Jump to content

Wikipedia:Consensus: Difference between revisions

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Ming28 (talk | contribs)
24 edits
m link for the word consensus removed because it redirects to the same page
{{pp-dispute}}
(411 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-dispute|expiry=February 9, 2012}}
{{dablink|"WP:CON" redirects here; you may be looking for [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]] or [[Help:Edit conflict]].}}
{{dablink|"WP:CON" redirects here; you may be looking for [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]] or [[Help:Edit conflict]].}}
{{pp-semi-indef}}
<noinclude>{{pp-semi-indef}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>
{{policy|subcategory=conduct|WP:CONS}}
{{policy|WP:CON|WP:CONS}}
{{nutshell|Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making.}}
{{nutshell|Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making.}}
{{conduct policy list}}
{{Policylist}}


'''''Consensus''''' refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve [[Wikipedia:Goal|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 [[Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion|vote]]. This means that decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|norms]].
'''Consensus''' is one of a range of policies concerning how editors work with each other. Editors typically reach consensus as a natural and inherent product of editing; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, then everyone who reads it has an opportunity to leave the page as it is or change it. When editors cannot reach an agreement by editing, the process of reaching consensus is furthered on the relevant [[talk page]]s.


This page describes how consensus is understood on Wikipedia, how to determine whether it has been achieved (and how to proceed if it has not), and certain exceptions to the principle that all decisions are made by consensus.
== What consensus is ==
=== Process ===
{{further|[[Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing|Editing policy—Talking and editing]]}}
Discussions should always be attempts to ''convince others'', using ''reasons''. If discussion turns into a polarized shouting match then there is no possibility of consensus, and the quality of the page will suffer.


=== Level of 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 [[help:using talk pages|talk pages]] continues the process toward consensus.
{{policy shortcut|WP:CONLIMITED}}


A consensus decision takes into account all of 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 wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accept the proposal.
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, participants in a [[Wikipedia:WikiProject|WikiProject]] cannot decide that some generally accepted policy does not apply to articles within its scope, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right.


=== Reaching consensus through editing ===
In the case of [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|policies and guidelines]], Wikipedia expects a higher standard of participation and consensus than on other pages. In any case, silence can imply consent only if there is adequate exposure to the community.
{{Under discussion|section|talk=Noetica edit}}<!-- As noted on the talkpage, this section has been raised in current action at ArbCom. It should not be subject to substantive edits until discussion there is concluded. -->
[[File:Consensus Flowchart.svg|thumb|right|300px|A simplified diagram of how consensus is reached. When an edit is made, other editors may either accept it, change it, or [[Help:Reverting|revert]] it. ''Seek a compromise'' means "attempt to find a generally acceptable solution", either through continued editing or through discussion.]]
{{further|[[Wikipedia:Editing policy]], [[Wikipedia:Be bold]], and [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle]]}}


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. An edit which is not clearly an improvement may often be improved by rewording. If rewording does not salvage the edit, then it should be [[WP:Revert|reverted]].
=== Consensus can change ===
{{policy shortcut|WP:CCC}}


Any such revert should have a clear [[WP:Edit summary|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 if the edit being reverted created a change in prescribed practice (as on policy and guideline pages), since such a change would need to have wide consensus to be valid. Informative edit summaries help to indicate what issues need to be addressed in subsequent efforts to reach 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 wording can end arguments.
Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for making or reverting an edit, or for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action.


===Reaching consensus through discussion===
Wikipedia remains flexible because new people may bring fresh ideas, growing may evolve new needs, people may change their minds over time when new things come up, and we may find a better way to do things.
When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the [[WP:talk page|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 that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution. 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, a number of processes are available for consensus-building ([[wp:3O|third opinions]], [[WP:RFC|requests for comment]], informal mediation at the [[wp:MEDCAB|Mediation Cabal]]), and even more extreme processes that will take authoritative steps to end the dispute ([[wp:ANI|administrator intervention]], [[wp:mediation|formal mediation]], and [[wp:arbitration|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 [[wp:edit war|edit war]]ring, [[wp:sock|sock]]ing, or a lack of [[wp:civility|civility]]). They may also make decisions about whether edits are or are not allowable under policy, but will not usually go beyond such actions.
A representative group might make a decision on behalf of the community as a whole. More often, people [[WP:PGLIFE|document changes to existing procedures]] at some arbitrary time after the fact. But in all these cases, nothing is permanently fixed. The world changes, and the wiki must change with it. It is reasonable and indeed often desirable to make further changes to things at a later date, even if the last change was years ago.


