Wikipedia talk:Follow consensus, not policy

Essays Low‑impact

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

When you start out, it is safe to Ignore all rules

This implies that it's not ok to ignore all rules after you've learned them. Be bold is what you really mean here. — Omegatron 13:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once you've learned the rules, it still takes a while to understand the underlying consensus, I guess. This is sort of the dangerous period where you tend to make mistakes. ^^;;; --Kim Bruning 15:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm saying that the text implies that IAR is only meant to serve as some kind of buffer to protect newbies. In reality, that's what Be Bold is for, and IAR applies in any situation in which the quality of the encyclopedia is harmed by a rule. — Omegatron 15:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is discussion the best way to determine consensus?[edit]

Currently the entry for discussion on this page reads as:

Read/participate in discussions. This is a great way to get a feel for consensus on particular issues.

I would go so far as to say that discussions are the best way to determine consensus, and was wondering what the community thinks about changing the line to:

Read/participate in discussions. This is the best way to get a feel for consensus on particular issues.

(change in italics).--Ybbor ^Talk 01:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. >Radiant< 11:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with discussions is that they can run for months. Ultimately, everything is done via discussion, but if you want to actually Get Stuff Done, you might want to make a tradeoff: there might be faster ways to figure out what the outcome of the discussion would be (at various levels of risk of getting it wrong).

For example, instead of discussing the merits of being neutral each time, we have an Neutral Point Of View page which you can view, and which most of the time should be pretty close to what the actual consensus is. --Kim Bruning 12:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. In many cases, policy/guideline/other documents will exist that are effectively the result of earlier discussions. There is no need to discuss, for any particular article, whether it needs to have a neutral tone, because this has already been discussed, at length, for all articles overall. >Radiant< 13:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I think I've changed my mind. Radiant, I think Kim's point is that is those cases it's not necessary to read the discussions (as the entry we're thinking of changing asks), but merely reading the policies would suffice. Perhaps we should consider whether discussions are "the best way to determine new consensus"? --Ybbor ^Talk 14:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Say people are working on an article,and everyone might seem to agree during the discussion on the talk page, but then end up reverting each other on the actual article page. Apparently they didn't reach consensus at all yet! :-P

I think there are many ways to figure out if you have consensus to do something, and you should probably keep your eyes peeled and use as many of them as you can (within reason), before you proceed. --Kim Bruning 14:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Q: "What's the best direction to look towards before crossing the street, left or right?" A: "You should look both ways before proceeding to cross the street."[reply]