Wikipedia:Consensus: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:31, 6 January 2012

This page documents an English Wikipedia policy.

It describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus.

Shortcuts

This page in a nutshell: Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making.

"Consensus" refers to the primary way in which decisions are made on Wikipedia, and is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals. "Consensus" on Wikipedia does not mean "unanimity" (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. It means that the decision-making process involves an effort to incorporate editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting our norms.

This page describes what consensus is understood to mean on Wikipedia, how to determine whether it has been achieved (and how to proceed if it has not), and what exceptions exist from the principle that all decisions are made by consensus.

Achieving consensus

Editors usually reach consensus as a natural product of editing. After someone makes a change or addition to a page, others who read it can choose either to leave the page as it is or to change it. When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus.

Consensus decisions take into account all the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. When there is no widespread agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accept the proposal.

Reaching consensus through editing

Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. In this way the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time without any needless procedures – editors do not need to seek permission before making changes. Even if there is a difference of opinion, often all that is required is a simple rewording that will satisfy all editors' concerns. Clear communication in edit summaries can make this process easier.

Editors may make changes without prior discussion (to "be bold", in Wikipedia parlance). If an edit is not an improvement, then it well should be reverted. Any such revert should have a clear edit summary stating why the particular edit is not considered to be an improvement to the article, or what policies or guidelines would require the edit be undone. Further discussion should then be undertaken on the article discussion page. Unless a discussion regarding a claim of "no consensus" is undertaken on the discussion page, an edit summary of "no consensus" or "not discussed" is not helpful, except possibly on pages that describe long-standing Wikipedia policy. This helps indicate what issues need to be addressed in subsequent efforts to reach a consensus on the matter. Repeated reversions are contrary to Wikipedia policy under WP:Edit warring, except for specific policy based material and for reversions of vandalism. Frequently a minor change in word choice can end arguments.

Reaching consensus through discussion

When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerned. The result might be an agreement which does not satisfy anyone completely, but which all recognize as a reasonable solution. It is useful to remember that consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia. It is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise – with the understanding that the page is gradually improving – than to try to fight to implement a particular "perfect" version immediately. The quality of articles with combative editors is, as a rule, far lower than that of articles where editors take a longer view.

When editors have a particularly difficult time reaching a consensus, there are a number of processes available for consensus-building (third opinions, requests for comment, informal mediation at the Mediation Cabal), and even some more extreme processes that will take authoritative steps to end the dispute (administrator intervention, formal mediation, and arbitration). Keep in mind, however, that administrators are primarily concerned with policy and editor behavior and will not decide content issues authoritatively. They may block editors for behaviors that interfere with the consensus process (such as edit warring, socking, or a lack of civility). They may also make decisions about whether edits are or are not allowable under policy, but will not usually go beyond such actions.

Consensus-building

Editors who maintain a neutral, detached, and civil attitude can usually reach consensus on an article through the process described above. However, editors occasionally find themselves at an impasse, either because they cannot find rational grounds to settle a dispute or because they become emotionally or ideologically invested in "winning" an argument. What follows are suggestions for resolving intractable disputes, along with descriptions of several formal and informal processes that may help.

Consensus-building in talk pages

Shortcut

WP:TALKDONTREVERT

Be bold, but not foolish. In most cases, the first thing to try is an edit to the article, and sometimes making such an edit will resolve a dispute. Use clear edit summaries that explain the purpose of the edit. If the edit is reverted, try making a compromise edit that addresses the other editors' concerns. Edit summaries are useful, but do not try to discuss disputes across multiple edit summaries; that is generally viewed as edit warring and may incur sanctions. If an edit is reverted and further edits seem likely to meet the same fate, create a new section on the article's talk page to discuss the issue.

In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.

Limit talk page discussions to discussion of sources, article focus, and policy. The obligation on talk pages is to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia. Other considerations are secondary. This obligation applies to all editors: consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions, and editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions.

The goal in a consensus-building discussion is to reach a compromise which angers as few as possible. People with good social skills and good negotiation skills are more likely to be successful than people who are less than civil to others.