=== Exceptions ===
=== Consensus-building ===
{{see|Wikipedia:Dispute resolution}}
{{policy shortcut|WP:CONEXCEPT}}
Some exceptions supersede consensus decisions on a page.


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.
*Declarations from [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]], [[m:Board of Trustees|the Wikimedia Foundation Board]], or [[m:Developers|the Developers]], particularly for copyright, legal issues, or server load, have policy status.
*[[Wikipedia:Office actions|Office actions]] are outside the policies of the English Wikipedia.
*Some actions, such as removal of [[WP:copyright violations|copyright violations]] and certain types of material about [[wp:BLP|living persons]], do not normally require debate or consensus, primarily because of the risk of real harm inherent in them.


==== Consensus-building in talk pages ====
===Policies and guidelines===
{{See also|Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines}}
Policies and guidelines reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important if the community is to have confidence in them. Editors are therefore typically expected to propose substantive changes on the talk page before making them. Don't do big things suddenly; the community is more likely to accept your edits if you do them slowly and make effort to keep the community involved.
{{policy shortcut|WP:TALKDONTREVERT}}
Be '''[[WP:BOLD|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 [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|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.
== Consensus-building ==


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 [[Wikipedia:disruptive editing|disruptive editing]] and incur sanctions.
Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can happen through discussion, editing, or more often, a combination of the two. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|good faith effort]] to work together in a [[Wikipedia:Civility|civil manner]]. Developing consensus requires special attention to [[WP:NPOV|neutrality]] and [[WP:Verifiable|verifiability]] in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on.


The goal in a consensus-building discussion is to reach a compromise which angers as few as possible. People with [[Wikipedia:Competence is required|good social skills]] and [[Wikipedia:Negotiation|good negotiation skills]] are more likely to be successful than people who are less than civil to others.
Several processes can attract editors to resolve differences:
*[[wp:Third Opinion|Third Opinions]] involve a neutral third party in a dispute between two editors
*[[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal|Mediation]] involves a neutral third party in a dispute among multiple editors
*[[wp:RfC|Requests for Comment]] invites greater participation
*[[wp:PUMP|Village pump]] invites greater participation
*[[wp:Wikiquette alerts|Wikiquette alerts]] offer perspective on impolite or other difficult communications
*[[Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes|Resolving disputes]] offers other options
Try not to attract too many editors at once.


==== Consensus-building by soliciting outside opinions ====
To ensure transparency, consensus cannot be formed except on Wikipedia discussion pages. "Off-wiki" discussions, such as those taking place on other websites, on web forums or on [[IRC]], are not taken into account when determining consensus.


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:
=== Consensus as a result of the editing process ===


;[[wp:Third Opinion|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.
[[File:Consensus Flowchart.svg|thumb|right|300px|When an edit is made, other editors have these options: accept the edit, change the edit, or [[Help:Reverting|revert]] the edit. These options may be discussed if necessary.]]
;[[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|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.
{{See also|Wikipedia:Editing policy}}
;[[wp:DRN|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.
;[[wp:RfC|Requests for comment]]: Placement of a formal neutrally worded notice on the article talk page inviting others to participate which is [[WP:TRANSCLUSION|transcluded]] onto [[WP:RFC|RfC]] noticeboards.
;[[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal|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.
;[[wp:PUMP|Village pump]]: Neutrally worded notification of a dispute here also may bring in additional ediors who may help.
Many of these discussions will involve [[WP:POLLING|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 [[WP:!VOTE|voting]]. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight.


