Wikipedia talk:Consensus

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

Writing

I don't know who's changing what here, but the writing is really suffering. Parts of the current lead are practically meaningless. I suggest we find an earlier version to return to. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I went back to a 2007 version, which I tweaked a little. We should ideally go through every section and make sure that each sentence actually says something. Much of the previous lead didn't really say anything at all. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree on the whole. I do disagree with your edit summary "has nothing to do with Dunbar's number", RE "Try not to attract too many editors at once." It does have something to do with Dunbar's number. However, for me anyway, the number that overwhelmes me on a single page is more like 5 than 150. I think "do not attract too many at once" is good advice, but I think some (any) justification should be offered. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Dunbar's number is a kind of tipping point, beyond which AGF doesn't work for diverse reasons (at which point, the prerequisites for consensus no longer exist). There is a different Dunbar's number for each environment, and it can be empirically determined (though I don't think we ever tried on Wikipedia. That might be a good question for Erik Zachte!) . It can be as low as say 50 people in an online enviornment. Perhaps even less. While 5 people is quite a handful, I don't think it exceeds Dunbar's number. :-P

The use of diverse Dispute resolution techniques all typically meatball:ExpandScope. If taken too far, it is certainly possible to exceed 50+ participants using dispute resolution, and that tends to bring the house down at a particular location. At that point things become unmanageable, and we get all these governance reform types whining about meatball:CommunityMayNotScale, and asserting that consensus doesn't work. Well yeah, it works just fine, as long as you don't deliberately break it! :-P

There are other ways to expandscope too far too fast too. For instance, the WP:ATT proposal ultimately failed because at one point there were as many as 880 participants. That alone was sufficient to kill it.

At the moment, there are several places where people are advised to draw in more participants "to get a broader consensus", whatever that means :-P . This can lead to broader wikidrama instead, if people blindly follow that advice, and forget about Good Old Dunbar.

So we're going to have to mention this someplace. Any idea where? --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Kim, not to rehash old debates... but ultimately the ATT proposal failed because it took the broader Wikipedia community by surprise. We had a core group of perhaps 20 policy wonks (with occasional comments and tweeks by around 300 others) who toiled away for months arguing and reaching a local consensus... but the broader community knew nothing about it until it was suddenly implimented. What killed ATT was the ham-fisted way it was implimented, and the (understandable) knee-jerk reaction of the broader community to waking up one day to find three of the core policies suddenly "GONE" and replaced with something (gasp) NEW. (I know this wasn't the intent of those involved... but that was how the broader community saw it). Blueboar (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what happened, from my perspective. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not what happened, Blueboar. It had been discussed on the mailing list, posted to the various policy pages, and announced on all the public pages we could think of. People were emailing to say the content policies were clear to them for the first time. It was Jimbo who singlehandedly overturned it, even though he had also been told about it weeks in advance. We then got a wiki-wide majority for it, even though Jimbo had opposed it; it just wasn't the two-thirds majority we needed, which is very difficult to get when you involved hundreds of people. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You miss my point SV... yes, all that took place... but why was Jimbo brought in to oppose it in the first place... because people were blind sided by it. Most of the community did not know that ATT was even being contemplated until it was implimented. It took them by surprise and they complained to Jimbo. All else followed from that. Blueboar (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo wasn't brought in to oppose it. He was arguing with someone that using primary sources in BLPs is OR. He was saying it was, and the others were saying it wasn't. NOR backed him up (as did ATT). He therefore went to quote the NOR page, and saw that someone had added a tag to it saying "superseded" or something, which really it would have been better not to do, because the concept of NOR was not superseded at all. So he undid the tag, and came to ATT arguing against it. Until that point, it had been working extremely well as a policy. People liked it. No one had complained to Jimbo. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I get the idea that Jimbo deliberately expanded scope. He does know all the old wikis, and he is an expert, albeit a tad rusty these days ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You get the wrong idea. I know what happened, and that wasn't it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I was there too. I predicted the poll outcome on the day it opened. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

SV... I agree that you were plugged into the back channel discussions, and I was not... so I will bow to your "insider's knowledge" on the Jimbo issue. However, this does not change my assertion that the average editor felt blindsided by ATT's implementation. There were a shit load of comments saying effectively "Whoa... Nobody told me about this... I want my WP:V!" For that part of it, I was there. Blueboar (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they didn't expand scope gradually enough, they exposed the whole community to it from one day to the next, and therefore there were suddenly hundreds of new people discussing from one day to the next.

Same situation, same numbers, just a slightly different way of saying it, and the different viewpoint allows drawing of extra conclusions, IMHO.

Otherwise it sounds like we're pretty much in agreement here? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Back to the writing

Could people please try to keep the writing tighter and more readable? There's a lot of material on the page that makes no sense. For example, what does this mean? "Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the "logic" (point of view) of the majority." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

URK. I'm of to wikimania as of tomorrow. How about we look into some of that when I get back? I totally agree that we need to do some tidying.

I'll admit I'm not entirely AGF-ing, and I know you're experienced and everything and you won't really do anything evil, but I'm just a little worried about coming back and reading things like "Consensus is non negotiable" or "You cannot edit consensus without consensus" ... Do I need to be afraid? ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps someone else can explain what it means? I don't know who wrote it originally. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, say there are 20 people (majority) saying that 1+1=4, and 10 people saying that 1+1=2.

Even though the opinion is outnumbered two-to-one , it is still true that 1+1=2.

Hmmm, have you ever watched 12 angry men ? One person convinces all the others that he is right, and in the end he gains consensus for his position. It's interesting to see how the movie portrays it. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

What is "strict logic." What is "'logic' (point of view)"? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The very reason why those twelve men were so angry... :) Dreadstar ☥ 21:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I think Strict logic would be Logic, while "logic" (point of view) is simply a point of view, and not logic at all (strictly not logic ;-) ) . Hmph. That's fairly twisty wording.

How about putting it this way?

"Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns. Just because someone is in the minority, doesn't mean that they are wrong. It is important to evaluate every argument based on its merits, not based on who it comes from, or whether they currently are in the minority or in the majority.". Is that clearer? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Less is more when it comes to writing -- almost any kind of writing, but particularly policy. "Minority opinions may reflect genuine concerns" is all that's really needed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, you have a point about being succinct. But the proposed wording is not strong enough, I feel.

The point is that the minority has just as much chance at being right as the majority does. We want the best ideas to prevail, not the biggest numbers. Does that make sense?

Let's see. How about: "Ideas are judged on their merits, not by whether they are held by the majority or by a minorty". Will that do? --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, you need to decide whether you believe "descriptive not prescriptive." As a matter of fact, ideas on Wikipedia are rarely judged on their merits, but by how many people believe something. You can say that a vote is not a vote until you're blue in the face, but it usually is, especially for anything contentious. So: do you want this policy to say what is the case, or what ought to be the case? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither. I want to state what we have found to work *best* in reality. If we tell people just what happens a lot, we'd also have to tell them to vandalise the wiki ;)

Over time, we've found that the best results are found through discussion and editing. Ironically, voting actually disenfranchises people.

There's also another reason to discourage voting: Voting on encyclopedic content is disastrous (imagine a majority agreeing that 2+2=5 ;-) ). So we need to use consensus in the main namespace. By encouraging use of consensus elsewhere, we can ensure that people don't get tempted.

numerous people on wikipedia therefore act to discourage voting, and they explain to people why straight voting is a bad idea.

I've also seen many people use polls properly to gauge consensus . I hope you're one of those people! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Kim says, "The point is that the minority has just as much chance at being right as the majority does."

Kim, this is simply not true -- not in the real world, and not in the average editor's experience of Wikipedia's working. For example: if you compared every modern evidence-based pharmaceutical drug to the best "alternative medicine" counterpart, you will not find that the "minority view" is better in 50% of the cases. Similarly, if you've got many editors saying "This former head of the IAEA is clearly an expert on radiation safety" and one claiming that anyone that's been hired by a utility company is a hopeless shill (as we did at RSN this week), the minority view does not have equal odds of being correct simply because it's a minority view.

Editors of an enterprise that purports to be factual would be well-served by remembering that minority views are usually in the minority for a sound reason. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I may have misspoken, I did not mean to imply 50/50 odds. What I do mean can easily be illustrated as follows:

Example:

I always had the impression that -for instance- homeopathy has a rather large number of adherents, despite lack of evidence in its favor. It is quite possible to be the single scientist in a room full of homeopaths, for instance. ;-)

So I'm a scientist, and say I walk into a room full of homeopaths. I am now greatly outnumbered. Does that make me automatically wrong, and will homeopathy suddenly start to work? ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course you are wrong... no scientist should ever walk into a room full of homeopaths! :>) Blueboar (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Does this help?

Moving us back to the issue of "discuss first" and "bold first"... I have added the following (shown in bold) to the guideline...

• The policies and guidelines reflect established consensus. Stability and consistency is important, and editors are therefore expected to discuss any substantial proposed changes on the talk page before making them. This does not mean that a final consensus on a proposed change must be agreed to before any edit can be made. Bold editing can often help move a stalled discussion forward.

This clarifies my position on the "discuss first" method, and, I hope, addresses the conscerns that some have expressed about endless discussions. Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar, I removed this because you're trying to find a compromise between most editors on the one hand, and two or three on the other. As I see it, there is strong consensus that BOLD is not helpful on policy pages. If we want to change that, or test it, I think a wiki-wide RfC is in order, because it affects every policy and guideline. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm... not sure if there is a consensus that you should never make a bold edit... Looking at both comments and practice, the issue seems to be about whether to initiate a change with a bold edit or with discussion. With the consensus being: initiate with a discussion.

Take the very section you and I are editing now... I see it as a perfect example of what I am talking about with my addition. I started things off a few days ago with a discussion, in which I expressed why I thought this policy needed changing. Others then expressed their opinions on the matter. I floated some proposed language, and got (at the time, hesitant) agreement to add it to the page. It was then boldly edited by several editors until it reached its current state. Meanwhile, discussion continued. I think it worked fairly well. No? Blueboar (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious as to how it is that SlimVirgin gets to have an opinion that actually defines consensus, while the rest of us are merely whistling in the wind. Did I miss a cabal meeting or what? ;) I'm always interested in claims as to where the consensus lies, the people making the claims, and the positions they themselves hold. Has anyone actually delineated a reason why bold edits to policies and guidance should be prohibited? As far as I can see the consensus seems to be that the consensus making process seems to be the same with either discuss first or edit first. I can't therefore work out why we would guide against one. Hiding T 22:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar, the issue is not whether people should make one edit, then talk, or never make an edit before talking yada yada. The issue is whether BOLD as a concept ought to apply to policies, and I see a strong consensus saying no, not just here but on multiple pages. Hiding, I see this stuff because I edit a lot, I see people refer to policies a lot, I see them pissed off when the part they referred to suddenly disappears, I see people reverting policy changes a lot. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you're the one doing all the editing. ;) Okay, so if I understand you, some sections of policy are untouchable because it helps some users to win arguments? I'm trying to work out how we relate that to the idea that consensus can change. I don't really get the rest of your argument, because no-one is arguing that a bold edit to policy should stay simply because it is a bold edit to policy. We do all agree that policy should be subject to challenge, don't we? If we agree that, then I'm not sure why it matters what form the challenge makes, after all, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Now, would it be possible to focus on the potential harms and gains to the community if we move from a dynamic mode to a static one? That would actually be of some benefit, and open up areas of debate that are probably more conducive to reaching consensus. If we treat our policies as static pages, we are effectively locking people out of a very important part of the wiki-contract; ultimately, we are dis-enfranchising them. What will that lead to, that dis-enfranchisement? Well, it's plausible it will lead to frustration, and a lack of participation, which is actually bad for Wikipedia in the long run. Nobody here is arguing that we do away with discussion, but I think it's a bit disingenuous to state that consensus is behind the idea that consensus can't change. If consensus can change, it follows that policies are dynamic, and the pages they are written upon are open to editing. At no point does this idea that pages are open to editing mean they have to be edited, or that discussion should not ensue where consensus is unclear. What it means is that discussion is not the only method for reaching consensus. If you look at how most of our policies formed, you will find they evolved more from editing the actual policy than from talking about it on the talk page. It is therefore quite clear that best practise is to edit. All that said, I know you agree with the bold editing of policies approach, because you do the same yourself, as can be seen at Wikipedia:Administrators and Wikipedia talk:Administrators. Comparing the history of the two pages, we find you've edited the policy without discussing on the talk page. So either you've acted against the community consensus you claim to know so well, or we all agree that bold editing to policies isn't a problem, it's the edits themselves which can be problematic. Hiding T 10:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

But I didn't change the policy. I tightened the writing. We're talking only about substantive changes, edits that change the meaning of a policy.

