Wikipedia talk:Consensus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal." -- Jimmy Wales

[edit] Archives

[edit] Ouch

Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus. If we find that a particular consensus happens often, we write it down as a guideline, to save people the time having to discuss the same principles over and over. Normally consensus is reached via discussion on talk pages. In the rare situations where this doesn't work, it is also possible to use the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution processes, which are designed to assist consensus-building...

And so it goes. What does it all mean? If we're trying to be all "descriptive, not prescriptive" and all that stuff, then let's face it, "consensus" is an abused word around here. What is consensus, as it relates to the wiki process, can we explain these without trying to define consensus in terms of itself. I wish I could provide more focused criticism, but my head hurts. 192.75.48.150 20:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Does Consensus decision making help any? Note that wikis use consensus per definition. If there is consensus on the state of a page, the page is not changed, if there is not consensus on the state of the page, the page gets changed. It might get several changes before a new consensus is settled upon.

of course, with all the um, things going on all over the place on wikipedia these days (including talk pages, project namespace pages, wikiprojects and goodness knows what else), this basic, simple concept of consensus gets pushed to the background. But it's still there, and it's still the main mechanism, simply because it's there on every page :-) Kim Bruning 21:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Would it make your head feel better if we define it in terms of related concepts? I.e. "consensus is the result of thoughtful dialogue, which takes place both through the editing process itself, and through outside discussion." Actually that's basically how I read the page as it stands, but perhaps it could be clarified to appear less circular. -- Visviva 15:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] While we're on the subject

It just struck me as weird that "consensus" is a guideline, whereas "consensus can change" is policy... :) (Radiant) 15:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oddly, that seems about right to me. :-) -- Visviva 16:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If you walk this path all the way, well, that would be interesting. :-) Kim Bruning 18:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Have you noticed any other odd taggings, lately?

Yeah, several. I'm working on it, though. Any in particular you had in mind? (Radiant) 11:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Not really, it'd just be interesting if you continue looking at the situation on a general scale. I'm curious if you'll draw the same conclusions I did. :-) Kim Bruning 18:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I am. The two main problems seem to be (1) too much bureaucracy, and (2) many new(ish) editors make incorrect assumptions about how Wikipedia works, based on misinterpretation, partial observation or just not based on anything much, and strongly resist having these assumptions challenged. This is both caused by and causing the utter mess that is the Wikipedia namespace, and is difficult to work with. For a more concrete issue, it seems that the 3RR has become a net detriment, because the relevant process is downright byzantine, and because it tends to give people the impression that edit warring is acceptable if one sticks to the boundaries, and that it's okay to recruit people for the fourth. (Radiant) 10:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This is odd. I don't see how consensus can be anything but policy, since it is an integral part of the wiki process. As I have mentioned above, I think this page needs to describe that process better, and should be less about resolving disputes and polling. Re-written this way, it would be policy as it is a foundation of Wikipedia. A page about how to solve disputes using consensus would be a guideline. -- Samuel Wantman 18:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep. As mentioned above, all of our policies and guidelines depend on this thing called "consensus", but no one really knows what that means. — Omegatron 06:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea. >Radiant< 10:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Policy

This seems like it should be a policy rather than a guideline. I'll change it in a few days if nobody has a problem, but that's a big change so it's best to wait awhile and discuss here. Just H 02:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

There's related discussion on the talk page of WP:CCC. Arguably consensus is such a basic principle that it could be policy. >Radiant< 10:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Arguably, using a Policy to say that a Guideline is not binding is ridiculous.Circeus 19:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  - I don't think WP:CCC is saying that Wikipedia:Consensus is not binding; it's saying that consensus on Wikipedia does not constrain itself. So I don't really see the problem with this remaining at guideline status, although I have no particular objection to the change. -- Visviva 15:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    - It's just that it's irrelevant to state here as a policy, rather than there, that wikipedia decisions are taken by consensus.Circeus 16:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking at the talk page for WP:CCC. What discussion are you referring to? Where is the difference between a policy and a guideline explained anyway?

According to WP:POLICY - none really, but policies "more official and less likely to have exceptions". It's not really made clear what's official and what's not in this context, let alone what would make something more or less official than something else.
The ticky boxes for both policy and guideline are identical, except:
- Guidelines have blue tickies, policies have green tickies.
- Guidelines are "not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception" in the guideline box, with the last two words linking to WP:IAR. This suggests that policies are set in stone and not amenable to exceptions and common sense.

Missing something? 72.137.20.109 03:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's accurate to say that policies are not amenable to exceptions and common sense, but it is accurate to say that making exceptions to policies requires a higher burden of proof than making exceptions to guidelines. There are obvious exceptions to the principle of consensus on Wikipedia: for example, Office actions and decisions of the Foundation supercede any opinions expressed by consensus; similarly, if there were an apparent consensus to include unsourced information in violation of WP:BLP, that wouldn't fly. These exceptions should probably be included explicitly on the page, but if they are I would support this shifting from "guideline" to "policy". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] merge proposal

I don't think it's pertinent to have these pages separate when one is basically discussing a specific aspect of the other. While keeping them separate was pertinent when their status was different, it seems irrelevant to keep them separate now, and seems closer to POV-forking (where users have been using WP:CCC to assert that consensus is invalid because it can change at a later date.Circeus 17:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Since "no binding decisions" has had its name change to "consensus can change" it is more obvious that it actually describes a part of the concensus process, and could well be merged here. // habj 23:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. CCC should redirect to the appropriate section, though. — Omegatron 00:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exception

Whether a fact satisifies WP:V and WP:OR is, and always has been, decided by consensus. If this policy will claim that WP:V is not subject to consensus, then in order to avoid trolling wikilawyer editors it is necessary to point out that just because a troll doesn't think that WP:V or WP:OR is met doesn't mean that it actually is not met.