==== Administrative or community intervention ====
Someone makes a change to a page (any page other than a talk page), then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to leave it as it is, or change it. When two or more editors cannot reach an agreement by editing, consensus is sought on [[Wikipedia:Talk page|talk page]]s.
{{policy 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:


;[[WP:Wikiquette alerts|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.
This is the simplest form of consensus, and it is used in everyday editing on the vast majority of Wikipedia's non-talk pages. It begins with an editor [[WP:BOLD|boldly changing]] an article or other page. In response, the viewers of the page have three options:
; Noticeboards: As noted above, policy pages generally have noticeboards, and many administrators watch them.
* accepting the change,
;[[WP:ANI|Administrator's intervention noticeboard]] and [[WP:AN|Administrator's noticeboard]]: These are noticeboards for administrators. They are high-volume noticeboards and should be used sparingly. Use AN for issues that need eyes but may not need immediate action; use ANI for more pressing issues. Do not use either except at need.
* trying to improve the change, or
;[[WP:RFC/U|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.
* [[Help:Reverting|reverting]] the change.
;[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration|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 ====
If your changes have been edited or removed, you may wish to try to improve on them. If other editors do not immediately accept your ideas, think of a reasonable change that might integrate your ideas with other editors' ideas, and make an edit. You can also discuss the changes at the [[WP:TALK|talk page]], in an [[WP:ES|edit summary]], or as a note to others at a user talk page or other widely read pages, such as the [[WP:VP|Village Pump]] or a relevant [[WP:WikiProject|WikiProject]].


The following are common mistakes made by editors when trying to build consensus:
Articles normally go through many iterations of this form of consensus editing to achieve a [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral]] and readable product.
*'''Off-wiki discussions.''' Discussions on other websites, web forums, [[Internet Relay Chat|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.
*'''[[WP:Canvassing|Canvassing]], [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|sock puppetry]], and [[WP:MEAT|meat puppetry]].''' Any effort to gather participants to a community discussion that has the effect of biasing that discussion is unacceptable. While it is [[Wikipedia:Canvassing#Friendly notices|fine]] – even encouraged – to invite people into a discussion to obtain new insights and arguments, it is [[Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification|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.
*'''[[Wikipedia:Tendentious 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.
{{shortcut|WP:FORUMSHOP|WP:ADMINSHOP}}
*{{anchors|FORUMSHOP|ADMINSHOP}}'''Forum shopping, admin shopping, and spin-doctoring.''' Asking "the other parent" does not work well in real life, nor does it work well on Wikipedia. Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards, or to multiple administrators, may be construed as "forumshopping." Queries placed on noticeboards should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions. Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct noticeboards is proper, as frequently where the "wrong" noticeboard is used, the editor is directed to a more appropriate noticeboard. ''See also [[Wikipedia:Policy shopping]].''


==Determining consensus==
If other editors accept your changes, then this silent acceptance is, itself, sufficient proof that your changes have consensus at this time. Consensus does not require either that you get prior "permission" to make changes or that the acceptance of your changes afterwards be formally documented. Edits that are neither changed nor removed are always presumed to have consensus until someone actually challenges them. Consequently, you should not remove a change ''solely'' on the grounds that there is no formal record indicating consensus for it: instead, you should give a [[WP:5P|policy-based or common-sense reason]] for challenging it.
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 ===
[[Help:Edit summary|Edit summaries]] are useful, and should contain a summary of the change made to the page by the edit, or an explanation of why the editor made the change. A short summary is better than no summary. If the reason for an edit to a non-talk page is not clear, editors are more likely to revert it, especially when someone inserts or deletes material. To give longer explanations, use the talk page and put in the edit summary "see Talk".
{{policy shortcut|WP:CONLIMITED|WP:LOCALCONSENSUS}}


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 [[Wikipedia:WikiProject|WikiProject]] cannot decide that some generally accepted [[WP:POLICY|policy or guideline]] does not apply to articles within its scope.
[[Wikipedia:Edit war|Edit wars]], such as repeatedly inserting the same content when other contributors are rejecting it, lead to [[Wikipedia:Page protection|page protection]] and [[WP:BLOCK|suspension of your ability to edit]] rather than improvements to the page.


Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to [[Wikipedia:policies and guidelines|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 building in talk pages ===
{{See also|Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines}}


=== Consensus can change ===
Be '''[[WP:BOLD|bold]]''' in editing; you can also use the [[Help:Talk page|talk page]] to discuss improvements to the non-talk page, and to form a consensus concerning the editing of the page. This consensus cycle (see figure) is a common theme in Wikipedia. Wikipedia expects changes to [[wikipedia:policies and guidelines|policies and guidelines]] to achieve more participation and consensus than other pages. In cases where consensus is difficult, independent or more experienced editors may need to join the discussion. If [[Wikipedia:edit war|edit war]]s or [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptive editing]] impede the editing of a page, or if consensus is impossible, formal [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] is available.
{{policy shortcut|WP:CCC|WP:TALKEDABOUTIT}}
Consensus is not unchangeable, and matters that have been discussed in the past can be raised again, especially if there are new arguments or circumstances that were not properly considered before. On the other hand, if a subject has been discussed recently, it can be disruptive to bring it up again. As a practical matter, "according to consensus" or "violates consensus" are weak reasons for rejecting a proposal; instead, the reasons for objecting should be explained, followed with discussion on the merits of the proposal.


===No consensus ===
=== Community discussions and polls ===
{{policy shortcut|WP:PRACTICAL}}
:''Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal''. &mdash;[[User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles|Jimbo Wales]]


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.
Community discussion takes place on various pages: noticeboards such as at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents|Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]]; or pages such as [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment|Requests for comment]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration|Requests for arbitration]]. These require collaborative effort and considered input from their participants to form a consensus and act appropriately upon the consensus.


* In [[Wikipedia:Deletion|deletion discussions]], no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept.
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 comes from a minority or a majority. Editors decide outcomes ''during discussion'', [[WP:POLLING|polls]] are regarded as structured discussions rather than [[WP:!VOTE|votes]]. Both during polls and discussions, opinion has more weight when you provide a rationale; convince others of your views, and give them a chance to convince you. An [[WP:LASTWORD|argumentative]] approach rarely convinces others.
* In discussions of textual additions or editorial alterations, a lack of consensus results in no change in the article.
* When [[Wikipedia:Administrators|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.
<!-- DO NOT DELETE this comment block or the "onlyinclude" line that follows -->
<onlyinclude>{{#ifeq:{{{transcludesection|noconsensustitles}}}|noconsensustitles|
* In [[Wikipedia:Article titles|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.
}}</onlyinclude> <!-- DO NOT DELETE -->
* In disputes over [[Wikipedia:External links|external links]], disputed links are removed unless and until there is a consensus to include them.


=== Improper consensus-building ===
==Decisions not subject to consensus of editors ==


Certain policies and decisions made by the Wikimedia Foundation ("WMF"), its officers, and the Arbitration Committee of Wikipedia are outside the purview of editor consensus.
There are methods of building a consensus or the appearance of a consensus that are improper in Wikipedia.
{{policy shortcut|WP:CONEXCEPT}}

* The WMF has legal control over, and liability for, Wikipedia. Decisions, rulings, and acts of the WMF Board and its duly appointed designees take precedence over, and preempt, consensus. A consensus among editors that any such decision, ruling, or act violates [https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Policies Wikimedia Foundation policies] may be communicated to the WMF in writing.
[[WP:Canvass|Canvassing]] is sending messages to many Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion. It is normal to invite more people into a discussion to obtain new insights and arguments. Messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion, however, compromise the consensus-building process and may be considered disruptive. [[Wikipedia:Canvassing#Friendly notices|Invitations must be phrased in a neutral way]] and addressed to a reasonably neutral group of people, e.g., sent to all active editors of the subject or posted at the message boards of the relevant wikiprojects.
* [[Wikipedia:Office actions|Office actions]] are not permitted to be reversed by editors except by prior explicit office permission.

* The English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee may issue binding decisions, within its [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Scope_and_responsibilities|scope and responsibilities]], that override consensus. The committee has a noticeboard, [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment]], for requests that such decisions be amended, and may amend such decisions at any time.
The use of multiple [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|sock puppet]] accounts by an editor to give the illusion of more support for a viewpoint than actually exists is prohibited. [[WP:MEAT|Meatpuppetry]] is a similar technique that involves the recruitment of editors to join a discussion on behalf of an editor, usually with the aim of swaying consensus in that discussion, and is also prohibited.