It's not quite fair to say they're untouchable to help people win arguments. They need to be stable to help people edit. I can either explain to other editors a million times that, when you cite a work, you must cite the work that you read, even if it's not the original, plus the original that you haven't seen, or I can quickly link to WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. When I do the latter, I want to know that it's there, and not that someone in a fit of BOLDness has done away with it. There's nothing wrong with that need. No one wants to get bogged down reinventing the wheel several times a day, year in year out. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC) \

Well, when a simple heading tweak can break a redirect, I think it's very hard to know what can be proscribed to ensure that everything works smoothly. I don't think anyone wants to get bogged down reinventing the wheel, but it is interesting that the tyres we use today have very little in common with a slice of a tree trunk besides the general shape. I mean, even the propulsion system has changed beyond all imagination, from simply pushing and pulling to vehicles that can fly! Sort of implies there is value in reinventing the wheel, wouldn't you say? So I guess we kind of agree that we don't mind people being bold, except when we do, and when we do we should work out what the consensus is, because we don't know whether we're going to like someone being bold until after the event, so there's no mileage lost in being bold after all. Unless, I haven't misread you, have I, and you're suggesting no-one do anything that might inconvenience you, are you? ;) Hiding T 10:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem we've been seeing is editors asserting their right to be BOLD by reverting against multiple editors, waiting a short time, then starting up again with the same edit on another page. BOLD's proponents have been giving it a bad name perhaps. But really, what would be the sense of me going now to the MoS and removing that inline citations are required? You do need to know what you're doing if you're going to be BOLD, but if an editor does know what they're doing, does have a good idea of how the edit will be received, it isn't really BOLD, is it? Evolution, not revolution, is how policies change, and from time to time we'll have paradigm shifts too. But the time has to be right for a paradigm shift, and whoever initiates it usually has to know that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you give me some examples of these "problem editors" or disputed edits, please, and also, can you clarify which "we" you are using, either the Royal "we" or, um, actually, there isn't another one, is there? After all, each person only speaks for themselves on Wikipedia, don't they? Or can I start saying that actually, we haven't seen this problem you (or would that be "the other we"?) describe at all, and then where does that get us? Let's just assume you mean you've encountered a problem. Personally, I've encountered different ones, so perhaps you and I together can accept our experiences are of equal value, and work out a mutually acceptable solution. Although I have to say, I can't quite follow you when you say BOLD's proponents have been giving it a bad name, because you then go on to say that any edit which isn't reverted isn't a BOLD edit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if we changed the definition of vandalism to apply only to all the good edits in Wikipedia, we could safely say Wikipedia doesn't have a vandalism problem, couldn't we? Hiding T 11:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hiding, one more point. Each policy and guideline has a core of editors who look after it. Those editors know what the consensus is regarding "their" policies, or at least they do if they're active content contributors. I help to maintain V and NOR, and I've been helping to write them and watch the talk pages for around four years. Plus I edit articles a lot, so I know what the consensus seems to be regarding those policies. I know which changes are likely to "take" and which not. I know what the community's concerns are, so if an edit addressing those concerns arrives, I know to try to keep it. And if one arrives that's very much opposed to best practice, I know people will reject it. Most policies and guidelines have a number of editors like that who keep an eye on them. You can call it "ownership" if you want to be negative, but you can also see it more positively as guardianship. What I've been concerned about with the changes we've been discussing is that they're not coming from people who have been tremendously active editors, so I have to wonder how they can know what the consensus is about this or that. It's hard for anyone to know, but if you're not active, it's obviously very much harder. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm going to have to think about this and what implications it has. Because, as you say, it would be very easy to characterise your statement as akin to ownership, and even to ponder ideas like local consensus, cabals and elitism. I'm sure that's not what you mean, so I'll have to think hard to try and work out what you do mean. After all, I'm sure we agree that no-one on Wikipedia speaks for anyone but themselves, so it would be wrong to revert something simply because it might not "take". After all, the whole thrust of the argument against allowing bold editing of policies is that that never happens. Maybe, as you suggest above, we need to ponder having an RFC over whether the consensus really is that certain editors are granted stewardship, no guardianship, wasn't it, over policies and guidelines. Hiding T 11:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The policies have a strong descriptive element, as well as a prescriptive one. That is, they have to describe best practice. If you see an edit to a policy you're familiar with, in an area you're familiar with, and you know it doesn't describe best practice, and doesn't reflect consensus, you know it won't "take." The right thing to do in that situation is remove it. Are you disagreeing with that? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion that no editor speaks for anyone but himself or herself: I fairly often answer questions with statements that amount to "The community consensus is X, which I personally dislike." (See, for example, WP:REFPUNC, which says that putting a footnote before punctuation is acceptable, and related to which I have corrected several erroneous assertions to the contrary in GA-related pages, even though I hope that every editor will freely choose to put the footnote immediately after the punctuation, because this style suits my sense of aesthetics better.)

I sincerely hope that most of our editors are capable of identifying the existence of other opinions other than their own, and even accurately explaining the other side's views. If they aren't, then disputes will never be resolved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:OWN doesn't magically reduce the reputation of people who have shown good judgment on a policy page over a long period of time, and WP:BOLD doesn't magically enhance the reputation of people who like to edit first and think later. Even though Wikipedia is more like a never-ending masquerade ball than a cocktail party, people are still people, and reputation is still something people try for, especially because there's no hierarchy to substitute for reputation. - Dank (push to talk) 12:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow you. Are you suggesting that all people who utilise bold editing "like to edit first and think later"? I sincerely hope not, since I like to assume good faith, so let us assume that you are not. So if you aren't saying that, then you are saying that because some people may get it wrong, we shouldn't do it. Would that be right? And if that is right, then it follows that we shouldn't actually do anything, should we, because some people may (even do) get it wrong. Which isn't actually what we do at all, is it? We don't strip all admins of power because of the odd bad egg, do we? Although now you come to mention it... But that's a topic for another day. So basically, no, we should not prevent bold editing to policies, where that bold editing is preceded or followed by an explanation, because sometimes it is a perfectly good way to get things done, and after all, getting things done is more important than how they get done, because, well, we all know why. Hiding T 12:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

SV... I think we are both responding to the same shift in community consensus. But we clearly have a different different ideas as to details. Still, I do suspect that the consensus is at least closer to your way of seeing things than mine. Blueboar (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Some respected editors are bold-ish and others aren't. I would characterize consensus as "Changes made to [a policy page] should reflect consensus"; that's at the top of every policy page. If we discard that statement in favor of BRD (which is only an essay), then we enable the guys who defend every edit by saying "I was only following BRD". - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how do you ensure you reflect consensus? I mean, changes to articles have to reflect consensus, but we don't require people to discuss changes to an article on talk first, do we? Hiding T 12:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Dank: BRD is defined as a specific special case of the consensus system. The procedures defined on the BRD page are methods to ensure that all changes reflect consensus. So by definition, if you are doing BRD properly , you are well within the normal bounds of consensus.

If you are making a choice "between BRD and consensus" , it's similar to asking me to -if talking with you- make a choice between your heart or your chest. Aka... HUH? --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Some editors (particularly the ones who have done their homework) get good results from bold edits, most don't, and implying that bold edits are always welcome is misleading and a little bit mean to the less-experienced editors who really didn't know better and were expecting to get good advice from our BOLD guideline. - Dank (push to talk) 14:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If you don't do your homework at all, either before or after, then I don't think you can expect to ever have results, no matter what you do, right? :-P Perhaps we need a WP:DOYOURHOMEWORK ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It's an essay that's had only 111 editors and 282 edits in four years. [1] Even WP:BOLD is just a guideline. By trying to force BRD into policy pages, it is, in effect, being promoted by stealth. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

All that said, bold editing has been policy since near enough year dot. Attempting to color the practise as only a guideline seems to be an attempt to demote it through stealth. Hiding T 12:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

BRD is a descriptive text about things that do work and don't. Slimvirgin, I'm not sure what the relevance is of the other points you are making, in that context. --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

What do we mean by "discuss"?

OK, I think most of us are agreed about: "Stability and consistency is important, and editors are therefore expected to discuss any proposed changes on the talk page before making them, if they would substantially alter the policy". The still open question is... what do we mean by "discuss"? Blueboar (talk) 12:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't get the impression most of us agree with that at all. I think most of us agree with something like "Policies and guidelines are standards of content and conduct that have widespread community support. Amendments to them require thought, therefore talk page discussion may precede substantive changes to policy. Bold editors of policy and guideline pages are strongly encouraged to follow WP:1RR or WP:0RR standards. Minor edits to improve formatting, grammar, and clarity may be made at any time." That doesn't really leave any questions open, after all. Hiding T 13:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If tens of thousands of people feel that they have given assent to a particular section of policy (by discussing, editing, or simply following the policy without complaint), then a lone editor who changes the policy without any previous discussion about the change may find that they get quickly reverted, and people might (or might not) be less likely to support their positions in future edits and discussions. On your questions above, Hiding, my position is that you're looking for a one-size-fits-all answer. Different editors feel comfortable with different levels of boldness, and some can get away with it better than others can. It's not possible to solve this problem by making a policy statement that "bold is good" or "bold is bad". If I'm forced to make a snappy statement that covers all cases, the best I can come up with is "Changes made to [a policy page] should reflect consensus." (And that's just what the community seems to have settled on, otherwise it wouldn't be on every policy page.) That's a wonderfully flexible statement, when you take the individual editor into account. If Kim makes a change without discussion to a policy page, I know that in part it's because he honestly believes that that's the best way to proceed, he knows that that action is going to create resistance all by itself, he's aware of the consequences and is prepared to deal with flak over it. I might disagree, I might push back, but I wouldn't think he's being sneaky or sloppy. If another editor does the same thing, I might come to a different conclusion about what they're up to (and this opinion would sometimes affect how I respond to them, but I wouldn't share this opinion except at a voluntary editor review or RFA, and even then, only if it seemed really necessary and relevant to an issue raised there). It would be misleading and even mean to give editors the mistaken impression that WP:BOLD gives them some kind of blanket pardon for frequent, undiscussed changes to policy, because it doesn't provide that protection at all, not in the court of public opinion and not (in hard-core cases) at ANI or Arbcom. - Dank (push to talk) 13:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The entire reason why we are discussing this is that community consensus on how to edit policies has already changed to "discuss first". The simple fact is that "Discuss before you edit" has, to all intents and purposes, already become Wikipedia policy. The community consensus isn't saying discussion is an option... it's saying disussion is needed, and expected (in fact it is comming close to being required). All else goes from that basic fact.

So the question isn't should we discuss before we edit or not... THAT has been decided out there, beyond this page. What this page needs to figure out is what the community means by "discuss before you edit". Blueboar (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and my answer to that last question is just above. Everyone is different, and a certain prior discussion might seem like overkill from a particular editor on a particular subject, and not enough coming from a different editor on a different subject. Whether a person chooses to revert and how they discuss will depend on that subjective opinion. Still, it would probably be kind to create an essay giving editors at least a list of examples of bold changes that quickly got reverted because of lack of prior discussion, and let people draw their own conclusions about what will fly. - Dank (push to talk) 14:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

We need to agree on a bare minimum acceptable discussion... otherwise the idea of "Discuss before you edit" is meaningless (as it gives people the option to, subjectively, decide that no discussion is needed). Blueboar (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thinking a bit more about what Dank is saying... Can we at least agree that some amount of discussion is expected (boardering on required), but how much discussion will be needed depends on the specific situation. Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Btw, I'm only talking about policy, and maybe those guideline pages that get edited as much as policy pages do (and maybe we should say at the top of the talk pages of the heavy-traffic guidelines, paraphrasing, "This guideline is discussed and cited a lot. Be aware that many editors are expecting the same serious attitude here towards discussion and edits that applies on policy pages.") It would probably be useful to give editors a heads-up that even a good edit is likely to get reverted on a policy page unless they make the case for the change first; at a minimum, it would be smart to ask first if anyone knows if the desired change has been discussed before, on that page or elsewhere. - Dank (push to talk) 16:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think each page has its own "culture", but in general, yes, I agree that the average policy page takes a dimmer view of well-intentioned but undiscussed changes than the average guideline. Within guidelines, there's a lot more variation. For example:

• Changes to WP:Reliable sources's substance are strongly resisted, and I'd expect even a small change to meaning to be promptly reverted, and would not be surprised to have substantial irritation directed at the "bold" editor.
• Changes to WP:MEDMOS sometimes are done with an edit summary like "Here's what I think we should do, please revert or improve", or with a change followed by an explanation at the talk page. Nobody's angry at bold editors, although undiscussed changes tend to have a short lifespan.
• I recently re-wrote half of WP:SISTER without a single word of discussion. (Of course, I knew that I was on solid ground, as no one can legitimately object to providing examples of how to format these links and describing the usual locations for different types of links.)

