Kelly Martin recently blogged about consensus and Wikipedia. While consensus might sound good, is it any way to run an encyclopedia? The issue was the introduction of some Javascript code that adds dismissable notices to ones watchlist based on their assumed location. This code as near as I can make out, had two supporters, Kat Walsh and Greg Maxwell, and that was enough to cause controversy, and a lack of consensus.

I'll assume "consensus" works for writing articles. Martin asks, does it work for operating the entire project? As an outsider, I would say no. But are there alternatives to consensus? As Martin writes, consensus can be used to block changes to the project. It's hard to pin down definition doesn't help either. I was never asked about the Javascript code, so I never gave my approval, but I am not objecting either.

What I am seeing here is a question about the governance of Wikipedia (WP). This issue is perhaps an example of what goes on at WP. Seasoned editors taking time out to debate a change. We can hope, they don't spend too much time in debate. Maybe Jimmy Wales can see this one coming, it's tempting to look at Atlas Shrugged. In that book, it was the producers versus the parasites. Generally, in Atlas Shrugged, the parasites include the government types. I'd argue that a typical government produces nothing. That it transfers resources and also consumes them, but is incapable of going beyond that and producing wealth (In our case, what people want from an encyclopedia.).
 
In the specific case of the Javascript code, something may have been produced, and in typical government fashion, it was challenged, using some of the same arguments typical governments use. Government is the anti-production. If Martin has identified a problem here, I find it interesting that it is matching up, in my opinion with what Ayn Rand wrote. 

What alternatives would I offer to consensus? I'll use a libertarian argument. We libertarians believe in democracy. That is only moral way to achieve what we want. That requires, that people adopt and/or have our beliefs. Libertarians need to convince others that their ideas are worthwhile. I'd guess in WP's case, it's achieving the goal and relying on consensus or something like it, to do that. It's nothing more than relying on the individual to see the light. 

Does my point of view seem like just a bunch of libertarian gibberish? Maybe it is. Can you name any libertarians elected to office? If the governance of WP devolves into just a bunch of people wanting to win and have power, WP will be less than it could be, and it will have failed in some respects.

 

What did you think of this article?

Liked
Disliked
No Opinion