== See also ==
== See also ==
{{Wikipedia glossary}}
[[WP:Essay|WP essays]] concerning Consensus:
Information pages and [[WP:ESSAY|Wikipedia essays]] concerning consensus:
* [[Wikipedia:What is consensus?]]
* [[Wikipedia:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance]]
* [[Wikipedia:Closing discussions]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus"]],
* [[Wikipedia:Compromise]]
* [[Wikipedia:No consensus]]
* [[Wikipedia:Consensus doesn't have to change]]
* [[Wikipedia:Silence and consensus]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus"]]
* [[Wikipedia:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance]]
* [[Wikipedia:False consensus]]
* [[Wikipedia:IPs are human too]] <!-- unregistered contributors in consensus processes-->
* [[Wikipedia:Method for consensus building]]
* [[Wikipedia:No consensus]]
* [[Wikipedia:Rough consensus]]
* [[Wikipedia:Silence and consensus]]; ''cf''. [[Wikipedia:Silence means nothing]]
* [[Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot]]
* [[Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is consensus?]]


Articles concerning Consensus:
;Articles concerning consensus:
* [[Consensus decision-making]]
* [[False consensus effect]]
* [[Truth by consensus]]
* [[Truth by consensus]]


== External links ==
== External links ==
* [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/026513.html WikiEN-l mailing list July 2005]
* [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/026513.html WikiEN-l mailing list July 2005]
* [http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?back=CategoryConflict Conflict] and [http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?back=CategoryConsensus Consensus] categories on MeatBall Wiki.
* [http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?back=CategoryConflict Conflict] and [http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?back=CategoryConsensus Consensus] categories on MeatBall Wiki.



== Related information == <!-- see [[wp:NAVHEAD]] -->
{{Wikipedia principles}}
{{Wikipedia principles}}
{{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}}
{{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}}

[[Category:Wikipedia conduct policy]]


[[ar:ويكيبيديا:توافق]]
[[ar:ويكيبيديا:توافق]]
[[as:Wikipedia:ঐকমত্য]]
[[az:Vikipediya:Konsensus]]
[[bn:উইকিপিডিয়া:ঐকমত্য]]
[[be:Вікіпедыя:Кансэнсус]]
[[br:Wikipedia:Kenemglev]]
[[br:Wikipedia:Kenemglev]]
[[bn:উইকিপেডিয়া:ঐকমত্য]]
[[ca:Viquipèdia:Consens]]
[[ca:Viquipèdia:Consens]]
[[cs:Wikipedie:Konsenzus]]
[[cs:Wikipedie:Konsenzus]]
Line 134: Line 163:
[[it:Wikipedia:Consenso]]
[[it:Wikipedia:Consenso]]
[[ka:ვიკიპედია:კონსენსუსი]]
[[ka:ვიკიპედია:კონსენსუსი]]
[[kk:Уикипедия:Консенсус]]
[[lt:Vikipedija:Konsensusas]]
[[lt:Vikipedija:Konsensusas]]
[[mk:Википедија:Консензус]]
[[hu:Wikipédia:Konszenzus]]
[[hu:Wikipédia:Konszenzus]]
[[mk:Википедија:Консензус]]
[[ml:വിക്കിപീഡിയ:സമവായം]]
[[ml:വിക്കിപീഡിയ:സമവായം]]
[[mt:Wikipedija:Kunsens]]
[[mt:Wikipedija:Kunsens]]
[[ms:Wikipedia:Sepersetujuan]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Consensus]]
[[ja:Wikipedia:合意形成]]
[[ja:Wikipedia:合意形成]]
[[no:Wikipedia:Konsensus]]
[[no:Wikipedia:Konsensus]]
[[pl:Wikipedia:Konsensus]]
[[pl:Wikipedia:Konsensus]]
[[pt:Wikipedia:Consenso]]
[[pt:Wikipédia:Consenso]]
[[ro:Wikipedia:Consens]]
[[ro:Wikipedia:Consens]]
[[ru:Википедия:Консенсус]]
[[ru:Википедия:Консенсус]]
[[si:විකිපීඩියා:පොදු එකඟත්වය]]
[[si:Wikipedia:Consensus]]
[[simple:Wikipedia:Consensus]]
[[simple:Wikipedia:Consensus]]
[[sk:Wikipédia:Konsenzus]]
[[sk:Wikipédia:Konsenzus]]
Line 152: Line 184:
[[sh:Wikipedia:Konsenzus]]
[[sh:Wikipedia:Konsenzus]]
[[fi:Wikipedia:Konsensus]]
[[fi:Wikipedia:Konsensus]]
[[sv:Wikipedia:Att söka samförstånd]]
[[sv:Wikipedia:Konsensus]]
[[ta:விக்கிப்பீடியா:இணக்க முடிவு]]
[[ta:விக்கிப்பீடியா:இணக்க முடிவு]]
[[vi:Wikipedia:Đồng thuận]]
[[tg:Википедиа:Иҷмоъ]]
[[tg:Википедиа:Иҷмоъ]]
[[tr:Vikipedi:Fikir birliği]]
[[tr:Vikipedi:Fikir birliği]]
[[uk:Вікіпедія:Консенсус]]
[[vi:Wikipedia:Đồng thuận]]
[[yi:װיקיפּעדיע:קאנסענסוס]]
[[yi:װיקיפּעדיע:קאנסענסוס]]
[[zh:Wikipedia:共识]]
[[zh:Wikipedia:共识]]