In general, I think that it's fair to warn editors that bold editing of most policies and some guidelines may not help them win friends and influence people. Discussion is generally "expected"; only on a few pages is it -- in actual practice -- "required". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm confused. You guys seem to be saying that what I wrote is not current consensus. Trouble is, it's cut and pasted from an arbitration committee endorsed policy. So something is obviously wrong. I'd like to understand why you continue to claim your position has consensus though, so perhaps you can walk me through it slowly. Cheers. Hiding T 19:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

  Link please? - Dank (push to talk) 20:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

  Hiding... read back over the last few days of discussion. Blueboar (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

  This is interesting, and I'm sort of confused myself. The two of you seem to be arguing that changes to policy pages shouldn't be allowed without a discussion first, but policy itself seems to contradict that stance, and is further supported by the fact that policy pages aren't generally protected. To be blunt, the above thread of posts appears to be an attempt to foist some sort of fait acompli on... something.
  — V = I * R (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ohms... That is exactly the situation. In many ways we do have a fait acompli... This policy page no longer matches the community consensus... the consensus as to what the policy should be has changed, and that change now needs to be reflected on this Policy page. The problem is that, in this case, the consensus shift happened organically, out there on all the other policy/guideline pages instead of here on the relevant policy talk page. Essentially the editors who watch and work on our other policy pages have agreed that you need to discuss changes first. If you want to put a label on it, what occured was an unspoken mass invocation of IAR ... saying, we don't care what WP:CONSENSUS says, on this page you have to discuss first. It has reached the point where this is the norm at most of the other policy pages, which tells me that this practice now enjoys the consensus of the community. Thus, the need for this page to reflect that consensus.

What makes this ironic is that we are talking about needing to change the policy about Consensus... because what that policy no longer has consensus (as it applies to Policy pages). Blueboar (talk) 03:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

In many ways, the shift to "Discuss First" on policy pages is similar to what is going on with the "flagged revisions" experiment on articles... we are seeing a fundamental shift in the concept of how Wikipedia needs to work in the future. The entire BOLD concept is being re-evaluated (not necessarily abandoned completely, but certainly changed). For articles, "flagged revisions" means that there is going to be a (needed) check on overly-bold editing. The "Discuss First" shift on policy pages is part of that same trend. It too is a check on overly-bold editing. If the flagged revisions experiment works... it may well end up being applied to Policy pages... and that may cause yet another a change in consensus. But until that happens, we need to bring this page up to speed. Now... the current language (with the addition of the short sentence mentioning that discussion is expected on policies and guidelines) does this. Thus I come back to my question... do we need to tweek it to explain what we mean, or is what we have enough? It sounds like people think it is enough. That works for me. Blueboar (talk) 03:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

eh... this whole idea of "we need to bring this page up to speed" just makes me uncomfortable. I know that I've seen some significant debate over proposals to protect all policy pages, for example. To be straightforward about it, I think that a couple of you are seeing what you want to see based on your own viewpoints. There probably are specific, individual, policy pages that have some entrenched positions, but it seems to me to be a real stretch to extend that to the point of thinking that changes shouldn't ever be made without getting some sort of "approval". I don't think that you're wrong exactly, but I think that you're probably over extending the conclusions that you're drawing from personal observations.
— V = I * R (talk) 08:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Hang on. So the consensus page and the policy page contradict, and some of us think the policy page has best practise and some of us think the consensus page has best practise? Is that what the issue is? And the change to this policy is quite recent, isn't it? So actually, when you think about it, that's the change that needs to be reverted and discussed, isn't it? I mean, we're fairly evenly split here, so that's probably an indication that consensus hasn;t been reached on the issue yet, so whichever practise we're using, either BRD or discuss first, that would mean the disputed text shouldn;t be in the page while we discuss it, doesn't it? Hiding T 09:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

  There, I added an edit which takes a bit more flexible route. Essentially, some engagement on talk pages should be seen to be required. "Drive by" changes, and certainly WP:POINTy changes, should be actively discouraged. Engaging in discussion is essential to the consensus building process, however, and locking out that initial change can really have chilling effect, espeically on true BRD style editing.
  — V = I * R (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Stability

Caveat: I think it's understood that we need wider discussion before we do anything significant (and it was noted in the Signpost that similar discussions are happening in various places, as usual), otherwise whatever we decide on is likely to be rejected even if it's great. Another caveat: I'm fine with the idea of a bias in favor of the version that tens of thousands have assented to in one way or another and against the lone edit that doesn't seem to reflect the history of the page ... the problem is, which version is the "status quo"? Is it the version the last time I looked at the page, or a week or a month ago? If we're not careful, all we're doing is adding another layer of stuff to argue about ... which is the "stable" version ... before we can start arguing about substance, which will probably mean a lot of wasted time. The answer I like best is one I can't personally argue in favor of because of potential conflict of interest: the best arbitrary "stable" point would be once a month, meaning the version that shows up in the WP:Update ... once a day would mean you potentially get a daily argument on which edits just before midnight represented consensus, and once every 3 months would be rejected since we all know consensus can and does change more often than that. (The conflict of interest is that I've done almost all the work at WP:Update so far.) If we do this, then whoever's doing the Update should follow the edits and discussions on each policy page for a day or two after the end of the month and use good judgment on picking a cut-off if necessary to represent a more stable version. Obviously, this wouldn't work for guidelines that don't get updated. - Dank (push to talk) 13:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC) got a better idea, see below 14:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think people are missing the point here... you can hedge this all you want ... it won't change what is happening out there. So, the question is very simply... do you want this page to reflect what the consensus actually is (you are expected to discuss major changes to Policy/Guidelines before you edit), or do you want this page to reflect what a few policy wonks think it should be? Blueboar (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Major change from which version, Blueboar? (Btw, I've gotten some good feedback on this, I'm going to start in this month's Update fudging a little on the midnight Aug 31 cutoff if it looks like no one has had a chance to respond to a recent edit. It's going to be a huge amount of work, and as always, anyone is welcome to do any of it.) - Dank (push to talk) 14:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

From the version that was on the page prior to any non-discussed major edits, as that version reflects the most recent consensus (as determined by the last discussion that took place). Actually, if no one makes major edits without prior discussion, you don't have any question as to which version... what is currently on the page should reflect the most recent consensus (because no one has changed it since the last discussion took place). You only get arguments over "which version" to use when changes are made without discussion. Blueboar (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then let's see if we can all come to an agreement on what the established version of this page is, the version against which future edits should be compared to see if they're "major changes". If we can't do it for this one page in a reasonable period of time, then odds are slim that we can do it for all policy pages, let alone guidelines. Does anyone want to suggest a date/time stamp as the "established" version? - Dank (push to talk) 15:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This looks like an interesting idea, because if this can't be done, wouldn't it sort of imply that we don't actually expect policies to be stable and consistent? Hiding T 15:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Look, I'm really confused now. If Blueboar is right and the page should reflect what is happening now, well, then people are using BRD at policy and guideline pages. So I'm not sure we'd say they aren't, when they are. And if there are discussions about it all over Wikipedia, that kind of means there isn;t a consensus against doing it either. SO I am completely unclear as to how we get from those two points to the point of saying that "the consensus actually is (you are expected to discuss major changes to Policy/Guidelines before you edit)", when that's not current practise or current consensus. Unless I'm missing something. Are there any policies or guidelines which people don't boldly edit? Hiding T 15:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

At the moment some people are attempting to boldly edit policies and guidelines... and they are being told in no uncertanin terms, "no, discuss first". Blueboar (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar, my position is that this idea that we can all agree for every policy page at every point in time what the "established" version is, the position that gets the benefit of the doubt against new edits, is a non-starter; I doubt that we can even get consensus on this one question for this one page at this one point in time. Hiding, the problem is that people read BOLD, and see that changes get made to policy pages all the time, and they come to the conclusion that they should go ahead and make an edit that looks good to them without doing the hard work of reading the page history and talk page, and almost always, their change doesn't "stick" if it's at all significant. People who feel like their idea is shot down without a fair hearing come to the conclusion that they're being disrespected and/or that a surly cabal OWNs the policy page; very rarely is either of these conclusions correct, but we can't stop people from thinking these things, and this is a needless source of hurtful conflict. We need to come up with a system that stops setting people up and knocking them down. The only solution I can think of is, someone picks a date/time stamp somewhere around the end of the month, and for edits made during the month, editors are encouraged to revert edits and discuss on the talk page if they feel the case hasn't been made that the new edit is an improvement. Picking a monthly, somewhat arbitrary standard to judge new edits against will present several difficulties, but I haven't heard any alternatives yet that overcome both of the problems I mentioned in this paragraph. (I won't argue in favor of using WP:Update per se since that's kind of my baby, but until someone suggests a better idea, I'll argue in favor of some sort of semi-arbitrary, regular set points to compare against future edits.) - Dank (push to talk) 16:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

TLDR summary: pick an apparently stable point in the edit history of each policy page on the last two or first two days of each month, and treat this version for the rest of the month as if it were "consensus"; that is, to get a change to stick, the arguments will have to be strong enough to overcome the presumed consensus. If we do a bad job of picking the "stable" version, we can fix that problem by rational discourse and hopefully get it right next month. Besides, most policy pages are relatively stable; the damage done by a slightly-out-of-line choice will be minimal. The claim is that this system is better than what we've got now and the alternative Blueboar proposes, for the reasons given above. - Dank (push to talk) 16:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC) got a better idea, see below 14:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that we're over-thinking this. Editors are perfectly capable of discussing, on the talk page, which version they think is the previous stable version. It may even vary by section, if changes are being made and discussed in multiple sections: the immediately prior version may be the canonical version for the relevant section, without being accepted for some other section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep an open mind, since some people assert this is doable. What would you say is the "previous stable version" for this page (WP:CONSENSUS), as of the last edit? - Dank (push to talk) 18:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I know that this is going to sound somewhat harsh, and want to make clear that I understand where the "we need to keep it stable" thinking is coming from and respect it. This whole idea behind some artificial stability, identifying a stable version, the "correct way to behave"... all of it is just a wrong-headed attitude to have. Wikipedia has, by now, an institutional culture, and none of us is going to be able to change that, especially not here on a relatively backwater project talk page. Blueboar, I understand completely what you mean about getting this page to reflect reality, I simply dispute your perception of that reality. There are definitely some policy pages that have become locked down, but that's more of a problem that is caused by clumps of "cabals" who have taken over in some areas then it is reflective of the real wider reality. As Xandar (talk · contribs) points out briefly below, I think that we're risking marginalizing policy completely, here. I think that this is exactly what lead me to start Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 51#Policy and Guideline improvement drive, and then to join WP:PROJPOL.
— V = I * R (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I know that there are cabals of all shapes and sizes, but every time I've seen someone claim that their edit was reverted because the cabal wouldn't permit it on a policy page (no comment on guidelines), that's not what it looked like to me. It looked to me like someone thought they understood the issues, and saw others boldly editing policy pages, and thought their edit would be welcome too, and then they came to the conclusion when it got reverted that they were being disrespected and/or being ganged up on by a tight-knit cabal, and frankly, I see very little evidence of either flagrant disrespect or tight-knit cabals operating on policy pages. Policy is just hard; there's a lot to read before you edit, and others who have done their homework often independently come to the same conclusion, that a new edit doesn't sufficiently respect the previous discussions and long-standing consensus involving a whole lot of people. - Dank (push to talk) 00:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I can agree with pretty much all of what you're saying here, it's just that... that's a common criticism of one aspect the entire WikiMedia "universe". The openness of all of our processes leads to problems, and I don't think anyone will deny that, but in balance the benefits of openness far outweigh the costs of being closed.
— V = I * R (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Experiments

