I've been on a few other wikis and have noticed that they don't use democracy as a way to make decisions on the wiki but rather use consensus. The main difference between consensus and democracy in that when deciding based on consensus an admin will look at all arguments presented and then make a decision based on what seems best not which is most favored.
We don't vote a lot on this wiki because we've pretty much established everything which needs establishing but I also notice that we're very cliquey and when one of us decides something we make sure all of our friends decide that way too, this change would make sure votes don't boil down to who has the most friends as we've seen in past votes.
The down side to this is that decisions would be left to admins instead of the community and as I've seen on other wikis it leads to admins becoming a bit big headed about their internet powers.
Anywho, thoughts? Composite 4
- I don't see a problem with this as long as consensus is achieved in a mature fashion and as long as the admins aren't serious dickwads, which isn't really a problem here. I have noticed how flawed our voting system is.
- As an alternative, when voting on an issue, we can institute a polling system so that all votes are anonymous. One of the problems with our current voting system is that all votes are public, and many users fear that, if they don't vote with the majority, they'll be forced to deal with people raging at them or trying to force them to change their vote. Another nice thing about the polling system would be that people can't go back and change their votes. --Twentyfists 18:02, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that fear is really a problem since people jump the bandwagon much earlier than they will think for themselves. Composite 4
I think there is an element of fear. Not as in fear for one's safety, but perhaps a fear of stigma? I don't feel like looking it up, but when Bulletproof made Dead-Eye Dick, a longtime user seemed genuinely offended until I revealed my involvement, at which point he claimed his offense was a joke. Anyways, how would a consensus be any less bandwagon-ish?--OvaltinePatrol 22:55, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
Because if users are forced to present rational arguments rather than just say "yes" or "no" then a more logical outcome can be decided. Composite 4
Ah, I see what you mean OP, yea, people here also hate people they haven't met ^.^ Which I think was the case. If someone they haven't met tries to do something they haven't seen before they pick at it until they see a fatal flaw. Composite 4