I agree with the spirit of the exception, which is the unverifiable material cannot be included even if a consensus agrees to do so. But if a consensus agrees that the material is verifiable, then it is not OK for a troll to remove it claiming it is not. CMummert · talk 18:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that you're talking about a local consensus to include unverifiable changes there. The global consensus (global to the entire project) is that it's not ok to add unverifiable material. I'm not sure why this particular case of global vs local has been chosen, specifically? --Kim Bruning 22:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know - it was added a few days ago, and I was just trying to clarify what was here before it got "stuck" the way it was. CMummert · talk 23:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What? You still don't get it? Do you want me to draw a picture or something?!

Well, here you go then! ;-)

For review, I applied my -admittedly rusty- vector art skills to actually drawing a flowchart of how consensus works on-wiki. Note that in normal editing on most pages, you generally don't get to the talk page much at all, really.

--Kim Bruning 05:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, nice picture. Throwing that into the main article certainly wouldn't be a bad idea.--Wizardman 06:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

One quibble. Being unchanged for a long time creates a presumption of consensus but that's only ever an untested presumption. Lack of further edits might only mean that the edit has so far been overlooked. But I'm not sure how to integrate that quibble into your flowchart in a way that makes sense. This will be helpful. Thanks. Rossami (talk)

Shanel was complaining about not knowing where to start, and verily, a proper flowchart has a Start. :-) (Added) --Kim Bruning 06:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Titoxd came up with an idea to get somewhere in the right direction wrt what Rossami has been saying. Is this an improvement? --Kim Bruning 07:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The next step is, of course, to get a good descriptive text to go along with the picture. Years of confuzzlement and confusion have sort of eroded away any original description, if it even ever really existed. I hope some folks will help. I'll put up the diagram for now at least. --Kim Bruning 15:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've run into what I think is an interesting case of confusing (or conflating) consensus with status-quo. I noted how the flow-chart does return to the beginning (i.e. status quo) and that is significant as well. I had the following thoughts regarding an explanation. Not sure if it goes with or just near the diagram.

Lack of change, or status-quo, is necessary to establish consensus, but defending the status-quo is the opposite of building consensus. Consensus building is an inclusive process that seeks to involve more people. Defending the status-quo alienates people, and stunts progress. Consensus cannot be actively maintained, it can only be interactively broken and re-established.

I'm off to work, and this is just my first pass. So please kick it around if you likeDhaluza 11:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

By some coincidence, on a wiki, the status quo on a page happens to coincide with consensus on that page. If you spot the page, and you happen to not agree with the status quo, then there is no longer a consensus :-)

You are quite right about defending the status quo too... there's a suggested method bold reverse discuss for dealing with that kind of thing. But all of this needs more writing to be done, IMHO. --Kim Bruning 11:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I really like the idea of a flowchart. — Omegatron 00:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I like it. Makes consensus a lot simpler to work with when there's a flowchart :). Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 03:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

With things a little tighter. Also changed to blue and was a perfectionist about lining up the arrows.

I tried to squeeze things a little tighter so that it could be readable at a smaller size, and ended up completely redoing it, so I uploaded as a different file name. — Omegatron 04:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Cute. Can you do a jumping arrow thingy so that there's one "consensus" box at the bottom, rather than two of them? >Radiant< 10:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking that it would be better if the arrows both went back up to the original Consensus box to show more clearly that it's a cycle, but it would need to be laid out a little differently, and I didn't know how you draw "unsoldered wires" in a flowchart. Is that what you mean by "jumping arrow"? — Omegatron 15:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

With just one consensus oval, to show it's a cycle. A little skinnier, so the words are legible at thumb size.

I tried to implement this and make it skinnier in the process. (The skinnier it is, the more legible the text will be without taking up the entire width of the policy page.) The word "implement" fitting in between those two boxes makes it wide. :-) Please try to think of a skinnier alternative layout. — Omegatron 03:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's skinnier, but the crossing lines and placing of the words make it less readable than your last version (the 2nd version on this page is the most readable of the 3 :-) ).

The best way to try and prevent crossing lines is to redesign/ refactor the process to be structured, of course. But that might not be descriptive. Hmph. :-p

Here's some rules that I seem to remember for flowcharts, maybe they're handy: "ovals" should typically only be labled start or stop (I cheated with consensus, because it is the ultimate "stop" point for wikipedia). "Start" may not have any arrows towards it, and may only have one arrow departing. "Stop" may not have any arrows departing. Decisions are associated with the departure point from a diamond. Additional process names are associated with the box from which they start. Crossing lines are evil. --Kim Bruning 05:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, on the basis of flowchart rules above... maybe putting consensus in a box in the center, or a slight variant where the flowchart is all creative and curvy and circular looking. (Tricky to implement, I know :-P)... hmm... --Kim Bruning 06:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was a bit funny to have consensus at the top. If you begin with consensus, then there's nothing much to do. I see consensus as belonging at the bottom. SmokeyJoe 06:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You begin with the current consensus. You disagree with it (so now there's no full consensus), so you set about to change things to bring it back to consensus. So consensus is both at the beginning and at the end, forming a cycle. That's what Omegatron has been trying to illustrate better, and how he came up with his third attempt. --Kim Bruning 07:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I do prefer the new diagram's graphic layout, but there should be two ovals, one at the top that represents "Previous Consensus" and one at the bottom that represents "New Consensus". The revert path should return to the top, the edit path should lead to the bottom. This illustrates the point that consensus can change, forming an new starting point, as explained in the note at the bottom.. It also better illustrates the subtle but important corollary that consensus does not exist unless the person proposing the change agrees, not whether the person making the revert disagrees. With one consensus box at the top, the consensus change is not as obvious, and the distinction between consensus and status-quo is blurred. Dhaluza 11:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Great ideas.