P.S. I understand from the "fait accompli" comment that, as always, some are anxious that some people are getting together and trying to force a change on everyone else. I don't think that's happening, and I'm not in a hurry. It would make me happy if we can agree on some of the problems and experiment with some proposals. I'll pick a few policy pages and float the idea of seeing if we can get everyone to pretend that the beginning of the month version is a working "consensus", and see if that actually fixes any of the problems mentioned above. - Dank (push to talk) 18:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC) got a better idea, below 13:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Given the fact that WP:CONSENSUS isn't opperating under "discuss first" at the moment, it is very difficult (if not impossible) to determine a "previous stable version". If we had been opperating under that system, I would argue that the last change that had a clearly discussed indication of "yeah, go ahead and make the change" was back when I originally added my proposed language for a "Consensus on Policies and Guidelines" section (this dif). I definitly don't think we should revert back to my edit... I happen to agree with some of the subsequent changes that took place afterwards (and I think they would have recieved consensus had they been discussed)... but there wasn't any real discussion about them (well... SV did open discussion on some of her changes, but I don't see much in the way of a reply... I'm not sure if that counts as discussion or not). Blueboar (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• "big" (e.g. WP:BLP or WP:N) or "contentious" (e.g. WP:NOT or WP:CSD) policy pages are watchlisted by a fair number of editors, so I should imagine that a discussion among folks who watch one of those pages could be sufficient to make a small change. The problem stems from rapid or wide ranging changes. Most editors and admins don't actually check a process page or policy page immediately prior to performing an action. when was the last time you read WP:BLOCK? or WP:ADMIN? People operate on tribal knowledge. Their knowledge of policy stems from discussions they have heard about it, memory of the most salient experience with it and a good deal of fudging (where gaps in knowledge are filled by assumptions of what a reasonable policy would do). Ideally, we would like editor and admin action to correspond perfectly with policy. There are a few routes to this: 1) Make editors follow policies step by step. 2) Continuously adjust policy until it meets editor/admin actions and 3) attempt to write policy so that a reasonable assumption of what the policy ought to say ends up being what the policy says. Each of these solutions has fatal problems, so we try to go with another way. Policies should be a reasonable codification of stuff we already do. They should be stable, because we don't want too many people operating under too many incorrect memories. They should follow practice, because many impressions of a policy will be generated by experience with practice, and they should be reasonable, if not for the prima facia requirement, then because we would want the policy to approximate an assumption of its contours. In policy space, this means we should favor inertia for inertia's sake. Consequently, discussion should involve interested editors and should at least include some affirmative case for the proposed change. negative consequences of this stance are outlined well by dan above, but I'm not convinced that the broad positives (policy matches roughly with practice) are swamped by the frustration felt by editors attempting to change policies. Protonk (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

As someone who spends most of his time editing articles, I have to say that the "frustration" felt by editors who don't get their bright policy change wheezes through as quickly as they would like, is of minor concern. Policy and stability go together. Not rigidly, but so that article writing is possible. If policy is changing every week on the whim of "bold" editors, with none of the affected being informed, then in the end policy will either start being ignored altogether, or there will be uneccesary mayhem in the articles affected. If editors can't refer to a policy in the knowledge it is likely to be there next week, what is the point? At the moment there seem to be too many people seeking change for change's sake. I would feel that in addition to the "watchers" on a policy page being consulted, major changes should be advertised Wikipedia-wide, or the editors of articles likely to be affected by a proposed substantial change informed that such a change is in the offing. Xandar 21:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Affected by what? A community-wide consensus? How is that in any way a problem? If you're not the sort of person who has certain policies watchlisted, or Dank's very informative monthly digest of policy changes - I forgot the link, or you don't drop by WP:CENT sometimes, then you don't need to be spammed.    M   21:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that Xandar is proposing spamming anyone; I think s/he proposes that major discussions get listed at WP:CENT, or WP:VP, or WP:RFCpol. These are perfectly reasonable and very normal ways to both get more input (more datapoints = more reliable measurement of actual consensus) and to advertise changes (providing practical information to busy editors). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that he makes a good point. I've had a long standing grievance with Wikipedia's structural failings in the area of "community". The problem is, that discussion is far beyond the scope of anything which could possibly be resolved here.
— V = I * R (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That's fair. We are way north of Dunbar's number here, making the sort of collaboration envisioned by folks in 2001 rather hard. Protonk (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, my response to that is, 'good luck'. What's a substantive change? When I merged Wheel War into Admin, was that substantive? I didn't really change policy, but, um, I pretty much removed an entire policy page with me' own bare hands. Should I have notified the community, first? When people support an action, they don't say a thing, only the opposition does, so perhaps it wouldn't have gone through. It's all "who cares about one wee redundant sentence, one extra policy page" until it's "wait, you cut the size of a policy page in half?" (+how dare you, did you get consensus first!?) Anyway, it works well enough now, attempts to make it 'work better' have some serious drawbacks.    M   02:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is a particularly salient point. Quite often, bringing an issue up on the talk page only leads to those who want to stop whatever it is, saying something. There's a natural selection bias that occurs there. It's also the primary issue that WP:BRD is intended to address, because making an edit to the page (either article or project page) is discussion of a sort. The problem is getting people to stick around to participate in the continuing discussion, really. I assure you that there are plenty of mainpace articles that have been, are, and will continue to be much more controversial then policy and guideline pages will ever be (one of which brought one of the participants in this thread here, by the way...) There is already, and there will always be, additional stability to policy and guidelines simply do to their nature as policy. I don't see that we need to throw up additional barriers to that... although, I might be open to a Flagged Revisions implementation, eventually (I need more exposure to it, before I'm comfortable with recommending that).
— V = I * R (talk) 07:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite often, bringing an issue up on the talk page only leads to those who want to stop whatever it is, saying something... and why is saying something a bad thing? Blueboar (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want nothing to change, then forcing people to the talk page is certainly a means to do that. What is being pointed out is the fact that people often don't say anything unless they perceive a problem, which leads to selection bias. This is hardly an issue confined to Wikipedia, as for example Nixon famously used the phrase "Silent Majority" when talking about the Vietnam War.
— V = I * R (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

How is "forcing" people to the talk page a means to achieving no change? Blueboar (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that you just want to add an (unenforcable, anyway) extra hoop for people to go through in order to edit any project pages that happen to be policies (or guidelines?). It's obviously not just you, by the way, but it's easier to just say "you". To be upfront about it, it seems to me that you're saying "I know what's going on better then you, so you have to get my approval first!" I don't object to getting people to discuss what they think should be changed on policy and guideline pages. What I do object to is "before". That's just going to keep people from even trying to make changes to policy or guidelines, weather that's the intent here or not.
— V = I * R (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

My point is that a change to POLICY and some major guidelines can often cause widespread troubles that the few people making the change don't consider or foresee. If someone decides to change the guidance "Use Pinyin as standard for Chinese", and doesn't involve the Chinese article community in that change, it will cause hundreds of problems down the line. In guidelines and policies we do not need a presumption in favour of change such as Ohms Law and others seem to advocate. If it aint broke, dont fix it. Change should require a real need for change, so great that the majority of comment for an advertised change from users would be supportive. Xandar 01:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that part of the problem here may be a bit of a misunderstanding of just what policy and guidelines actually represent. They are not, have never been, will not be, and cannot be actual "rules". WP:OFFICE makes real "rules", and bureaucrats are the only ones actually capable of enforcing any actual rules regardless. Policy and guidelines really just describe "this is why and how we do what we do". That can be used as rules by all of us, to a certain extent, but that is done based on our own (usually implied) consensus in saying "yea, I agree with the citation of <whatever> in this case". There's more in depth and understandable coverage of this topic on WP:POLICY, if you're interested.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll respond to this on your talk page, Ohms. - Dank (push to talk) 12:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Plan

An essay and a plan: User:Dank/Essays#Consensus on policy pages. - Dank (push to talk) 14:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Groan. WP:CONSENSUS is the second page I come to in the monthly update ... feel free to yell at me (preferably on the relevant talk page) if you would have picked a different version than the one I pick (I'm going to have to give this some thought). I have to start early this month because this update is going to take a lot longer than the previous ones. - Dank (push to talk) 18:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm trying to figure this out as I go along. It's safe to say that if I habitually say "I don't like the current version, can you change it before I do the Update?", people are going to yell at me. OTOH, I can't make a decision if I actually don't understand the language, and I'm not clear on what "Editors are therefore expected" in the last edit means ... expected by God? By everyone? By many policy editors? - Dank (push to talk) 19:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Expected by the community. Blueboar (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I don't think you're using the word "community" in the sense that it's used on pages such as WP:BAN, but I should probably back away from making suggestions and concentrate on trying to pick a version that appears more stable than the other choices to include in the WP:Update. The current argument seems to be between requiring a talk page comment simultaneously vs. ahead of time. - Dank (push to talk) 21:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that over-simplifies the argument slightly... a discussion implies more than just posting a talk page comment ahead of time... it implies some degree of back and forth (such as waiting to see if others have any questions about your proposed change, and then answering those questions). Blueboar (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ironically enough though, there is obviously not consensus for this change. My suggestion is to simply mention that discussion about this specific area of the policy is under debate and is therefore not stable. That way you're not making an arbitrary choice, and you're faithfully reporting what's actualyl occurring.
— V = I * R (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ohms as to how to report what is happening on this page. As for "not consensus for this change"... well, that depends on how you measure consensus. I think there is a solid community consensus behind what the change ... but I would agree that there is not yet a local consensus on this page (which is what is so ironic... the very policy that tells us that consensus can change, is having difficulty with editors acknowledging that it has changed). Blueboar (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm having trouble with meshing a requirement to make one kind of edit before you can make another kind of edit with WP:BURO. I've always taken the last sentence in BURO to be pretty important (the one about a mistake in procedure not invalidating your post), but I just searched through the talk archives at NOT and find only 8 hits on BURO, none of which is on point. I've seen it cited a lot on other talk pages, though. Don't we have to modify that sentence, which has been policy since at least 2005, before we can write in a requirement here to require talk before certain edits? If so, maybe we should be making the argument over there first. And I don't know how that argument will turn out, or how I want it to turn out. - Dank (push to talk) 04:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This is why I like the word "expected", and don't like the word "required"... "Expected" is descriptive, while "required" is proscriptive. The current language does not invalidate major editing without discussion... but it does let editors know that doing so is strongly discouraged. Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

←Good point. On the previous question: WP:Update has never reported on any of the discussions or any kind of meta-information, only on what's actually on the page. It would be nice if I could keep using that distinction to set appropriate boundaries on my role. I'd prefer to give you some idea what would seem like "stability" to me on this page, and you guys can work together (or not) to head in that direction (or not), and I'll report on what shows up on the page. This gives you an incentive to make an edit that attempts to respect and/or mention all significant points of view, since that version would be more likely to be selected. I've made a tweak to WP:Update to describe what I'm looking for: a late-month version that looks stable, or if there isn't one, then whichever version looks like the best starting point for the next month's discussions.

