May 5, 2006,
(visited on May 5, 2006).
Yet, the difficulties of achieving
consensus and this blurring of approaches to decision making prompted Zoney to
declare that any pretense of consensus should be abandoned and the community
should move toward a “fixed method of decision-making”:
¶59
My problem is that perpetuating the lie that
decision-making on Wikipedia is by consensus, we don’t strictly adhere to
any other decision-making form (e.g. majority voting). In consequence,
decisions are “whatever people can get away with.” Of course if there’s
an actual real consensus (general agreement) then there’s a valid reason
for a decision not being challenged. But more often than not all it means is
that influential individuals ensure they get their way and others give up
(that isn’t forming consensus by the way), or else we have majority/mob
rule.
72
Zoney,
“Re: ‘Consensus’ and Decision Making on Wikipedia,” wikien-l,
June 29, 2007, http://marc.info/?l=wikien-l&m=118311257100564&w=2
(visited on June 29, 2007).
¶60
In
the resulting thread some conceded there are problems, but not as bad as
feared. The discussion touched on many of the challenges discussed in this
chapter. And some took a pragmatic “time will tell” approach: hopefully the
right thing happens more often than not. Sidaway felt that ultimately,
“Decisions are more likely closer to ‘whatever offends the least number of
people.’ This is sometimes less than optimal—I could give my list of things
I think are poor decisions and you could probably give yours. The result is
that nobody is ecstatic but we have something we can move ahead with.”
73
Tony Sidaway, “Re:
‘Consensus’ and Decision Making on Wikipedia,” wikien-l, June 29, 2007,
June 29, 2007).
Likening emerging consensus to nailing jelly
to the wall and keeping the stuff that sticks, he continued his pragmatic
perspective: “If hundreds of people edit a piece of work in good faith over a
long period, what changes least over time may be presumed to be there by
consensus. However even the most apparently stable elements of a work may be
deposed quite easily. The result may be a new consensus or, in other cases, a
period of instability where the new version and the old version
compete.”
74
Tony
Sidaway, “Re: ‘Consensus’and Decision Making on Wikipedia,” wikien-l,
June 27, 2007, http://marc.info/?l=wikien-l&m=118292148913045&w=2
(visited on June 27, 2007).
In response to the discussion
Zoney asked in frustration if there is then “any hope of having a fixed
method of decision-making on Wikipedia, rather than a shambolic pretence of
achieving consensus …?” Wikipedian Adrian responded simply,
“No.”
75
Adrian,
“Re: ‘Consensus’ and Decision Making on Wikipedia,” wikien-l, June 26,
2007, http://marc.info/?i=46818E71.2050000@googlemail.com (visited on June 26,
2007).
Marc Riddell responded a little more encouragingly,
“Yes, there is hope; if we can put our individual egos and emotions aside —
and start using our heads in a responsible way.”
76
Marc Riddell, “Re:
‘Consensus’ and Decision Making on Wikipedia,” wikien-l, June 26, 2007,
June 26, 2007).
§8
Conclusion
¶61
Humans naturally look for means by which difficulties
can be clearly dissected and neatly dispatched. Yet, given its reliance upon an
assumption of good faith and a preference for consensus in its decision making,
one can conclude that the Wikipedia community is relatively tolerant of the
ambiguities inherent to collaborating on a world encyclopedia and rather
trusting of human judgment over the long run. While Wikipedia must often
address many of the conflicts present in the real world, and has plenty unique
to its own mission and methods, I would never argue that Wikipedia has become
the global institution of “adjustment and adjudication” that Wells foresaw.
However, Wikipedia is a fascinating example of a historic method of community
decision making in a new context. In particular, its openness — the lack of
topical and temporal scope, the initial lack of facilitation, the turnover in
membership, and anonymity — brings a new salience to the challenges of
consensus practice.
¶62
These challenges are seen in the humorous — perhaps cynical — definition of
consensus at the head of this chapter (i.e., the scope of consensus includes
only those who share your opinion). Similarly, in response to the question
“How many Wikipedians does it take to change a light bulb?” Wikipedian
Durova answered “69”:
¶63
1 to propose the change; 5 to support; 1 to dispute
whether the change is a needed process; 7 more to pile on from IRC [Internet
Relay Chat] and join the dispute; 2 to open a request for comment; 37 to vote
at the straw poll; 5 to say votes are evil; 1 to MFD it [propose it as
“Miscellany For Deletion”]; 9 to object until the MFD gets speedily
closed; 1 to mark the proposal historical. Afterward on AN [Administrators’
Noticeboard], all opposers claim the consensus favored darkness [i.e., no
light bulb!].
77
Bibliomaniac15, “How Many Wikipedians Does It Take to Screw
in a Lightbulb?,” Wikipedia, July 11, 2009,
¶64
In another “WikiSpeak” entry consensus is defined
as “one of the three states that can be reached at the end of a discussion
after all parties have become thoroughly fed up with it; the alternatives are
no consensus or for pity’s sake, I wish I’d never gotten involved in
this.”
78
Wikipedia,
“User:Malleus Fatuorum/WikiSpeak (oldid=224745874)”.
It
can be an altogether frustrating experience. And in some circumstances, such as
irreconcilable differences between community members or external threat, this
tolerance can be incapacitating. And so, Wikipedia, like other open content
communities, is also characterized by an odd type of leadership at the highest
level: the “benevolent dictator,” the subject of the next chapter.
prev
] [
next
] · [
prev-bottom
] [
top
] · [
up
] © 2010 by Joseph Michael Reagle Jr.
CC-NC-SA 3.0