Consensus-building by soliciting outside opinions

When talk page discussions fail – generally because two editors (or two groups of editors) simply cannot see eye to eye on an issue – Wikipedia has several established processes to attract outside editors to offer opinions. This is often useful to break simple, good-faith deadlocks, because uninvolved editors can bring in fresh perspectives, and can help involved editors see middle ground that they cannot see for themselves. The main resources for this are as follows:

Third Opinions: 3O is reserved for cases where exactly two editors are in dispute. A neutral third party will give non-binding advice on the dispute.
Noticeboards: Most policy and guideline pages, and many Wikipedia projects, have noticeboards for interested editors. Posting neutrally worded notice of the dispute on applicable noticeboards will make the dispute more visible to other editors who may have worthwhile opinions.
Dispute Resolution Noticeboard: For disputes involving more than two parties, mediators or clerks help the parties come to consensus by suggesting analysis, critiques, compromises, or mediation.
Requests for Comment: Placement of a formal neutrally worded notice on the article talk page inviting others to participate which is transcluded onto RfC noticeboards.
Informal Mediation by the "Cabal": A place to seek help only if prior efforts at dispute resolution have failed. This is a voluntary process that creates a structured, moderated discussion on the issues involved.
Village pump: Neutrally worded notification of a dispute here also may bring in additional ediors who may help.

Many of these discussions will involve polls of one sort or another; but as consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight.

Administrative or community intervention

Shortcut

WP:CONADMIN

In some cases, disputes are personal or ideological rather than mere disagreements about content, and these may require the intervention of administrators or the community as a whole. Sysops will not rule on content, but may intervene to enforce policy (such as WP:BLP) or to impose sanctions on editors who are disrupting the consensus process inappropriately. Sometimes merely asking for an administrator's attention on a talk page will suffice; as a rule, sysops have large numbers of pages watchlisted, and there is a likelihood that someone will see it and respond. However, there are established resources for working with intransigent editors, as follows:

Wikiquette alerts: Wikiquette is a voluntary, informal discussion forum that can be used to help an editor recognize that they have misunderstood some aspect of Wikipedia standards. Rudeness, inappropriate reasoning, POV-pushing, collusion, and any other mild irregularities that interfere with the smooth operating of the consensus process are appropriate reasons for turning to Wikiquette. The process can be double-edged – expect Wikiquette respondents to be painfully objective about the nature of the problem – but can serve to clear up personal disputes.
Noticeboards: As noted above, policy pages generally have noticeboards, and many administrators watch them.
Administrator's intervention noticeboard and Administrator's noticeboard: These are noticeboards for administrators. They are high-volume noticeboards and should be used sparingly. Use AN for for issues that need eyes but may not need immediate action; use ANI for more pressing issues. Do not use either except at need.
Requests for comment on users: A more formal system designed to critique a long-term failure of an editor to live up to community standards.
Requests for arbitration: The final step for intractable disputes. The Arbitration Committee may rule on almost any aspect of a dispute other than on a content dispute, and has broad powers in its decisions.

Consensus-building pitfalls and errors

The following are common mistakes made by editors when trying to build consensus:

Too many cooks. Fruitful discussions usually do not generally contain too many participants. It is difficult to reach consensus with a large number of disparate views involved.
Off-wiki discussions. Discussions on other websites, web forums, IRC, by email, or otherwise off the project are generally discouraged, and are not taken into account when determining consensus "on-wiki." In some cases, such off-Wiki communication may generate suspicion and mistrust. Most Wikipedia-related discussions should be held on Wikipedia where they can be viewed by all participants.
Canvassing, sock puppetry, and meat puppetry. Any effort to gather participants to a community discussion that has the effect of biasing that discussion is unacceptable. While it is fine – even encouraged – to invite people into a discussion to obtain new insights and arguments, it is not acceptable to invite only people favorable to a particular point of view, or to invite people in a way that will prejudice their opinions on the matter. Using an alternative persona ("sock puppet", or "sock) to influence consensus is absolutely forbidden. Neutral, informative messages to Wikipedia noticeboards, WikiProjects, or editors are permitted; but actions that could reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to "stuff the ballot box" or otherwise compromise the consensus-building process are considered disruptive editing.
Tendentious editing. The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process.

Shortcuts

Forum shopping, admin shopping, and spin-doctoring. Raising the same issue repeatedly on different pages (or to different admins, or with different wording) is confusing and disruptive. It doesn't help to seek out a forum where you get the particular answer you want, or to play with the wording to try and trick different editors into agreeing with you, since sooner or later someone will notice all of the different threads. This is also known as "asking the other parent". Obviously, you may draw attention to the issue on noticeboards or other talk pages – if you are careful to add links that will keep all the concurrent discussions together; but best practice is to choose one appropriate forum for the consensus discussion, and give (as much as possible) a single neutral, clear, and objective statement of the issue. See also Wikipedia:Policy shopping.

Determining consensus

Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. If the editors involved in a discussion are not able to agree on where the consensus lies, the determination is made by any uninvolved editor in good standing.