So: I understand that a lot of editors don't agree with the language that Blueboar and others are asking for, but that doesn't invalidate his point that our current policy and the WP:Be bold guideline are giving bad advice that needs to be fixed. One approach to getting the word out and gathering consensus might be to add something like this to the nutshell at the top of every policy page: "Policy edits that don't take other points of view into account often get reverted; with a request to read the prior discussions discussing before editing may help avoid misunderstandings." I don't know if this is maybe less forceful than you're looking for, Blueboar, but I think this plus the effects of the new Update might be enough to push things in the right direction. Plus, I'm not sure that I'm on board with the idea that it's best to always discuss significant edits first; I mean, a lot of people don't, and it works out fine. I'm going to be spending a lot of my time reading policy discussions for the next few months, and I'll keep that in mind. - Dank (push to talk) 16:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems with the idea of adding a nutshell statement like that. Advising editors to read past discussions, and discuss major revisions before editing is a very good idea in my book. Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Does anyone want to balance that with something like "Everyone is welcome to contribute, but ..."? What we should shoot for is not to get in the way of people's own good sense about whether their edit will be welcome or not. Most people have a natural aversion to speaking up when they're not sure what they're talking about, and WP:BOLD attempts to undercut that hesitation, which is fine on some pages but usually a disservice to the contributor on policy pages. So I'm aiming for something neutral ... not encouraging, not discouraging. If we can settle on some language, let's float the idea somewhere else or have an RFC, then put it at the top of every policy page. If the language survives there, then we've got something stable. - Dank (push to talk) 19:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that the nutshell idea is a good idea, and the original language seems good to me. Adding a bunch of platitudes or passivity to it isn't really going to help anything. My main concern all along is what you just expressed well: "I'm not sure that I'm on board with the idea that it's best to always discuss significant edits first; I mean, a lot of people don't, and it works out fine." The way things were looking there for a while, it looked like an attempt was being made to turn this document into some sort of weapon. I know from discussion that wasn't really the intent, but you know what they say about the road to Hell...
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I need some guidance here on what to do when the end of the month is 3 days away, and the talk page clearly shows a significant, unresolved conflict, but only one of those positions is currently represented on the project page, as is the case right now: "Editors are therefore expected to discuss substantive changes on the talk page before making them." Would it make sense to aim for a version I could put in the WP:Update that tries not to pre-judge the outcome, on the theory that pretending that we're already done here would only inflame the opposition and make progress harder? How about this: "Many though not all editors are expecting discussion before significant edits and may be quick to revert policy edits that don't take other points of view into account." It's unlikely that would be the language that anyone would settle on when we're done, but does it work as a quick way to suggest that changes are on the way and we're not done yet? - Dank (push to talk) 03:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Dan, you really don't like simple discriptive statements, do you? What is it about "Editors are therefore expected..." that bothers you so much? It's accurate, and it gets directly to the point. And, if I am correct and the change reflects community consensus, then it is unlikely to "inflame the opposition". Blueboar (talk) 04:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I know you don't want to, but the only way that you can summarize what the policy states at any specific point in time, while attempting to stay neutral, is to use what has been stable and refer to ongoing discussions about any portions that are under dispute/discussion. You can't force these things, you know?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Everyone is making excellent points, and I hope I have time to do justice to them, but I've got a lot of pages to cover. Blueboar, I'm making an assumption that most people haven't changed their position, which means that there is still a significant contingent that would support your word "expect" and a significant contingent that would oppose it. I could be wrong; we could find out with an RFC. You are making the case that those people are simply wrong, that on most policy pages, discussion is expected before major changes. Personally I get what you're saying and think it's important, although I can point you to a bunch of pages this month where significant changes were made without discussion and it worked out just fine. But how I would choose to put it isn't the point, at the moment ... the point is that we have and always have had significant opposition along the lines that Ohms is expressing. (tweaked:) If I adopt your version for WP:Update over the last version of the month (which will mean "no comment" when there's a clear ongoing debate)), I'd be saying, "It looks to me like the debate has stopped for now in favor of Blueboar's edit". That's not accurate; debate hasn't stopped, and I expect there's a lot more ahead, and if I screw up more than a few times and represent open discussions as closed at WP:Update, this experiment will be a failure and I'll have to go back to always using the last version of the month. Your suggested language has a subtext: "The issue is closed, we won". That's inconsistent with what I'm trying to do with WP:Update; since I'm pretty sure any version we can get in the next 3 days won't be stable, I want the version I select to be the one most likely to foster productive conversation over the next month, not the one that says "In your face". I am totally aware that I may be dreaming here that WP:Update can have this kind of positive effect, but I'd like to give it a shot.

Ohms, thanks, your feedback has clarified things. What I need to do is to say at WP:Update that if I select the last version of the month, it means one of two things: either that version is stable so there was no need to reject it in favor of an earlier version, or none of the late-month versions appears stable so there was no reason to prefer one over the other. No one is going to accept me or anyone else in the role of making the call on every policy page as to whether debate has ended yet, nor making the call on summarizing the opposing positions. I'm not going to wear that hat; it's too big for me, you could fit 100 Wikipedians comfortably under that hat. - Dank (push to talk) 12:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup, that's pretty much what I was getting at. Anyway, I wanted to ask, have you seen WP:PROJPOL? I'm sure that we could use your broad outlook there, and it could even be a means to "advertise" WP:UPDATE some more.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 13:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look sometime soon. - Dank (push to talk) 16:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Dan, could you explain how WP:UPDATE works and what your goal is (you can do so at my user talk page if you think it will detract from this discussion)... surely this isn't the first time that a policy page change was still under discussion at the end of the month? How did you deal with such issues in the past?

As for the subtext of my comments... in many ways you are correct. There is an element of "The issue is closed, we won" in what I am saying (although I don't see it as a contest to be won or lost. I see it as simply needing to have policy reflect a shift in community consensus). The reason why there is this subtext is that the issue wasn't "won" or "lost" on any specific policy page or in a discussion... the change in consensus occured organically... essentially it occured dispite what was stated on policy pages. Now the policy pages that are affected need to catch up. There is some local resistance from a few outspoken editors to doing so. At a local level, there appears to be a lack of consensus... but at the community level I think there is a consensus, and a fairly strong one. If you want to frame this as a contest to be won or lost... I think the community consensus out weighs the local consensus, hence the "we won" subtext. Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I got confused above (and struck before I saw this comment) ... it's not that I think that your edit that includes "editors are expected" was equivalent to "in your face", you chose the language you think reflects reality, which is of course fine. I'll continue on my talk page in response to your comment there. - Dank (push to talk) 18:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The thing about actually writing this down is that it "sets it in stone", so to speak. I know that your perception is correct for some policy pages, and for those policy pages where the "you must discuss any change before making it" model really are in effect there is (rrently) a good reason for that. The real problem is extending that to include all policy (and, by extension, guideline) pages.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 23:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Another concern

I just realized that there may be a larger concern, here. We seem to be duplicating, in part, what is already at WP:PGLIFE. I think that we may acutally be guilty of the oft overused WP:CREEP citation here, with the addition of a Policies and guidelines section at all to this policy.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 02:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

There's clearly some overlap in the territory covered; another thing to work on. Hopefully all the things we've discussed will get sorted out by the end of September. - Dank (push to talk) 03:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is, and the more I think about it (and re-read what's here and at WP:PGLIFE), the more I start thinking that we should remove the additions, end the debate here, and go there instead. This really is the wrong forum for this entire discussion. The idea behind consensus itself doesn't change just because we're in the Wikipedia namespace, after all.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused... I raised the issue here because Kim, and a few others, more or less insisted that we do so (seeWT:Editing policy), and now people are saying that this is the wrong venue.

I do agree that there is an overlap with WP:PG, and we should address this issue there as well ... As for this policy, I think it should be mentioned. While the "idea behind consensus itself doesn't change" between article space and policy space, the method by which one is expected to achieve consensus does change (as bold editing still enjoys community consensus in article space, while discussing first has consensus on Policy/Guideline pages). Blueboar (talk) 14:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I obviously missed the earlier conversation, so my apologies for rehashing an old subject. I think that it's a good topic to continually discuss, however. I see what you're saying, and it is a point, but I'm still left wondering if this is the best venue to address the issue. Working in some mention of WP:PG might be a better solution...
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 14:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I just read Wikipedia talk:Editing policy#rm contradiction of multiple policies/ redundant. It's entirely possible that I'm seeing what I want to see here, but isn't User:Kim Bruning saying the same thing? "To centralise discussion, and simplify policy pages in general, the topic of modification of policy/guideline/essay pages should be merged to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines." is what she he started out with, in that thread.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 14:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, as I stated in the earlier discussion... I don't mind a centralized discussion... nor do I really care where that discussion takes place. The goal is to make policy match community consensus... and that means all our policies.

Since the issue seems to impact several policy/guideline pages, we probably should at least leave a note on the talk pages of these policy/guidelines, informing editors that a centralized discussion about this issue is taking place, and pointing them to that centralized discussion (where ever it is). I have left a note at WT:PG, linking to this discussion (and proposing a suggested edit to that page). But if people want to shift the centralized discussion over to that page, I have no problem doing so. Are there any other policy and guideline pages that need to be notified of the discussion (where ever it is)? Blueboar (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I dont' think so. I can do some digging around to look though... later.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 15:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Scope

WP:PG's scope is over policy in general. It's the most appropriate place to have this discussion, but near the start, there were objections to moving this conversation there (I have no idea why, it's the most correct place). The other issue here is that policy related to editing and maintaining policies and guidelines belongs at PG - so 'summaries' of PG don't belong here, nor over at our other policies. This causes a lot of confusion. As you can see, someone added that original paragraph just a couple of months ago, and now it's already conflicting with the actual policy. There are very good reasons for the content rules described at WP:PG#Content.    M   21:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Stability (2)

Slightly unrelated, but there has been some talk about stability - I think it's very important to point out that policy is stable, but policy pages need not be. The reason policies are stable is because it's very hard to sway the general opinion of thousands of our editors, it takes a long, long time. Policy pages, however, may have mistakes in them that have been in there for a few months - serious mistakes and contradictions. These can be removed right away, and "policies are stable" is absolutely no excuse to keep them.    M   22:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree that errors and contradictions need to be fixed ... and I see the discuss first model as the best way to achieve this. All it takes is a bit of explaining about what the problem is, and where the contradiction is... then editors are all on the same page... they all understand why the policy page needs fixing and can discuss the best way to fix it. Blueboar (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that is way too cautious for errors and contradiction fixing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Of course. The message and meaning of the policy page should remain stable have a good degree of stability. If the words themselves are a problem, and if you know what you are doing, be bold in improving accuracy and clarity. Out of courtesy, the layout should have some degree of stability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes! I absolutely agree about he ideas behind policies remaining stable despite what we try to do. I was just talking about this with Dank on my talk page, as a matter of fact. Even substantive changes, despite best efforts to garnish community support and participation, are only going to have a muted effect. If it takes all sorts of debate to push through a change, it's very likely that whatever the change is, is likely to simply be ignored anyway. Unless and until Admins start blocking people based on some (ill thought out) change, people largely just aren't going to notice. The expression "Like herding cat's" comes immediately to mind, here.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 23:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

There are also shortcuts. I plan on cleaning up WP:NAME, and I'll remove a whole bunch of headings, and I won't be leaving shortcuts. I should not be prevented from doing so. As for policy pages, they describe what the community prescribes, using exhortative language. There's a crucial distinction here, too. Policy is relatively stable (note: not "should be" stable, but "is"). Policy pages reflect that, and themselves have no need for additional stability where that stability gets in the way of clarity or correctness.    M   03:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well... now you've got me slightly uncomfortable, here. There may be good reasons to leave some headings and shortcuts, and good reason to remove some of them. I know that my own ideas of what is best don't always turn out to be perfect... this seems like the sort of thing we're talking about below, where people start becoming rigid in their views.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 02:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

M, a discussion will not prevent you from making your planned edits. It sounds like you are anticipating that your edits will face resistance. That may be, but a discussion should actually help minimize that resistance. It will let others know what that you are trying to do and, more importantly, why you are trying to doing it. Also, a discussion will allow you to quickly find out why there is resistance, and address it (either by further explanation on the talk page, or by accounting for the concerns expressed in your proposed edit.) Blueboar (talk) 12:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that a level of angst over fiddling with important things is less a problem than important things becoming out-of-date. If something can be fixed, then do it. If there is resistance, evidenced by a revert or talk page complaint, then you should ease up on your boldness. M has recently been acting boldly, generating just some little complaints. Where there's complaint, he should explain and discuss. Where there is not complaint, he must be doing OK (see WP:SILENCE). It's is possible that no one will notice some bad edits for a little while; but after a week or two it's far easier to revert everything he did than it was for him to do it in the first place. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, M is now finding his work being wholesale reverted. Perhaps is would be better to decribe this observation, that if you make too much change without support then you risk seeing your efforts reverted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Replying on your talk page, Joe. - Dank (push to talk) 12:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with what you're saying, but there's a reality to acknowledge here as well. There are cases where people become rigid in their thought, even after (or because of!) extended discussion. The fact is, Wikipedia is simply huge, and the viewpoints of people are just too varied to have actual "legislative" policy. There seems to have been a move to more prescriptive policy recently, and I admit that the pull towards that viewpoint is compelling, but I don't think that it will stand for long... anyway, yea, I agree but with caveats.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 13:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that some people can be rigid in their thought... but that happens no matter what method we use to edit... in the "edit boldly" method, rigid thougt is expressed in revert wars. In the "discuss first" method it is expressed in people talking at each other instead of with eachother. I think we would agree that both are wrong. The key is to somehow break the rigidity, and the only way I can think to do that is through discussion.