I think this will do wonders for people who think their revert warring is justified or who misuse "consensus" to mean whatever they feel like that particular day. Simple graphics are much harder to wikilawyer than text. We should create flowcharts for all of our policies! :-)

What do you think of the color and linewidths, etc? What about the sideways "Implement"? — Omegatron 06:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've found that typically, you know you are in a doomed bureaucratic organisation when people have pretty flowcharts for all their policies. Ut oh. ^^;; --Kim Bruning 06:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You started it. :-) But I think it's actually a good thing in a wiki-based organization where policies can be subtly changed over time to suit the desires of small numbers of people. A graphical flowchart is much less likely to be messed around with and misinterpreted.

I agree with the idea of having a "Previous consensus" and "New consensus", but I don't see any way to have a single "New consensus" box without crossing paths. — Omegatron 01:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yet another version. Has "Previous consensus" and "New consensus". There's no way to avoid the crossing path with the single outcome, so I made it a "jumping arrow". Start is bold so it's more obvious. Even skinnier.

Yet another version. — Omegatron 02:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice! -- Ned Scott 03:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I guess a revision/revert cycle does create a new consensus in a sense, so it is not necessary to return to the top. This would make the diagram cross-over again anyway. The one touch-up I think we should also incorporate is to change the "as you like" in the note on CCC to "as necessary". As you like implies that people can do this on a whim, and there really should be a more substantial purpose for making a change.Dhaluza 10:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. — Omegatron 14:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the diagram, but, should this policy really say that you should go straight from previous consensus to editing? What happend to "discuss changes on the talk page first"? WP:Bold is important, but sometimes its better to talk first. I suggest two routes from “previous consensus” to “Make an edit”. One direct, the other via “Discuss on the discussion page”. SmokeyJoe 23:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are other paths to consensus, so we should probably just note that this is the path for many good faith but not all. -- Ned Scott 05:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The quote in the "Consensus vs. supermajority" section

I can not see that this quote has anything to do with supermajority at all! It does not describe supermajority. Either it is a good description of consensus; then it should be included in the first section. If it is not a good description... then it should be removed. // habj 23:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel the section is a bit problematic, and have just had a try at improving it. I don't think the quote is sufficiently authoritative. Perhaps its content should be intregrated into the text, as assuming its content is important, it should be reworded, and reduced to a citation. SmokeyJoe 06:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm unhappy with the edit SmokeyJoe made here, as it seems to denigrate the quote (which I feel to be a decent description of consensus as it works — when it works — on Wikipedia). Also, I'm not certain that the use of the word "supermajority" in the text was a reference to the proposal Wikipedia:Supermajority, which I had never even come across; at least, I had always assumed that the use of "supermajority" was just a descriptive term.

The current version of the section seems to suggest that whenever an unreconciled minority exists, consensus has not been reached. I don't think that's accurate, and this recent ArbCom case would seem to agree. I'll see if I can think up a better wording myself — if you don't like whatever I come up with, feel free to revert me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I gave it a shot — the bit I'm fondest of is splitting the quotation out from "Consensus vs. supermajority" into a section on "Consensus in practice", since that's really what it's about. Also, the quote is more about the difference between consensus and unanimity than the difference between consensus and supermajority.

I'm less certain about my wording for the "consensus vs. supermajority" section — I hope that some wordsmith may be able to condense what I was trying to say into something clearer. The point, I think, is that although supermajority is different from consensus, it is possible to have a consensus to abide by the will of the supermajority, and in areas such as RfA that's pretty much what happens. Improvements to my awkward wording are invited. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Josiah. Sorry to have made you unhappy. The quote is given a lot of prominance for an except from an email to a mailing list, don't you think? To be used properly, shouldn't it be attributed to the individual? If it contains some valuable wisdom, but the source was not notable, then it should be rephrased with credit given.

Wikipedia:Supermajority has a long history intertwinned with this page. It originated here, was split off, and then rejected.

Afterthought: I don't object to ignoring the rejected policy. Rejected (perhaps like consensus at wikipedia) is a misused word. There was not a consensus to reject it. People gave up before reaching any agreement. SmokeyJoe 10:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome." This is not true in the world I live in. People agree to abide to majority decisions, but they don't claim that this makes them consensus decisions. People can be bullied into abiding a decision, which does not make a not consensus.

It seems to be that "consensus at wikipedia" is a perversion of the word consensus. Consider the definitions from the merriam webster and from the oxford english dictionary:

oed.com

1. Phys. General agreement or concord of different parts or organs of the body in effecting a given purpose; sympathy. Hence transf. of the members or parts of any system of things. 1854 G. BRIMLEY Ess., Comte 320 In the universe..he resolves to see only a vast consensus of forces. 1861 GOLDW. SMITH Lect. Mod. Hist. 24 There is a general connexion between the different parts of a nation's civilization; call it, if you will, a consensus, provided that the notion of a set of physical organs does not slip in with that term. 1870 H. SPENCER Princ. Psychol. I. II. ix. 278 A mutually-dependent set of organs having a consensus of functions.

2. a. Agreement in opinion; the collective unanimous opinion of a number of persons. 1861 Sat. Rev. 21 Dec. 637 Bishop Colenso is..decidedly against what seems to be the consensus of the Protestant missionaries. 1880 Athenæum 10 Apr. 474/3 A consensus had actually been arrived at on the main features involved.

m-w.com

Main Entry: con•sen•sus Pronunciation: k&n-'sen(t)-s&s Function: noun Usage: often attributive Etymology: Latin, from consentire 1 a : general agreement : UNANIMITY <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports...from the border -- John Hersey> b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>

2 : group solidarity in sentiment and belief usage The phrase consensus of opinion, which is not actually redundant (see sense 1a; the sense that takes the phrase is slightly older), has been so often claimed to be a redundancy that many writers avoid it. You are safe in using consensus alone when it is clear you mean consensus of opinion, and most writers in fact do so.