Level of consensus

Shortcuts

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.

Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of articles. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community. As a result, editors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change. Changes may be made without prior discussion, but they are subject to a high level of scrutiny. The community is more likely to accept edits to policy if they are made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others.

Consensus can change

Shortcuts

Decisions properly reached through consensus are expected to be respected, even by those editors who disagree with them. However, consensus is not immutable, and matters that have been decided in the past may be raised again; consensus may be found to have changed since they were last discussed.

Proposals or actions should therefore not be rejected simply on grounds like "according to consensus" or "violates consensus". The reasons for objecting should be explained, and discussion on the merits of the issue should be allowed to continue. (However, if a matter has been extensively discussed relatively recently, it may be considered disruptive to bring it up again immediately, unless there are new arguments or circumstances that were not properly considered before.)

It may also be found that consensus within a limited group of editors is different from that of a wider section of the community. In such cases, the wider consensus should be considered to have more weight. However, avoid forum shopping – bringing up a matter repeatedly in different places until you get the result you want.

No consensus

Some discussions result in no consensus. "No consensus" means that there is no consensus either way: it means that there is no consensus to take an action, but it also and equally means that there is no consensus not to take the action. What the community does next depends on the context.

In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept.
When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted.

In article title discussions, no consensus has two defaults: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. If it has never been stable, or has been unstable for a long time, then it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.
In disputes over external links, disputed links are removed unless and until there is a consensus to include them.

Beyond consensus

An extremely narrow group of actions and polices are beyond consensus and must be respected.

Shortcut

WP:CONEXCEPT

Declarations from Jimbo Wales, the Wikimedia Foundation Board, or the Developers, particularly for copyright, legal issues, or server load, must be respected by editors. See also Wikimedia Foundation Policies.
Office actions are not permitted to be reversed by editors without Office permission.
A ruling of the Arbitration Committee may introduce a process which results in temporary binding decisions. For example, Ireland article names.

External links

WikiEN-l mailing list July 2005
Conflict and Consensus categories on MeatBall Wiki.

Related information

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor [[Wikipedia:Silence and consensus|can be assumed to have consensus]]. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. In this way the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time without any needless procedures – editors do not need to seek permission before making changes. Even if there is a difference of opinion, often all that is required is a simple rewording that will satisfy all editors' concerns. Clear communication in [[WP:Edit summary|edit summaries]] can make this process easier.
-Editors may make changes without prior discussion (to "[[WP:be bold|be bold]]", in Wikipedia parlance). If an edit is not an  improvement, then it well should be [[WP:Revert|reverted]]. Any such revert should have a clear edit summary stating why the particular edit is not considered to be an improvement to the article, or what policies or guidelines would require the edit be undone. Further discussion should then be undertaken on the article discussion page. Unless a discussion regarding a claim of "no consensus" is undertaken on the discussion page, an edit summary of "[[Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus"|no consensus]]" or "not discussed" is not helpful. This helps indicate what issues need to be addressed in subsequent efforts to reach a consensus on the matter. Repeated reversions are contrary to Wikipedia policy under [[WP:Edit warring]], except for specific policy based material and for reversions of [[WP:Vandalism|vandalism]]. Frequently a minor change in word choice can end arguments.
+Editors may make changes without prior discussion (to "[[WP:be bold|be bold]]", in Wikipedia parlance). If an edit is not an  improvement, then it well should be [[WP:Revert|reverted]]. Any such revert should have a clear edit summary stating why the particular edit is not considered to be an improvement to the article, or what policies or guidelines would require the edit be undone. Further discussion should then be undertaken on the article discussion page. Unless a discussion regarding a claim of "no consensus" is undertaken on the discussion page, an edit summary of "[[Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus"|no consensus]]" or "not discussed" is not helpful, except possibly on pages that describe long-standing Wikipedia policy. This helps indicate what issues need to be addressed in subsequent efforts to reach a consensus on the matter. Repeated reversions are contrary to Wikipedia policy under [[WP:Edit warring]], except for specific policy based material and for reversions of [[WP:Vandalism|vandalism]]. Frequently a minor change in word choice can end arguments.
 ===Reaching consensus through discussion===

Revision as of 00:31, 6 January 2012

Achieving consensus

Reaching consensus through editing

Reaching consensus through discussion

Consensus-building

Consensus-building in talk pages

Consensus-building by soliciting outside opinions

Administrative or community intervention

Consensus-building pitfalls and errors

Determining consensus

Level of consensus

Consensus can change

No consensus

Beyond consensus

See also

External links

Related information