Bureaucrats, checkuser, interwiki, staff, Administrators
9,132
edits
Abd Lomax: Difference between revisions
add WikiLink
Manorainjan (talk | contribs) (Please adjust and add as appropriate, see Category:EnglishSpeakers and Category:Language.) |
MarkDilley (talk | contribs) (add WikiLink) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I am a a long-term student of Consensus|consensus process, and anticipated much of the wiki movement. However, the 800 lb gorilla, the [[English Wikipedia]], was naive about consensus process and the community did not realize that it is far from 'quick'. That is, the basic operation of the [[wiki]] could indeed be quick, ad hoc, and it was not surprising that this worked as well as it did. However, for the project to be NPOV (express a neutral point of view), genuine consensus process was needed. Outside of narrow circumstances where high consensus is relatively natural, this requires deep discussion and often skilled facilitation. | I am a a long-term student of [[:Category:Consensus|consensus process]], and anticipated much of the wiki movement. However, the 800 lb gorilla, the [[English Wikipedia]], was naive about consensus process and the community did not realize that it is far from 'quick'. That is, the basic operation of the [[wiki]] could indeed be quick, ad hoc, and it was not surprising that this worked as well as it did. However, for the project to be NPOV (express a neutral point of view), genuine consensus process was needed. Outside of narrow circumstances where high consensus is relatively natural, this requires deep discussion and often skilled facilitation. | ||
So Wikipedia failed to be neutral. It has ideals of neutrality, and often meets them, but never became reliable, because of a lack of structure that would make this happen. | So Wikipedia failed to be neutral. It has ideals of neutrality, and often meets them, but never became reliable, because of a lack of structure that would make this happen. | ||