In both, the reference to unanimity is strong. In my real world experiences, consensus (when not immediately achieved) may only be achieved after a process of considering a multitude of possible positions, and often only a very weak consensus can be acheived. This may mean that the final resolution includes an acknowledgement of differing opinions, as which point the dissentors formally yield. SmokeyJoe 10:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that the meaning of "consensus" as used on Wikipedia is different (or at least, often different) from its meaning in the English language. I have found that this results in a great deal of confusion and I think it would be better to find a different word. On a related note, the mantra that "decisions on Wikipedia are made by consensus" ignores the fact that, often, decisions aren't made at all. All the fancy flowcharts in the world can't change reality. 6SJ7 11:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

While I am usually very deferential to the authority of the writers of published dictionaries, in this case they are wrong. The dictionaries are still using an outdated and simplistic definition of the word "consensus". We use it in the sense commonly used by Change Management and Organizational Decision-Making experts - that is, one mode on a spectrum of decision-making modes. I tried to describe that spectrum here but would appreciate a reference if anyone still has the original article where this model was discussed. Rossami (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Even with the strict dictionary definition, the concept of using consensus on a wiki still makes sense. If you come across a page and disagree with it, then there is no consensus anymore, and therefore you may edit it. Note that consensus in this case is "consensus among all those who have seen the page recently" as opposed to "consensus among all 3 million registered users".

If it helps any, note that there can be many reasons for people to agree with something, even if they are not happy with it. You might agree to a page version because it's perfect. You might agree because you're too lazy. You might agree because it's good enough, and changing it is not worth the effort. You might hate the new version, but want or need to be diplomatic for some reason. You might dislike it, but can live with the changes for now, etc...

Canonically, the decisions of a tyrannical dictator always have consensus, because everyone who disagrees with them has been shot dead, and those wiser souls who are still alive tremble in fear and dare not oppose. For some reason, I do not actually recommend that particular method of consensus formation for use on wikipedia, but it does serve as an (extreme) illustration.

--Kim Bruning 16:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's very well put. I really like the pat about noting the difference of consensus between "among those who have seen the page recently" and "the entire community/everybody". -- Ned Scott 16:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The second paragraph of what Kim has written above, is in essence the same as that quote from the mailing list. We don't need it in the form of a quote, we need it described in the actual text of the page. // habj 20:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the word concensus is used in several different meanings, also in this text, maybe we need a section that defines different usages of the word? Currently, there is a piped link in the first sentence to consensus decision-making. Unless we really define consensus the way it is used and explained in that article, it should not be there. There are several other articles you could link to, for instance consensus. For now, I just remove the link. // habj 22:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Per AGF

I changed the wording slightly. It used to say "Editors must always assume good faith". I think, per AGF, that users are allowed to cease doing this when there is overwhelming evidence that a user is not acting in good faith, although they must strive forit whenever possible. IronDuke 19:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds very reasonable to me, good idea. -- Ned Scott 19:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

A very important point. — Omegatron 06:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rough consensus

I've made a first mention of Rough consensus again, but we have a bad definition of it. Note that in that same line, I also state that certain processes may have been somewhat misdesigned if they wish to use consensus (because they do not scale well, and have too many people participating (ie, more than Dunbar's number predicts to be a good idea.) Philip reverted it saying there is no consensus, well... note that this is an objective statement based on predictions made by peer reviewed scientific research (see the links). I don't care how broad a consensus there is for the sky being green. Get proof! :-P --Kim Bruning 11:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exceptions

What was incorrect about the section? I agree that it should be reworded, but not completely removed. Trebor 16:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added it back pending discussion on specific failings or rewording. Rossami (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, I'd removed it already, but ended up scratching my head a little too long.

At any rate, local consensus can, may, and should override wiki-wide policy, (I'd almost say duh, it's a consequence of ignore all rules). Note that things like verifiability will still apply anyway, as long as more people come along and look. Office actions can be overridden by sufficiently large numbers of people forming a consensus, though typically at the meta level. Same goes for all the top brass type people. Finally, foundation issues can be modified by consensus at the meta level, but it's a mite tricky to pull off. So while in practice they're very *hard* to override, they still can be. If it needs to be pointed out here that they're *hard* to override, so be it... but at the same time, I want to continue to stress the impression that everything is consensus based. <still scratching head> --Kim Bruning 18:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"local consensus can, may, and should override wiki-wide policy," I'm sorry, but I can't swallow that. In very cases I can think, it's either policy interpretation that is involved, or policy was changed. Policy is Policy, there's little to add.

I reordered them for now. While the two last are admittedly debatable, the first two, I think, are hardly so.Circeus 18:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

On a consensus based wiki, policy is a kind of illusion. What you see written down on pages in the project namespace is a description of what compromises, ideas, and systems people have discovered to work best, anytime they tried to edit as per the chart above. Even when people start out with a vote (like has been experimented with once or twice in the past), the end result still gets smoothed by consensus in wiki-editing. So not only isn't policy policy, in fact it doesn't even exist. (And if you don't believe me, we have a policy that says so explicitly, called Ignore all rules). If this sounds confusing, I might still know one or two better ways to explain it.

The reason some people started calling certain things policy is that that way they could save a lot of time trying to get newbies to do the right thing. I have always been rather opposed to that move, since it makes things rather confusing later on (as we can see :-P ) .

--Kim Bruning 19:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that the ordering you have now runs from most debatable to least debatable... Verifiability is the smallest scope concept, and only applies on (en.)wikipedia. Office actions are typically done by arbcom, or certain foundation employees. Jimbo and Board can override office (but not in reverse). Finally, even the board must obey the foundation issues in practice, because people typically join on the basis of the foundation issues, and violating them would cause a large number of those people and in fact entire projects to either defect or fork (or both) --Kim Bruning 19:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"policy is a kind of illusion" But a necessary one if we want to avoid descending into chaos, basically. Consensus comes into play when debate is involved, not when policy appears to contradict itself. If you prefer, Consensus can't override the spirit expressed by policy. Wikipedia:Five pillars makes points that can hardly be overrun by any consensus,if only because they are extensions of the Meta basic principles.