The point of "discuss first" is that you can often avoid rigidity in the first place... people understand what you are trying to do (and why) and you understand their concerns (and why they have them). Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

A rule that suggests "discuss first" does not avoid rigidity, it condones and offers support for it. There have been numerous examples presented, too, where 'discuss first' would yield a selection bias for objections. People who support are Silent, yet anyone can think of an objection to doing something sensible, if you ask them for one.    M   21:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

What M said here is basically where I'm coming from s well. Saying "You must discuss first" is just... an attempt to control the outcome, basically. Really, the worst part of it is that it ignores the fact that edits are discussion. Their not a particularly good form of discussion, but they are a form of communication nonetheless. If you look at it in that light. then the arguments to prevent changes before discussion end up being turned around against the whole proposal to require discussion first.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Concerns

I absolutely agree that if there are concerns brought up, they should be addressed before trying to force the changes through. But how exactly am I supposed to address the concern that, and I quote, "changes [were] made without discussion"? Do policy maintainers need to work in bands now? When this reason is given, it is nearly always the only reason given. This indicates that people actually believe that "you should have discussed first" is on its own a good reason to revert, even when they apparently have no other objections. It needs to be made very clear that this is simply not the case.    M   21:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course if everyone does discuss first, then no one will get reverted with "you should have discussed first".

Actually, I do think "please discuss this first" is a valid reason to revert, even on its own. I look at an edit summery like that as a request for information. Sometimes I need to know what the intent behind an edit is before I know whether I support it or not. By saying "discuss this first" I am essentially asking the editor who made the edit to explain WHY the edit was made. Once I understand that, I often find that I agree with the intent of the the edit, but not the wording of the edit itself. But if I understand the intent, I can then suggest alternative wording. Blueboar (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That's circular. You're saying that if people followed the 'discuss first' rule, they wouldn't be breaking the 'discuss first' rule. The issue is whether we need a discuss first rule. We don't. When I get reverted with the reason "discuss first", I don't see it as a request for more information, I see this as a legitimate objection to the new text. "I don't know your intent" is not legitimate, "this[link] specific section has become unclear, and I've undone it while leaving the changes that I have no objection to intact. Do you mean A, or B?" is a great objection. If a reverter can't articulate an objection, why should other editors need to provide long explanations for simple actions, and play guessing games as to what the objection might be? You know what I see as a request for more information? A request for more information, preferably on the talk page.    M   23:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No I am saying that if people followed the discuss first model (it isn't a rule... yet), there would be significantly less edits reverted (because they would have been discussed) and no edits reverted with "please discuss this first". As for "I don't know your intent"... I not only think this is legitimate reason to revert, I think "what is your intent?" it is a vital question and an excellent reason to revert. I would suspect that half of the disagreements that take place on policy pages could be avoided if the "changing" editor fully explained their intent, and if other editors bothred to ask. Blueboar (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I know that there are hundreds and maybe thousands of Wikipedians who feel strongly about one aspect or another of how policy gets made who might join in if their comments were likely to be read, so I really want to be careful not to talk more than my share; please don't hesitate to tell me, anyone, if you'd like for me to talk less and pay more attention to what you're saying.

Having said that: Blueboar, wouldn't page protection be better than encouraging people to revert whenever no prior discussion had taken place? Either way would require either lack of opposition or a substantive discussion before the edit could stick, but without page protection, wouldn't we be inflaming tempers to make it appear the page can be edited by anyone (which is what "not being protected" has meant so far) and then slap their wrist with a reversion when they try it? Maybe we should be talking about page protection ... which I don't think the community would accept for all policy pages at all times, but it's possible we could come to an agreement that, because policy pages represent a lot of work by a lot of people, it wouldn't be out of line with our principles to protect policy pages more often, including in cases of "slow-burning" conflicts. Would this position be a compromise that might work for you (and others)? - Dank (push to talk) 00:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

First, despite obviously good intentions, I think that Dank is correct that the effect of trying to force a "discuss first" policy is simply additional conflict. The worst part of that is the fact that the conflict generated wouldn't be about the subject actually in dispute, but would likely be about process, which doesn't get anyone anywhere. The only way to practically put a "discuss first" change into effect is through some sort of technical means anyway, sude as page protection or (probably more practical) Flagged Revisions.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, not only are the discussions here good-faith, both sides make solid points. Look at the Updates for July and August, and it's not hard to find 50 changes where a requirement [although note that the main argument is about "expectations" not "requirements"] for prior discussions would probably have had a net positive effect, and 50 entries where the requirement wouldn't have helped even for significant changes (because there's no evidence anyone had a problem or was likely to have a problem with the changes) ... and if it doesn't help, then it probably hurts by impeding change. This discussion has been very helpful for me, not because someone made some argument that settles all the questions in a snappy way, but because the back-and-forth has been useful at pruning out some suggestions that might not work. An experiment: I don't think much would be harmed by protecting just the See Also sections of one or more policy pages ... we could easily justify the protection under our current understanding of WP:PROTECT because links keep moving in and out in unproductive ways. Maybe we could start there, as a way to launch a general discussion about the advantages of discussing first, in some cases? I think there's a good chance that advantages of prior discussion outweigh the disadvantages in some of these cases. - Dank (push to talk) 12:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I see this as being similar to the WP:BURDEN "rule" at WP:V, Just as it is up to editors who want to add information to an article to support it with a citation, so is it up to an editor who wants to make a substantive change to a policy to explain it.

As for enforcement... With WP:BURDEN, the only enforcement is that unsoursed info might be removed, there is no penalty other than removal. With "Discuss first" the enforcement is that undiscussed edits might be reverted. There is no penalty other than being reverted.

At WP:V we do not say "you may not add unsourced info", we are saying (essentially) "you are expected to provide a source". Here, we do not say "you may not boldly edit" we are saying "you are expected to discuss first". Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

An impressive argument. - Dank (push to talk) 13:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem I see in saying "you are expected to discuss first" (and, I'm assuming that we're talking about using something like that in an edit summary while reverting, since we're talking about "enforcement") is that it's just dismissive. While we're here having this conversation the intent is clear. "Out there" in the day to day workings of things, where the context of this discussion is absent, it just doesn't come across. I see revert edit summaries all the time where people will use similar non-responsive replies such as "There's no consensus for this" or something equally vague. Every time I see that I'll invariably check the talk page and there's usually nothing there (about what's directly being disputed anyway). It is actually better here on policy and guideline pages (generally speaking), but that problem still exists. At the very least, start a discussion on the talk page, then revert, and provide a link to the section in the edit summary.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 13:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

But that is why I raise the analogy to WP:BURDEN... I feel the burden to explain why a substantive edit is needed rests with the person making the edit. At minimum that means leaving a comment on the talk page (ie at least starting a discussion). In both cases, if you don't meet this burden, other editors may challenge your addition/change and remove it.

Now, meeting the burden does not always end the discussion. With sourcing someone may still have a problem with the edit and may remove the material, but the burden slightly shifts as they have to explain why they are removing it (for example they may point out that the source provided is not reliable, or that does not actually support the statement.) With policy the same thing happens, if the burden to explain is met by the editor who desires a change, then the burden shifts to those who don't agree to explain why they don't agree (ie they continue the discussion).

Even that may not resolve the issue... with sourcing there may be debate as to whether the source is reliable or not... so you bring in third parties or go to RSN for advice and opinion. With policy editing there may be debate as to whether the change is a good one, so you bring in third parties and file RfCs.

But, it all starts off with the burden of citation or explanation being with the person who initiates the change. Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This is excellent, both as a way to "sell" some version of this proposal to the skeptical, and as a way to model how its done ... you're saying, we should use what we know about how BURDEN applies to article discussions and apply that to policy discussions, with the talk page and archives taking the place of references. Nice work, except ... with an online reference, you click on the reference, and boom ... either it supports what you're saying or it doesn't. OTOH, he talk page archives are so long that people are going to need help to find the arguments that support the current text ... if they're even in that page's talk archives and not somewhere else ... and even if they could find them, people don't in general summarize the main points when they're finished discussing, so it would be hard to understand the outcome if you weren't "there". TLDR summary: there are similarities to BURDEN, but since something unreadable is taking the place of references, the results will be less than we hoped for. I'm left in the same place: this kind of thinking will clearly make some discussions better and others worse. Can we please select specific pages or sections of pages where we think pushing prior discussion is very likely to make things better rather than worse, run the experiment for a month, and see what happens? - Dank (push to talk) 15:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I admit that my analogy is not perfect. Essentially, all I am saying is that I think the person who wishes to make a change has an initial burden of explanation, and that reverting an unexplained policy edit is analogous to removing an unsourced statement. Beyond that, the analogy is not apt... while there are similarities, I agree that there are also significant differences. Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, how would this work: we pick pages and sections of pages where we expect people will be happy with the results, and put a notice at the top and bottom of the talk page, along the lines of (and we should get this as tight as possible after we agree on the basic idea): "This month, per (link section here at WP:CON that supports this), we're experimenting with this (page or section). Any editor may post here a challenge per (linked section in WP:CON) to any addition or change, and if there's still no evidence of at least a good-faith attempt at discussion after a week, the edit may be reverted. The point here is that the nutshell at the top of every policy page, "Changes to (this page) should reflect consensus", has up to now always applied equally to an edit or to a reversion of that edit; this is an experiment that shifts the burden of proof in the direction of the person making an addition or change, not the person making the reversion, as long as they allow sufficient time for discussion." - Dank (push to talk) 15:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. We might want to add "This is only an experiment, currently under discussion at WT:CON" and/or "Reverters should provide a link to at least one relevant previous discussion if they're aware of any such discussion." - Dank (push to talk) 16:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Another possibility: "If you plan to revert per (linked section at WP:CON), you must leave a note on the editor's talk page giving a link to the contested edit and also giving the link to (WP:CON) so that they understand that this is only an experiment designed to gather data on how to make policy discussions more productive."

Um... I am a little confused by what the "experiment" is? Blueboar (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The experiment is to add some text to WP:CON, something along the lines you're suggesting, but add "on selected pages where lack of discussion has led to difficulties in the past". Also add what Ohms and many others are saying about what to look for as evidence of when this new approach is not working and what to do about it. Then pick policy pages where the new approach has the greatest chance of making a good impression; each policy page has a "culture" that's a little different. We might or might not add text to the nutshell on all policy pages along the lines we seemed to agree to earlier. Then we can come back to this at the end of September, gather data, and decide whether to expand or shrink the number of pages affected. - Dank (push to talk) 17:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Concerns (2)

What are the effects of the change? We often consider such 'effects' when writing policies, taking into account WP:BEANS and wording things in ways that influence behavior. Let's get a bit more information about what we want to encourage and discourage:

1. Discourage people from editing policy pages as if these changes could then be used to settle their disputes.
2. Encourage cleanup, even substantial cleanup.
3. Prevent editors from upsetting careful wording.

I've been working on policy cleanup, and my view of the last point is very negative - it amounts to "revert editors when they remove wording that managed to sneak into unrelated policy when someone added a rambling summary a year or so ago, and that you've found helpful in shutting up people who disagree with you". What I personally would like is this:

1. Prevent editors from ever being reverted based on procedural reasons ("you didn't discuss first", "the wording has been here a long time").