Revision as of 22:29, 2 February 2012

"WP:CON" redirects here; you may be looking for Wikipedia:Conflict of interest or Help:Edit conflict.

Conduct policies

Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it 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. This means that decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms.

This page describes how consensus is understood on Wikipedia, how to determine whether it has been achieved (and how to proceed if it has not), and certain exceptions to 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.

A consensus decision takes into account all of 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 wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accept the proposal.

Reaching consensus through editing

A simplified diagram of how consensus is reached. When an edit is made, other editors may either accept it, change it, or revert it. Seek a compromise means "attempt to find a generally acceptable solution", either through continued editing or through discussion.
Further information: [[:Wikipedia:Editing policy, Wikipedia:Be bold, and Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle]]

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. An edit which is not clearly an improvement may often be improved by rewording. If rewording does not salvage the edit, then it 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 if the edit being reverted created a change in prescribed practice (as on policy and guideline pages), since such a change would need to have wide consensus to be valid. Informative edit summaries help to indicate what issues need to be addressed in subsequent efforts to reach 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 wording 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 that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution. 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, a number of processes are available for consensus-building (third opinions, requests for comment, informal mediation at the Mediation Cabal), and even 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

Further information: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution

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

See also: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines
Shortcut

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

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 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:

  • 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. Asking "the other parent" does not work well in real life, nor does it work well on Wikipedia. Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards, or to multiple administrators, may be construed as "forumshopping." Queries placed on noticeboards should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions. Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct noticeboards is proper, as frequently where the "wrong" noticeboard is used, the editor is directed to a more appropriate noticeboard. 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

Consensus is not unchangeable, and matters that have been discussed in the past can be raised again, especially if there are new arguments or circumstances that were not properly considered before. On the other hand, if a subject has been discussed recently, it can be disruptive to bring it up again. As a practical matter, "according to consensus" or "violates consensus" are weak reasons for rejecting a proposal; instead, the reasons for objecting should be explained, followed with discussion on the merits of the proposal.

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.
  • In discussions of textual additions or editorial alterations, a lack of consensus results in no change in the article.
  • 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.

Decisions not subject to consensus of editors

Certain policies and decisions made by the Wikimedia Foundation ("WMF"), its officers, and the Arbitration Committee of Wikipedia are outside the purview of editor consensus.

Shortcut
  • The WMF has legal control over, and liability for, Wikipedia. Decisions, rulings, and acts of the WMF Board and its duly appointed designees take precedence over, and preempt, consensus. A consensus among editors that any such decision, ruling, or act violates Wikimedia Foundation policies may be communicated to the WMF in writing.
  • Office actions are not permitted to be reversed by editors except by prior explicit office permission.
  • The English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee may issue binding decisions, within its scope and responsibilities, that override consensus. The committee has a noticeboard, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment, for requests that such decisions be amended, and may amend such decisions at any time.

See also

This page is referenced in the Wikipedia Glossary.

Information pages and Wikipedia essays concerning consensus:

Articles concerning consensus
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Consensus&oldid=474656937"