"Note that the ordering you have now runs from most debatable to least debatable..." Sorry 'bout that. My edit apparently didn't register the first time around.Circeus 19:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Because, for the most part, content policies at least are pretty much immutable, I rewrote the entry to emphasize that aspect.Circeus 02:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The thrust of it seems OK to me. I softened the language to should, rather than must; these really mean the same thing in the context of a consensus based system. I think the word "cases" might be better as "articles" but it's not that significant. CMummert · talk 02:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Policy is not an illusion, it is consensus. Policy is the current consensus opinion of how to apply the basic principles in practice. WP:IAR is just the corollary to WP:CCC -- since building a better encyclopedia is a basic principle, with a very wide consensus, any policy that stands in the way has a narrower consensus, and that consensus must change. So it is not contradictory at all. Dhaluza 02:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a much better way to explain what I'm trying to say. <bows to the superior explainer> --Kim Bruning 10:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus or Agreement ?

I believe the primitive notion that underpins Wikipedia is agreement. Agreement is defined as "a meeting of minds" in contract (common) law. It requires an offer and its acceptance. In the language of common law, one may 'accept' or 'reject' an 'offer'. A counter-offer is just another 'offer'.

It is equally important to recognise that the flip side of the 'agreement' coin is 'conflict'. ie. People may 'agree' to 'disagree', so disagreement alone is inadequate. Indeed, unless opposing parties choose to agree to 'fight' there is no fight! Without conflict (arising from the diversity of access to Wikipedia editors), the articles and even the rules of Wikipedia would never grow / adapt. Remember Wale's 'Ignore all rules' policy? ie. Every policy, guideline or any other rule may be ignored if it hinders improving Wikipedia.

Do people think some policy needs to be written on agreement and or conflict? Scholzj2006 01:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failures?

Just throwing out ideas here, so feel free to shoot me down, but shouldn't there be a section that explains that consensus - god, it cheeses me off when people misspell that - is not perfect as a way of deciding what should be done and may occasionally not work? And that despite this, however, due to its general success and the fact that there is no evidence to support the contention that any other system would be any better, we still use consensus to decide things?

I believe that there have been several ArbCom findings of fact to this effect. Moreschi ^Deletion! 13:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"It's the worst system, except for all the others?" --Kim Bruning 13:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC) may Mark Twain forgive me

Something like that. So, is this a good idea, or not? Moreschi ^Deletion! 13:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's something that we should certainly think about. Maybe try on a separate page first? --Kim Bruning 07:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

First draft is at User:Moreschi/Consensus. Cheers, Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd person

Does anyone else think the 2nd person "you" is inappropriate in the WP:CCC text that was merged in? Dhaluza 00:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. CMummert · talk 00:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It probably wasn't as obvious when it was a stand-alone article, but it really sticks out now that it is merged in. Dhaluza 01:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I reworded it and also rephrased this sentence: "You cannot declare a new consensus all by yourself without the participants in the discussion agreeing that the previous consensus does not apply anymore." If consensus has changed, you still may not get others to explicitly say it has changed. What matters is whether other editors act as if it has changed, and whether they revert you when you write that it has changed. So maybe someone can expand that sentence a little.

Also, the third para in that section is pretty bad. CMummert · talk 01:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice job! Dhaluza 02:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I also noticed 1st person "we" in the second paragraph as well. Dhaluza 16:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two Consensus flow-charts?

Hey, I love the flow-chart for consensus-building, but I feel that there really should be an extra level of process for edits to policies, guidelines, and other documents which have gained consensus of a large section of the community. The flow-chart as it now stands works beautifully for articles, but I feel that the first action when building a new consensus for "massive-consensus" articles like policies and guidelines should be at least a post on the article talk page, if not a notice at the Village Pump as well.

I personally feel that essays should also be included in this flow-chart, but I don't think that's as crucial as emphasizing that policies and guidelines need an "extra mile" approach to consensus.--Aervanath 04:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You make 2 errors. First, all policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. Second policies and guidelines (including this one), can be edited in the same way, and no harm will come of it. Try it! :-) Worst that can happen is that you simply get reverted, and have to take it to talk anyway. --Kim Bruning 07:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Right. Be bold! Thanks for clarifying that!--Aervanath 08:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How long to wait for a consensus?

I can't find anything in the policy that tells us how LONG to wait for a consensus to form. This came up recently in a dispute on the WP:COI talk page, with one user giving a 12-hour deadline to respond to his comments before they reverted the article. If this has not been addressed elsewhere, I propose that following be included in the policy:

How much time should I wait for a consensus to form?

Consensus can take 5 minutes to 5 years. Generally, if there is still discussion occurring about an issue, then consensus has not been reached. However, if the discussion has stalled, or there have been no additions to the discussion after the initial proposal, then it is appropriate to assume consensus after the corresponding length of time has passed:

1) For a lightly-edited article, 24 hours;

2) For a heavily-edited article, 3-5 days;

3) For Wikipedia policy and guidelines, 1 week.

Important Note: If you do wait the requisite length of time before making your desired edits, and someone then reverts the edits that you have made, then DO NOT REVERT THOSE CHANGES; it is a sign that the discussion needs to be re-opened, and a new consensus formed.