I would be fine with adding the cautionary wording if the above was very, very firmly stated. People need to supply reasons and objections - if they can't articulate one, or refuse to, how re we going to reach consensus on anything?    M   21:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

RE #2, substantial cleanup. I recommend that you don't do such extensive cleanup in one edit, or even in day. Stuff gets wrongly thrown out in sporadic clean-ups. People can take insult ("we've all maintained those words for a long time, you're telling us we've been pretty stupid, and wow do you know better"). Surely you had given the clean up some consideration, why couldn't you have shared some of you thinking along the way? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar, correct me if I'm wrong, but you would like to go all the way to "On all policy pages, always, the burden is on the person who makes a change, not on the person who reverts that change [after a week or so, probably?] for failure to make any argument or point to any discussion." [There's a problem with knowing in all cases which edit is the "change" and which is the "status quo", but leave that aside for the moment.] Correct me if I'm wrong, M, but from what you just said, it sounds like you would prefer an equal burden on the person making a change and the person reverting that change on policy pages, in all cases, which is how "changes should reflect consensus" has usually been interpreted. (Btw, some version of "When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus" has been in the {{policy}} template consistently since at least January 2007, and it's often been quite helpful in settling disputes. From Sept 2008 to the end of July, the sentence before that one has linked some word ("normally" or "try" or "attempt") to Use common sense, which was a popular addition; it's too early to say if the removal of that link is going to stick.) - Dank (push to talk) 15:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting that you mention {{Policy}}, as I was thinking about that myself earlier...
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 15:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say there is an equal burden to explain... On both the person making the initial change and those who may disagree with it... however, the person making the initial change has the initial burden. They need to open the discussion. That said, in situations where a policy has sat in a stable condition for a reasonable amount of time, and someone then comes along and reverts to a prior version... I would call that revert an "initial" change. What that reasonable amount of time may be is an open question, but I think we would all agree that there comes a point where a stable version is assumed to have consensus (per WP:SILENCE). A revert after that point would be indicating a need to re-evaluate that consensus, and thus a "change". Blueboar (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not up to the person making the change to counter every single possible objection. The very point here is that they may not know what these are. Often, just making the change is enough explanation - "oh, the editor thinks that this word makes it more accurate". Their burden is satisfied through making the edit. The objector, on the other hand, is expected to have a clear and definite objection. Can you find an edit where a person made a change to policy, and did not provide in your view an adequate explanation? Because it seems that the only valid changes to policy are the ones with "as per talk" in the summary.    M   22:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well said, that expresses my own general view nicely. "As per talk", and similar, should only be used during or after some sort of dispute, anyway.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

re: M's last: I don't disagree... for one thing, it is not possible for anyone to know "every single possible objection" that might get raised. But, I do think it is up to the person making the change to explain why he/she thinks the change is needed before he/she makes it. If they do that, then it is then up to those who may object to explain why they object. The burden of discussion is shared... but it must be initated by the person wanting the change. Blueboar (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

One experiment we could try, Blueboar, would be an editnotice (or WP:FILTER if there's some technical problem with the editnotice). It might say something like: "This is a policy page. If one of your edits is reverted, and you start a discussion on the talk page and don't get a prompt and respectful response, please post a message at (WT:POLICY, WP:VPP maybe?)". If we go this route, I think we should avoid making promises or telling people how we expect it to work ... just give them enough so that they can infer that maybe they're supposed to be leaving a message on the talk page if they get reverted, and let them know that the community wants to help if things get stuck. - Dank (push to talk) 01:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... several of our policies and guidelines have Noticeboards, places where one can ask a question about the policy as it relates to a specific situation... and if needed get assistance with conflicts from a neutral third party... perhaps we need a WP:Policy/Noticeboard as a centralized place to ask questions and seek neutral assistance in resolving edit disputes on policy pages. Blueboar (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd help cover it if we had one. - Dank (push to talk) 02:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:VPP is supposed to serve that role, right now. I like the idea of adding an edit notice to policy pages, though. That sounds like an excellent idea, to me.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice, but VPP isn't serving that purpose; none of the current threads at WP:VPP involves a conflict that I recognized from a policy talk page. FWIW, my preferred place to do this would be the policy talk pages themselves, as long as there's a page we can watchlist somewhere where people can drop a note saying that someone got reverted and isn't getting any response to their talk page message. VPP would currently be the logical place for this, although it gets a lot of edits and that might turn some people off who would otherwise be willing to help with policy-mediation-type issues. - Dank (push to talk) 11:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

That people don't use VPP as it really should be used is no excuse, though. The reasons for that board are written right at the top...
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 14:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not opposed. Let's start with WP:VPP as the default, then, and if people either aren't willing to ask or aren't willing to answer there because of heavy unrelated traffic, then we'll pick another page. - Dank (push to talk) 15:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem

I wanted to bring up the spread out nature of this discussion. We're discussing the addition of something here, there's an almost month old conversation at Template talk:Policy which I just came across, and there are ongoing discussions at WT:POLICY and Wikipedia talk:Naming conflict, and I'm fairly certain that there are one or two other conversations around this subject that are ongoing. Their not all exactly related, as each discussion has overtones related to the specific page that their on, but the central issue seems to revolve around editorial conduct with respect to policy (and, to a lesser extent, guideline) pages. I know that I'm personally a little lost in it all, and I'm just unable to completely track everything going on, so I'd like to propose that we create a page just for this discussion and put it up for RFC and CENT. This seems like an important change, which could potentially affect the whole project, regardless.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No opinion. There's still substantial work to do on understanding the positions of the current participants and getting data on what situations those positions apply best to; but it doesn't bother me if more people get involved, the discussion moves to new pages, and things get more chaotic. I'll keep up. - Dank (push to talk) 15:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What we need is an agreement that discussion takes place at the most relevant page. I don't think that moving it out will help, I'm already concerned that this discussion is going on without much corresponding editing of policy to line up with what we're saying. An RfC may be a bit premature.    M   21:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's vital that we get this discussion centralized. It's obvious that what amounts to the same issue is being discussed in so many different places that it's hard to keep up with it, and this tends to unbalance the power into the hands of people who are able to dedicate enough time to follow all the fragmented discussion threads. causa sui× 04:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

One problem here is that I'm likely conflating two separate, yet intertwined, changes. I think that M may be as well. There's a whole... thing going on with WP:TITLE, WP:NCON and the other related Naming conventions. One component of that dispute involves these discussions, which deal with how Consensus works, the role of Policies and guidelines, and the general process involved in making changes. I've been thinking about this today and, while I may be making excuses here (I'm trying to work on my Bot), M and I are likely too close to both disputes to be able to clearly summarize both disputes and to not allow our own views to slip in (I think I am, at least). It wouldn't help much if we just end up bickering about exactly what the RfC/cent is supposed to be covering.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand, Causa; I think the solution is just to notice that conversations are ongoing and reaffirm that we're not in any hurry. The goal is to make the final product reasonably acceptable to everyone, and the stress is coming from the fact that we all recognize we're far from that goal. WP:CONSENSUS and WP:POLICY will always be part of the mix, so anyone interested in the discussion will probably have to skim at least these two talk pages, until/unless someone wants to make a helpful summary to make the discussions easier to keep up with. - Dank (push to talk) 12:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sincere when I say that I believe everyone here has the best intentions: I don't believe that the discussion is being deliberately fragmented with the aim of excluding people! Being patient is a good thing, but the problem is that the longer you wait, the more fragmented the discussion is going to get and the longer it is going to get in each of its fragments, which only makes it more difficult for people like me (who only have maybe a half hour a day on Wikipedia) to keep up with it. I can't even respond to all the responses to the comments I have left in these threads, let alone read anyone else's. Bottom line: If you want to include the greatest number of people possible, you have to centralize this discussion. causa sui× 15:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a page linked from here and from WT:POLICY where we discuss a particular issue, but I don't think it works to exclude a policy page's talk page from the discussion about that page; that's what a talk page is for.

I added a short infobox at the top of POLICY and CONSENSUS saying that the discussion is ongoing; I'm hoping that will get across the idea that this discussion won't be closed prematurely, and there's no need to get an edit in quickly for it to "count". If someone feels a more formal "disputed" template is necessary to get the idea across that we're not done here, we could do that, but I'm not a fan of using that template on policy pages. - Dank (push to talk) 17:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been struggling with the snappiest way to express my objection to the current language on both pages. Maybe this is TMI, but I'll share the point in my life where I finally "got" it. I saw a therapist for a couple of months to deal with some abusive things that happened when I was a kid, and things went very well until the therapist laughed derisively when I said that I needed and was ready to take a break. That was the point where I realized that an otherwise competent and helpful person could become very unhelpful as soon as there's conflict of interest (in this case, money). That's the problem with the current language on this page, "Policies and guidelines reflect established consensus", and the current language at POLICY, "Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are standards that all users should follow." I know that some policy editors have conflict of interest, some don't, and the end result on policy pages is usually useful for many purposes; however, first impressions are important, and the typical reader who hasn't read extensively is going to see language like that and think: "Looks like this page was written by people who want people to do what they say. I was coming to this page because I was hoping to find the collaborative product of policy gurus, but if a guru doesn't even understand WP:COI, that it's not possible to be neutral and helpful when you've got a personal stake in the outcome, then they are probably confused about a lot of other things, too, and I probably won't find what I'm looking for here." We don't have to say that policy is great and everyone should follow it; we can just state the obvious, that on any project as big as Wikipedia, there will be extensive formal and informal understandings, and policy and guideline pages represent the best attempt we've made over time to centralize some of that information. Even when you can't find the relevant information on these pages and the talk archives, this is the most likely place to find links to any relevant discussion. We can tell the reader: look at the Update, and notice that most policy pages and many guidelines are remarkably stable despite getting input from a wide variety of viewpoints, and come to your own conclusion on whether a particular page is likely to be useful to you. - Dank (push to talk) 12:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Another perspective: when a policy page implies, "I'm great, you should definitely pay attention", I'm tempted to put a {{peacock}} tag on it. Show, don't tell. It would be great if someone could come up with some kind of metric that would confirm what a lot of us know anecdotally, that policy pages are probably your best first stop if you're trying to get up to speed quickly on a topic, that the talk pages are probably the best mining grounds for people looking to see what everyone has said on the topic, and that policy is your best defense (and your worst enemy) at Arbcom. - Dank (push to talk) 13:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, agreed, agreed! Honestly, at this point I'm basically ready to walk away. I'm kind of sad about it, since I really was ready to do some serious copy editing, organizing, and clarifying on some policy pages, but... why? A) this really just isn't worth the hassle, and probably most importantly is B) I've come to realize just how much that it really doesn't matter what policy literally says. Read and really understand WP:IAR, both angles of it, and it becomes aparent that nothing else makes any significant difference. Do what's right for the content of the articles, while working with fellow editors, and everything will work out.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 16:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I hope you'll continue to be involved ... if nothing else, just discuss what bugs you most so we can at least get whatever that is right. I'm not sure if the point of my personal story was clear ... the point is that I think everyone has had experiences like this, where they went to someone for expertise and then something about the tone suggests "conflict of interest" and puts them off. Even when what we're saying is fine, I think it would be a really good idea to avoid the tone that policy is oh-so-important. Information that backs up the claim would be fine, though. - Dank (push to talk) 18:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I share your disposition toward this problem, but I want to suggest that part of the reason the policy pages have become so horribly authoritarian and bureaucratic is that people who don't like firm rules simply ignore the policies... which leaves them in the hands of the authoritarians! I don't want to frame this as an "us vs them" kind of thing, but I'm trying to bring out that people who are attracted to rules and bureaucratic thinking are drawn to pedantic editing of policy pages, whereas people who aren't, aren't. That means that our views are increasingly underrepresented in policy pages and gradually the authoritarians can use that fact to claim that their views are winning out. We really shouldn't walk away from this- we should stay in it and continue to work to make sure our views are heard. causa sui× 18:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point. It's not really in me to actually walk away from this sort of thing anyway. Also, I'm not really frustrated so much as I've just become... resigned to the current state of affairs. I think that I'm kind of letting the naming conventions debacle that is in progress get to me, a little bit.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 18:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the tone only, not about the editors; my wiki-philosophy prohibits me from speculating on people's motives. - Dank (push to talk) 00:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

That's noble, but I'm not sure how it's a response to what I wrote... causa sui× 06:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll respond privately, then report back here on whatever we can agree on. - Dank (push to talk) 12:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

←Okay, Causa said, "That isn't meant to accuse anyone in particular of being an authoritarian, but just to keep [Ohms] in the discussion." He thinks it's important for advocates of some flavor of IAR to stick it out in policy discussions, otherwise opposing views will shape the policy page. My position on IAR is something like this:

• Editors don't have to keep up with changes to policy pages; in fact, most editors deal with policy the same way most citizens deal with the law, by trying to avoid doing the things that get other people into trouble, rather than by consulting an attorney for every little thing. That works most of the time.
• OTOH, if you're unlucky or not careful and things go wrong, citing IAR won't usually fix whatever your problem is. IAR is historically a poor defense at Arbcom and ANI, and it's also a poor defense if you're doing something metapedian that requires broad knowledge of how Wikipedia works, such as running for adminship.
• Even when policy pages aren't perfect and even though not everyone reads and follows them, they still perform a very useful function by superceding any other pages claiming to cover the same material. "Rules" should be in places that are well-traveled, public and noisy, and policy at least succeeds at that. - Dank (push to talk) 22:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• I don't disagree with any of that, to be sure. I should note that those who actually live up to IAR should never have to deal with much in the way of dispute resolution at all, and IAR is not a defense in dispute resolution simply because by that point it's already failed. The whole key to IAR is "the best interest of Wikipedia", after all. I guess that my main issue is that I just don't want to spend significant amounts of time on disputes, and especially not on minutiae. I'd really rather just work on something else for a while, and either forget about it or re-approach the issue later. The real key to everything here is that we all need to work together, and that is done through compromise and consensus building, not through rules. That's the basis of my earlier point that these documents just aren't that important.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

  The first point is key, and I think it's what is severely lacking in our drafting of policy pages right now, so I'm glad you said it. Rule #1 for writing policy should be "Once a person has read this page and grasped the main points, she should not have to reread it." Yes it's a good idea to brush up on the policy once in awhile, and so perfection in this principle is not feasible nor required: but it's a goal we ought to strive for as authors of policy.

