Wikipedia:Consensus: Difference between revisions
Kevin Murray (talk | contribs) Remove undiscussed addition of a lot of text - please show consensus at the talk page |
|||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
[[Wikipedia:Edit war|Edit wars]] can lead to [[Wikipedia:Page protection|page protection]] rather than improvements to the article. |
[[Wikipedia:Edit war|Edit wars]] can lead to [[Wikipedia:Page protection|page protection]] rather than improvements to the article. |
||
== Consensus in practice == |
|||
{{policy shortcut|[[WP:PRACTICAL]]}} |
|||
Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome. The following description of consensus, from the [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/026513.html mailing list], argues a difference between consensus and unanimity: |
|||
<blockquote> |
|||
''In fact WP's standard way of operating is a rather good illustration of what it does mean: a mixture across the community of those who are largely agreed, some who disagree but 'agree to disagree' without disaffection, those who don't agree but give low priority to the given issue, those who disagree strongly but concede that there is a community view and respect it on that level, some vocal and unreconciled folk, some who operate 'outside the law'. You find out whether you have consensus, if not unanimity, when you try to build on it''. |
|||
</blockquote> |
|||
In practice, a lot of people look in on an issue and check to see if a (mere) majority exists in favor of their position. However, to find the actual consensus (or what it will end up as), you actually need to carefully consider the ''strength and quality of the arguments themselves'' (including any additional concerns that may have been raised along the way), the basis of objection of those who disagree, and in more complex situations, existing documentation in the project namespace should also be checked. If you are volunteering to carry out an action on the basis of rough consensus, only this thorough approach is acceptable. |
|||
[[Minority]] opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and discussion should continue in an effort to try to negotiate the most favorable compromise that is still practical. In situations with a deadline, a perfect compromise may not have been reached by all participants at the deadline. Nevertheless, a course of action should be chosen that is likely to satisfy the most persons (rather than merely the majority). Running roughshod over the (then) minority is the best way to get yourself into almost unlimited amounts of trouble. Besides, next time someone from that minority might be the final closer, and you might be one of the people in a minority, so it's a good idea to be a gentleperson at all times and set a good example. |
|||
[[WP:BITE|New users]] who are not yet familiar with consensus should realize that a poll (if one is even held) is often more likely to be the start of a discussion than it is to be the end of one! The final course of action is usually decided upon ''during discussion''. This is another reason you should always provide a further rationale during a poll. People can then engage you in discussion and work out an acceptable compromise. This can be very empowering. Provided you do your homework right, at times your opinion alone will be enough to tip the scales, or even decide the issue all on its own! |
|||
== Use of the talk page == |
== Use of the talk page == |
||
Revision as of 05:14, 22 June 2008
 |
 | This page in a nutshell:
|
Consensus is typically reached as a natural and inherent product of the wiki-editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. In essence, silence implies consent, if there is adequate exposure to the community. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, should never over-ride community consensus on a wider scale, unless convincing arguments cause the new process to become widely accepted. In the case of policy and process pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected than on other pages.
Reasonable consensus-building
Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can be reached through discussion, action (editing), or more often, a combination of the two. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality - remaining neutral in our actions in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on.
How consensus emerges during the editing process
Generally someone edits a page, and then subsequent viewers of the page have three options: accept the edit, change the edit, or revert the edit. Included in each of the courses is the option to discuss the action before or after the action. Typically, each article goes through many iterations of the consensus process to achieve a neutral and readable product. If your ideas are not immediately accepted, think of a reasonable change that might integrate your ideas with others and make an edit, or discuss those ideas. This can be done at the talk page, as an edit summary, or as a note to others at a user talk page or other widely read page such as the Village pump.
Edit summaries are useful, and may contain a summary of the change made to the article by the edit, or an explanation of why the change was made. Even a short summary is better than no summary. If the reason for an edit is not clear, it is more likely to be reverted, especially in the case that some text is deleted. To give a longer explanation, use the Talk page and put in the edit summary "see Talk".
Edit wars can lead to page protection rather than improvements to the article.
Use of the talk page
Be bold in editing; you can also use the talk page to discuss improvements to the article, and to form consensus concerning the editing of the page. In the case of policy pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected. In cases where consensus is particularly hard to find, the involvement of independent editors or more experienced help in the discussion may be necessary. If editing of the page is impeded by edit wars, or is disrupted, or consensus cannot be found on the talk page through ordinary discussion, there are more formal dispute resolution processes.
Consensus can change
Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and changes are sometimes reasonable.
Wikipedia's processes remain flexible for several reasons, including that new people may bring fresh ideas, growing may evolve new needs, people may change their minds over time when new things come up, and sometimes we find a better way to do things.
Sometimes a representative group makes a decision on behalf of the community as a whole, at a point in time. More often, people document changes to existing procedures at some arbitrary point in time after the fact.
Participating in community discussions
Community discussion takes place on various pages: noticeboards such as at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; or pages such as Requests for comment and Requests for arbitration. These processes require collaborative effort and considered input from their participants in order to form a consensus and act appropriately upon the consensus that can be discerned.
In determining consensus carefully consider the strength and quality of the arguments themselves, including the evolution of the final positions, the objection of those who disagree, and in complex situations, existing documentation in the project namespace. Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and the logic may outweigh the logic of the majority. New users who are not yet familiar with consensus should realize that a poll (if one is even held) is often more likely to be the start of a discussion than it is to be the end of one. The outcome may be decided during discussion.
In the few cases where polls are used, note that they are actually structured discussions, your opinion is much more effective when you provide a rationale during a poll, not just a simple vote.
Forum shopping
It is very easy to create the appearance of a changing consensus simply by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people will discuss the issue. This, however, is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works. Wikipedia's decisions are not based on the number of people who showed up and voted a particular way on a particular day; they are based on a system of good reasons.
Exceptions
There are a few exceptions that supersede consensus decisions on a page.
- Declarations from Jimmy Wales, the Board, or the Developers, particularly for server load or legal issues (copyright, privacy rights, and libel) may have policy status (see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Sources of Wikipedia policy).
- Office Actions on a specific article (such as stubbing or protecting it) are outside the policies of the English Wikipedia.
- Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to automatically override consensus on a wider scale - for instance, a local debate on a WikiProject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline. The WikiProject cannot decide that for the articles within its scope, some policy does not apply, unless they can convince the broader community that doing so is the right course of action.
- Foundation Issues lay out the basic principles for all Wikimedia projects. These represent the largest consensus decisions achievable among all Wikimedia projects, and affect all projects.