Thoughts? --Aervanath 06:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I tend to give lightly-edited articles more time, not less, on the hypothesis that fewer people are watching it and more people need more time to find and decide to join the conversation. Rossami (talk) 06:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I had been working on the assumption that the heavier the editing, the more editors would be involved, therefore it would take longer to come to a consensus. However, what you say makes sense, too. How about:

1) For a heavily-edited article, 3-5 days;

2) For a lightly-edited article, 1 week;

3) For Wikipedia policy and guidelines, 2 weeks.

More thoughts? --Aervanath 07:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not fond of this thread. If we start talking about how long to wait, people will start wikilawyering when someone objects one day after anything posted. This kind of language is not in the spirit of consensus. Consensus forms when it forms, it changes when people give inspired reasons that are convincing. Quantifying the amount of time involved will just make things worse. -- Samuel Wantman 07:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I realize that. I guess I wasn't clear in my proposal. I'm not looking to provoke wikilawyering (you're right, that is a danger), but to provide a guideline for how long to wait before editing/reverting when there has been NO RESPONSE to your proposal. You can't form a consensus without discussion, so if there's no discussion at all, how long should you wait before just being bold and going for it?

Hmm. I think this is actually moving away from something that belongs on the concensus page. I'll post a query over at the Village Pump (Policy). Thanks for your input!--Aervanath 07:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

How long should you wait if there's no discussion? You should probably just give up. I've posted several proposals that got absolutely zero response. It means that nobody liked it, or nobody bothered to read it, or both. If it is something you can undertake on your own, you can be bold and try it, and see if it remains. I started Wikipedia:Classification that way. On the other hand, if after lots of heated discussion, nobody responds to a proposed solution, it often means that everyone can live with it, and you should probably be bold and see if it survives once it is posted. -- Samuel Wantman 08:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was more sort of thinking along the lines of proposing an edit change on a policy talk page and having no one respond. However, in that case I agree with you that probably the best thing to do is just do the edit and see if someone reverts it. Thanks! --Aervanath 08:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This is already covered. No further wording is needed. --Kim Bruning 08:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

True, but it's not really explicit. However, I'm hesitant to make the policy any longer. That would WP:CREEP everyone out, I think. :-P--Aervanath 08:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're right about one thing. Anything you don't explicitly nail down... someone will come along and abuse it. (see this page as the ultimate example of what can go wrong). I don't feel good about writing tiny tiny bureaucratic rules though. :-/ --Kim Bruning 08:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right not to feel good about it. We shouldn't have to write down all these rules. Basically, most of them come down to "Don't be a jerk" anyway, so if someone starts abusing the process, we can shut them down then.--Aervanath 08:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

<Snicker> You been introduced to The trifecta yet? :-) --Kim Bruning 08:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's already on my talk page. :) Found it last night. --Aervanath 08:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

:-D --Kim Bruning 08:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's rarely a good idea to set firm numbers like time limits, but I agree with the general idea. If a proposal has been made, a long time passes with no response, it's probably fine to be bold and try implementing the proposal. The flipside is that it's a bad idea to make a proposal with a time limit/ultimatum along the lines of "If I don't get a response in X...", particularly if it's a relatively short timeline. It's wrongheaded to assume that because a few hours are passed, nobody cares, especially in an ongoing discussion where people have already given opinions. COI was a funny situation in that it wasn't even a case where a proposal received no responses. There was quite a bit of discussion and objection to proposed edits, but one editor seemed to think that if the others had an obligation to continue the conversation even though they had given their opinion, and that a lull in the discussion was an indication that everyone else stopped caring and it was OK to ignore the objections and edit away. I'm always leery of editors who insist "nobody is responding to me" or "not discussed on talk page" when it has been discussed...but they just don't like the responses.

I don't know if Consensus is the best place for an addition along those lines, or if it would be more appropriate somewhere else (assuming it doesn't exist already). --Milo H Minderbinder 14:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that - the test of consensus is whether your changes are removed, not whether you can wear down your opposition until they stop responding. This comes up all the time in articles, when determined editors will spend months pushing for non-consensus edits of certain articles. Leaving a comment and waiting for a while, depending on the severity of the changes you plan to implement, is a polite thing to do, but a lack of responses doesn't necessarily mean others agree with you. CMummert · talk 14:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"Leave a comment first" is overused perhaps. If you do leave a comment, also edit. If you see an edit you disagree with, check back in 5-10 minutes to see if a comment shows up. --Kim Bruning 15:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thinking more about it, I am very uncomfortable with this concept. For one thing, the time you wait and the default action you can take can depend very much on the wording you use in your proposal. "I think X is a good idea and will implement unless someone objects" is very different from "I think Not X is a bad idea" or "I've ranted about X for the 10th time and people stopped bothering to respond to me". For another, the appropriate time has more to do with the nature and scope of the change than with whether or not the page is heavily edited. If the edit seems non-controversial, I'm going to be bold. If I expect it to be highly controversial, I will allow months for consensus to emerge. I don't think we can define even loose guidelines here. Sorry. Rossami (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You should be bold in both cases. Worst case you will end up in a bold revert discuss cycle, otherwise you can just continue with normal consensus editing. --Kim Bruning 15:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Strict time limits would be pretty much instruction creep. Not such a good idea. >Radiant< 15:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Making page strictly en.wikipedia

This [1] recent edit by CentrX ties consensus specifically to the en.wikipedia definition . I wonder if we're actually creating these pages at the correct location? (Perhaps we should be working on meta?) --Kim Bruning 21:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dunbar's number, and predictions about RFA, AFD

When discussing RFA, AFD, etc...

" , therefore these processes may have been somewhat misdesigned. As a first heuristic in these decision-making processes, people might first see if the criterion of supermajority is achieved, and on that basis make a first order assumption on how close one is to rough consensus"

This is not correct?

