I think it may be wise to transition the wiki from a consensus system to a democratic system, basically favoring a "majority rules" system. The reasons I believe this are as folllows:
- Our community as it stands is rather small. In order for a consensus system to work, we would need a much larger community of people who regularly vote on things.
- I think a consensus system is partially flawed for a wiki scenario in the first place, as it requires a neutral party to decide the outcome of the voting and discussion; the flaw eminates from the fact that there can't really be a truly neutral party, as whoever is deciding the outcome will have at least some bias towards one side of an argument. A democratic "majority rules" system is simpler.
Even though I suggest we abandon the consensus policy, I do not want to completely remove it from how our wiki functions. In the event of a tie in voting, I propose there be a select committee of users, probably administrators or bureaucrats, that convene and decide on the outcome of the argument based on the best possible good for the wiki. This may be biased in and of itself, but ties will be rare.
All it would take is a few edits to convert, and it would not affect every-day editing. Only forums regarding changes to the wiki (where votes are required) would be affected. I believe it's in our best interest. Please post your thoughts, and whether you agree. Joe Copp 02:16, August 15, 2013 (UTC)