consensus building | ||
Sounds like inventing the wheel. Since the historic Arab/Jewish Forum of 1975 our Cognitive Network supports Consensus Building. People vote, deliberate, get convinced, change votes and the process is stopped when the consensus reaches a degree fixed by Forum rule, general, or particular to an issue. Consensus is evaluated automatically by bottom up inferencing procedure. It is not necessarily just majority calculation, but a procedure customised by Forum which may include such functions ans weighted vote (how important is that option for the voter), minority protection etc. This Consensus Building is there, implemented for 30 years and currently used by our Forums. Georges | ||
|
Deciding Consensus | ||
From Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus∞ Rough consensus An aspect of Wikipedia that confounds many people is the fact that there is essentially no formal voting, and informal votes or straw polls are rare. The general rule on disputed topics is that Wikipedia has to come to "rough consensus", though the meaning of this is disputed. The exact method of determining rough consensus varies from time to time, case to case, and person to person. The lack of voting has caused some long delays for some proposals, but most Wikipedians who have witnessed rough consensus after acrimonious debates feel that the delays often result in better results. (If you think about it, how could you have "voting" in a group you can't count the participants of, and which anyone can join?) (with apologies to the "Tao of IETF" (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3160.txt)∞) Administrators necessarily must use their best judgement, attempting to be as impartial as is possible for a fallible human, to determine when rough consensus has been reached. For example, administrators can disregard votes and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such "bad faith" votes include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article. <Bruce note, the administrator has much power here, however they are "watched" so a consensus error could be confronted immediately. (This relies on the people being outright.) This is all quite different in cyber land where we can monitor everything. In my home community everything is "under the table". I think the decision recall is automatic, however it could be written so people recoginize they have this right.> Bruce | ||
|
Wikipedia on consensus | ||
Interestingly enough, Wikipedia people also arrived at the need to have the 66% to 80% consensus. Read the second paragraph here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus∞ | ||
|