--Kim Bruning 12:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No I do not think it is not correct because I think it is a minority point of view "that the processes may have been somewhat misdesigned." If it were not, then they would not be as they are. That they exist and are in very heavily used shows that there is a broad Wikipedia community consensus on the use of these processes. As for the second sentence please see the British Plain English Campaign. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

See also Parliament Act which allows for a guillotine on fillibustering. I do not think that such an act means that Parliamentary democracy is somewhat misdesigned. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The first section is to do with the fact that they do not take Dunbar's number into account, and may therefore ultimately be self-defeating. Whether or not they have wide community consensus is irrelevant, as communities are quite capable of becoming pathological and self destructive if misdesigned.

The wording here implies that literature suggests/predicts that these processes might be flawed, and therefore these processes should be closely watched. Seeing the discussions ongoing at for instance WP:RFA over the past months, people seem to state that there are known problems, so perhaps the literature-based prediction is turning out to be correct. AFD has long been known to be a problem area.

As for the second sentence. Please {{sofixit}} rather than deleting. That's what wikis are for. :-) --Kim Bruning 15:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Perhaps the whole block needs to be rewritten in Plain English. I was initially merely concerned with expressing the situation in as exact terms as possible.

As Kim has asked (on my talk page) for more. There is no point in the follow up sentence if the previous phrase is removed. I think I have said all that I want to say on this subject and others should contribute their POV as to whether the first phrase stays and if the sentence "As a first heuristic ..." is worth keeping. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you cannot enforce your own personal process over consensus. Please follow regular process. I am reverting you for that reason and that reason alone. There's no hard feelings, and I am assuming that you are acting in good faith. Feel free to come back and discuss at any time. If possible, please provide solid sources or reasoning for your position at that time as well. (see also: Bold revert discuss as a means to effectively implement your reasoning.) --Kim Bruning 18:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me expand a bit on my reasoning for that last revert, just in case it isn't fully described elsewhere yet.

We shouldn't typically accept "It's community consensus" as an argument, since it is impossible for a single person to know the thoughts of the entire community. At best, a single person can only put forward their own thoughts and reasoning when challenged, even if those thoughts already constitute a sytnthesis of the concepts of the entire community. Consensus is mostly formed during wiki-editing of a page, so there is also no need for the "it's a consensus" argument.

Note that reverting good faith edits without providing reasoning on the talk page holds other people hostage to your whim, which is probably not what you intend. Let's agree on maintaining the process as described in the flowchart here. Discuss until we have some modicum of (temporary) agreement, and then and only then taking it back to the page itself. (though I have no trouble with "so how does this look! :-)" type edits to the page, even during discussion.)

Something like this has also been written at WP:BRD, but perhaps not to that length.

Philip: Could you put forward your personal argumentation please?

--Kim Bruning 18:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with "therefore these processes may have been somewhat misdesigned." (which leads to deleting the second sentence as well), and nothing you have written here has convinced me othewise. As I have said there is a clear community consensus to use these processes and your presumption that "wide community consensus is irrelevant, as communities are quite capable of becoming pathological and self destructive if misdesigned" does not convince me that you are correct on this one. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I stated (for context): "...consensus-building can be unwieldy due to the sheer number of contributors/discussions involved, therefore..."

Why do you accept the reference Dunbar's number, but then reject the conclusion? That does not compute... Wait... that wording wasn't really very clear on that either, now was it. How's this? --Kim Bruning 00:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I still do not agree with your wording. The reason for this is that one can only reach a consensus when the group who hold differing points of view strive to reach a consensus and are willing to compromise. In the case of a Westminster cabinet there is a vested interest compromising for two reasons. One, there is a danger of collective loss of decision making (they loose the next election and the other lot get in), if they are not seen to agree, or secondly an individual who does not accept the decision of the others must resign from the cabinet and the loss of a government job is quite a large stick. But in a Wikipedia debate there are no carrots and sticks available to other members of a group to insist that their views prevail (and few to make a majority consider a compromise with a minority) ... But you know all this because it has already been discussed at great length in these talk pages. So to say that some processes are missaligned makes an assumption that there is an correct method within Wikipedia to reach a consensus which is not true. Now we could go off on a tangent and discuss gift cultures, the Cathedral and the Bazaar etc, but I do not think that is necessary nor do not think that the introduction of the article "Dunbar's number" at all helps in this context, because I do not think it is relevant as to why a guillotine on what amounts to filibustering is desirable on some wikipedia administrative processes. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Let's get back to Dunbar's number in a minute. But first, why do you bring up Filibustering? --Kim Bruning 18:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus of few overruling consensus of many

An issue I keep noticing with our guideline pages is the disparity between what the guideline says, and what editors actually do. A consensus of 10s of people can be enough to solidify a guideline, even when it is at odds with the editing habits of 1000s of people. Then, once the guideline is written, it only takes a few committed people to protect that guideline from change. Do we have any way of dealing with this proglem? - Peregrine Fisher 01:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The typical way is to simply define consensus as the 1000 people who are doing it their way, and/or ignoring whatever games this particular set of guideline writers are playing.

Not exactly ideal, I know. I do keep pointing out that whatever is in the project namespace sometimes has little relationship to what people are actually doing, due to this tactic.

A better way is to demand that people write descriptive (not prescriptive) guidelines. Maybe we should finally write that down in a policy. :-)

Finally, the best way is to simply patrol guidelines, and make sure that isn't happening. It's a big world out there though. Could you tell me which guideline(s) you've encountered it on? --Kim Bruning 01:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

We really ought to find a better word than "guidelines", because that isn't what they are. They are, at best, common practices, and in some cases they are merely what some people think should be common practices. Perhaps the most egregiously mis-categorized "guideline" that I am aware of is WP:PNSD which is really just an essay, and a "common opinion," since there is no "common practice" or anything really actionable involved. As the discussion on that page indicates, the reason that the main proponent wanted it to be a "guideline" was because people wouldn't listen if it was merely an essay. Someone else on that page (who favored it) said the purpose of making it a guideline was to be able to shut down polls. In other words, it was an opinion that was turned into a "guideline" for purposes of intimidating editors who dared to have a different opinion. Or, looked at another way, it was a supposedly "descriptive" statement that is called a "guideline" to discourage any change in what is being described -- and it thereby becomes prescriptive. 6SJ7 06:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I would not call the "default" behavior of many Wikipedians to be a consensus. A consensus suggest that pros and cons were considered, that there was discussion, that people were aware there were even options. In many cases people just repeat what they saw from another place, and not for any major reason. Common practice can represent a consensus, but not always. -- Ned Scott 08:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There was a big discussion about this at a recent naming convention, where members of a wikiproject claimed that since the project had a consensus, the matter was decided even though people who were not members of that project disagreed with the outcome. It took several months of debate, but eventually the wikiwide consensus overrode the project-only consensus. >Radiant< 10:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asking the other parent

Hmmm, interesting addition. Could our friendly IP editor give some more background information or examples of situations where this applies? (though I might be able to think of one or two myself, perhaps :-) )

--Kim Bruning 01:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Miracle Happened Here

This article gives a flowchart. It says "Find a reasonable if temporary compromise" in one box. Good plan. But perhaps that should be labeled "A Miracle Happens Here".--Blue Tie 11:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This page is nearly useless. --Blue Tie 14:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you think is missing? >Radiant< 15:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarity and reality. The problem starts with the heart of wikipedia. "The (internet) encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit". It then moves into the sense that wikipedia is NOT a democracy (but really it mostly is). The denial of the democracy here leads to a sense of "no voting". This is enhanced by a desire for "collegiality" on articles. When everyone is super pure and super good this will work. For normal people it will not.

Example: Two people disagree on a paragraph. Where is the consensus? None? Does the paragraph get struck? No consensus for that. So we ask for a third opinion. The third opinion gives a real third opinion not a "tie breaking vote". What is the consensus now?

Example: One lone expert holds out against and then gets overridden by 10 other ignorant editors. What is the consensus?

Example: Five editors guard an article and revert changes instantly. Between them they have at least 12 reverts a day and maybe 15. They chase off other 20 or 30 other editors, one at a time. What is the consensus?

A more realistic guideline would say "Consensus is what someone can get a majority of people who are editing this week or this day to agree to include or exclude in the article. The majority will decide issues through the use of discussions as possible or as they desire and decide the issue through reverts and volume at other times." This may sound like the words of a bitter person. I am not bitter. I feel fine. I am trying to honestly say what I think is wrong with the consensus article. It does not define consensus very clearly. Without a clear definition, it is useless. As evidence, just look at how frequently it gets cited in debates and the nature of those cites. It is almost never cited until someone announces the achievement of consensus. Upon which point someone else is likely to disagree and then the article gets cited as a touchstone for both sides of the issue. On the other hand, if a cite for Attribution is brought up, it typically results in a recognition by all of the issue. That is because WP:V or WP:ATT are clear. WP:CON is not. --Blue Tie 16:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you are overlooking the important point that, barring a small but vocal minority, Wikipedia editors tend to be reasonable, well-meaning folks who can compromise on issues and can change their mind over discussion. If you make that assumption, consensus is not problematic; if you deny that assumption, Wikipedia is doomed. Forming consensus only becomes problematic when sufficient unreasonable people become involved to drown out the reasonable debate. This does happen on articles on controversial issues, but there is no real way to avoid that in a wiki. >Radiant< 16:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it only comes to play on controversial articles. And as you say, there is nothing that can be done about that.

I have seen consensus work on a controversial topic only once. It was beautiful. It was rare. I know it happens. It requires a very strong assumption of good faith as a minimum and often it requires a level above good faith -- active goodness of heart. I believe I have personally witnessed at least one case where the "sufficient reasonable people" have both: 1) come to their own consensus and value it now above new contributions -- and thus become unreasonable, and 2) they have been attacked for their perspective until they no longer believe that anyone but them has good faith. But let's suppose that this policy is not for those contentious times but rather it is for collaborative times. In collaborative times, a fuzzy guide will work fine, but this guideline also tries to cover consensus when people are disputing and fighting. That also muddies the water. Perhaps the WP:CON page should say: Consensus rarely emerges from a fight and the presence of strong and on-going disputes is an indication that there is no consensus. No one can claim consensus under those conditions -- they can only claim majority opinion. Saying that would be anathema though. --Blue Tie 16:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Current best estimate is ~3K controversial articles where consensus is unlikely to work, and ~3M articles where consensus is very likely to work.

Slogging through working on guidelines for "just" the 3M articles is already way too much work for me, especially since the system is not really designed to help people describe process. (actually make that: it was never designed, full stop. Perhaps sharpening the axe we work with would be a good idea, hmm... )

Sometime in my copious free time, I'll try to figure out what works on the remaining 3K. AFAIK, nothing has been written on the latter topic, yet. --Kim Bruning 17:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Kim, that is an interesting response. On one hand, the guidelines that reflect the majority of the instances (I am accepting your numbers as correct) is clearly descriptive. But in those cases, it is not needed. When it is needed is when there is a problem. The 3k need the guidelines more than the 3m do.

Incidentally, I do not know if it comes thru but I respect almost every word you type. Even though I am sure we do not generally agree, I think you are really fantastic. I am a fan. --Blue Tie 17:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It is true enough that consensus rarely emerges from a fight. However, the presence of a dispute does not necessarily mean there's no consensus. In particular, a few controversial articles have a reasonably stable state but get "attacked" by outsiders every week. This is rather unfortunate, and one of the things Stable Versions (WP:STABLE?) was supposed to remedy. The problem with "disputing and fighting" cases is that there really isn't much we can state in policy that would actually work against that, because of the wiki model. >Radiant< 08:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/n/Wikipedia_talk%7EConsensus_dc23.html"