  However, the second point is really baffling to me, and I can hardly contain my befuddlement every time it comes up. When I bring up how important IAR ought to be in our interpretation of policy, I usually run into this objection: "But there are people who use IAR to defend their bad ideas!" This is a mystifying objection to me, because IAR was never intended to be a get-out-of-jail-free card for people who do stupid and destructive things. Only someone who doesn't understand IAR could be fooled by the arguments of people who have screwed up and are being brought to book in front of Arbcom (or ANI, or whatever) who invoke IAR to excuse themselves from their patently destructive behavior. The proper response to such antics is at best to ignore them; at worst to erupt with jeers and laughter. The proper response is not to obscure IAR or pretend it doesn't exist because it is such a "problem" that vandals and miscreants distort and abuse it in such a preposterous way, though that has been the fashion lately.

  I don't think the motivation behind IAR is difficult to grasp if we dissociate ourselves from this noise. IAR says that if you want to do the right thing, you ought to do it, whether the policy authorizes you to do it or not. That doesn't mean that you won't have to face democratic accountability if someone challenges your actions. It doesn't mean that you don't have to explain yourself to others because you can pull the "IAR card" out of your sleeve and escape peer review from your fellow editors. It's the "rules are rules" crowd who have contributed most to this grave misinterpretation of IAR because the strawman best suits their purposes in getting rid of it. I wish we could put that strawman to rest. causa sui× 00:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I agree with your main points, but with some reservations. Most policy pages don't strike me as "severely lacking", although I'm not currently happy with the language on this one. And on some policy pages, firm rules are fine with me. For instance, at WP:CSD, we're not saying what pages you can and can't delete, we're saying that from long experience, we know that there are only a few kinds of pages where almost everyone agrees on the deletion; if it's not one of those, then people might differ so it should go to AfD. That's not "thou shalt not", that's just another way of arriving at the same deletion result. My main reservation is that I can't jump to labeling someone as being in the "rules-are-rules crowd" if they say "I think this is the rule we should all follow". Even small societies have hard-to-decipher rules that impede outsiders, and Wikipedia is a very large society, full of competing interests and unwritten rules. Maybe the person who says "please follow this rule" knows from experience that if we don't have that one rule, it means that we'll have two rules, or twenty, all enforced in various ways by various cliques in a way that's opaque to outsiders. Some rules are anti-authoritarian. - Dank (push to talk) 02:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You make some interesting points, but again, I'm not sure what they have to do with what I said. You seem to be responding to views that I wouldn't attribute to myself. As for the CSD debate, I'm not sure how that fits in to what we're talking about either. causa sui× 17:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You seemed to be expressing a distaste the "rules are rules" crowd, whoever they are. I thought I was responding to that ... can you repeat what you're saying, and give me an example of what you don't like? - Dank (push to talk) 17:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. CSD popped into my head as one of the better examples of where a firm rule is not that harmful, since the effect of the rule isn't "You can't do this", but "You have to take more time and involve more people if you want to do this". - Dank (push to talk) 17:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding just letting things go on as they have - I too am frequently discouraged, but I keep two things in mind: first, most cleanup really does remain, especially after major disputes are resolved. Second, 'people get it anyway, and will do what they like' applies only to experienced editors. Policy pages may not have much effect on them (even 3RR is overlooked for well-known editors), but policy pages do help our newer editors. One major role of policy pages is to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a Meritocracy of contribution count, where we have nebulous rules determined by whoever's around giving their opinion at some one time.    M   21:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Tag team

I just reverted an edit adding a section that described this essay as the "main article". Atomic Blunder, everyone is welcome to make changes to policy ... including you, including me. (I haven't been making any non-trivial edits to policy for a while because, in general, I can't be objective enough to do the WP:Update if I'm pushing some points and resisting others. I've decided I would really like to participate at this page and WP:POLICY, so I'll be careful and/or ask for help on these two pages.) It's my sense that the material in that essay doesn't sound like policy; policy is supposed to be either a description that generally applies or a standard that a lot of editors follow; hopefully tag-teaming is neither. But I could be wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 17:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll give it another try. --Atomic blunder (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Btw, I'm wrong ... tag-teaming is specifically mentioned on a policy page, at WP:OWN#Multiple editors. - Dank (push to talk) 20:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph on tag-teaming, which is too much just a bad faith accusation. The spirit of WP:TAGTEAM is anti-consensus, an accusation of bad-faith editing against multiple editors. What little good in WP:TAGTEAM is better described on the policies and guidelines it links to, such as WP:MEAT in the lede. --Ronz (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia founding principles

The page implies that the "Wikimedia founding principles" have some sort of bearing on our project. This appears to be a freely editable page at Meta, with various language versions that are not necessarily synchronized, and whose contents (and changes thereto) are probably ignored by a good 99.9% of the Wiki supercommunity. In other words, whatever's written on that page probably doesn't mean anything profound. If I'm right about all of this, can we get rid of the paragraph here that refers to that page?--Kotniski (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, but I'd do it for a different reason: because there isn't any debate that I know of about whether consensus is how we operate, so we don't have to take the WMF's word for it. We owe them and all that for getting a good thing started, but we've gone way past the original conceptions. OTOH, if it's true that all of the WMF projects follow a similar approach to consensus, it wouldn't hurt to mention that. - Dank (push to talk) 18:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The page I'm talking about isn't the WMF's word anyway, as far as I can tell. (And didn't Wikipedia exist before the WMF?)--Kotniski (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• In response to Dank's remark, I just want to say that there's no need for a debate to establish that consensus is how we operate. That's already well-established, and besides, the act of holding a debate about whether consensus is how we operate would, itself, prove that we operate via consensus, so it would be tautological thinking.

  Besides which, a bit of experience with Wikipedian debates tells me that if we debated the matter, we'd end up with a consensus like this:

  "There is a consensus that Wikipedia operates by consensus, except for BLPs where there is no consensus whether or not we operate by consensus, flagged revisions where there is a consensus not to have a consensus, and discussions about consensus, where there is a consensus that consensus is not how we operate but there is no consensus about what replaces consensus, except for copyright violations and breaches of personal privacy, oversight requests, arbcom, and office actions."

  For the sake of sanity, please, let's just assume we operate by consensus.  :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That's funny and scary at the same time. - Dank (push to talk) 12:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Since no-one's providing any reason to continue referring to the page I mentioned, I'm going to remove it for the moment.--Kotniski (talk) 11:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Today's edits

Kotniski, I've got some questions about your edits today. Here's my position:

1. You can land at ANI for not following certain policies even once, for instance WP:OUTING. But there are very few sentences in policy pages that have that kind of clout. Other policies are likely to land you at ANI if you ignore them 10 or 20 times. But infringements of most of the sentences on policy pages will never put you in danger of a block by themselves (though they make it more likely you'll get reverted). The worst that can happen is, if you're already in trouble for something else, policy infringements will give people extra ammunition to shoot you down with, so if you like to skate on thin ice, it's a very good idea to keep up with the relevant policy.
2. If you're trying to develop a good reputation, trying to give the impression that you keep up with developments in, say, content-related matters, then reading and either following or working to change content policy pages should probably be first on your list.
3. If you're trying to get up to speed on some new area, you'll probably wind up regretting it if you avoid the relevant policy pages; it's generally good stuff.
4. If you create a guideline of some sort that doesn't square with policy, then it's very likely that your material will get ignored and/or reverted. Even when policy isn't perfect, even when people don't follow it, there's still a strong consensus that policy pages are the place where the action is supposed to happen (which is why we are generally very reluctant to promote pages to policy status ... it's a high bar).

I don't know of any other downsides to not following policy, and I don't understand what it means to say that people have to follow it. We also get a lot of flak for "thou shalt" ... it gives the appearance of COI, which lowers the credibility of the document. - Dank (push to talk) 12:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That all sounds very true... but I guess I'm not understanding what it has to do with my edits?--Kotniski (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This one. I don't disagree with what you're thinking, the problem is that some editors have a bad reaction if it sounds like "You can't", "You must", "You'll be sorry", or "We know best". (I'm not saying that's what you're saying, I'm saying that's what some people hear.) Individuals and groups of editors can and do decide not to follow policy; it happens all the time. - Dank (push to talk) 13:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, all I was doing was basically rearranging the information for clarity and logic - I don't see that I added anything that wasn't there before.--Kotniski (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"A wikiproject cannot decide that ..." wasn't there before. - Dank (push to talk) 14:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It was, a bit lower down (and worded ever so slightly differently, but "cannot" was certainly there).--Kotniski (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice the wording further down. I still object ... that's why I'm watchlisting here and at POLICY, to try to get people to tone down the current wording and be more specific. - Dank (push to talk) 15:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Would there be any advantage to putting this informal consensus on this page?

Hammersoft and I are having a discussion at WT:RFA#What problem is this supposed to solve? [new section name 17:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)]. Does anyone want to agree with either of our points? Are we talking about something generally applicable that might be suitable for WP:CONSENSUS, or is the problem rare enough to just deal with it as it pops up? - Dank (push to talk) 17:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk page character

I just saw this recent edit summary: "Talk pages are also subject to consensus." and I wanted to start a conversation about it. I should probably point out that I agreed with Dank's earlier change, and I don't necessarily disagree with this one. I'm simply slightly confused by the reasoning given in the edit summary, so I would be interested in seeing that thought fully expressed.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Chillum removed "non-talk" here: "Someone makes a change to a [non-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 talk pages." Per WP:TALK, that's not quite right, and not my experience; editors don't usually seek consensus on how someone's talk page statement should read. Also here: "Be bold in editing; you can also use the talk page to discuss improvements to the [non-talk] page, and to form a consensus concerning the editing of the page." WP:BOLD says: "Be bold and drop your opinion [on the talk page]", it doesn't recommend bold editing of other people's comments. The other two removals of my addition of "non-talk" don't look right to me either ... on the other hand, "non-talk" is a non-word. If anyone has something snappier, feel free to edit. - Dank (push to talk) 01:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, reverting since we're getting close to the end of the month, but feel free to revert and discuss. - Dank (push to talk) 12:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Stability (September)

Btw, the changes so far this month seem reasonable to me, but changing for instance "expected to discuss substantive changes" to "typically expected to propose substantive changes" might generate some discussion. Since the recent changes seem relatively uncontroversial and the page has more stability than it had last month, I'll assume for porpoises of the Update that I can use the current version, unless there's discussion that suggests otherwise. - Dank (push to talk) 02:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't actually looked at this for a couple of weeks now, but I don't think that anything has significantly changed. There seems to be a faction of people who feel that even minor changes to policy or guideline pages are significant (and changing a single word certainly could be significant; I will happily dispute the correlation → causation perception there, though), but I don't think that has actually occurred recently. All edits appear to be straight copy editing (which is a very good thing!).
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet edits

There's been some discussion in the past on whether it's okay to revert edits by banned sockpuppets on sight, by analogy to WP:CSD#G5. User:Atomic blunder is the sock in question here. I think it depends on how many edits the sock made before they were caught; Atomic made at least several hundred to policy pages, and if we spend a lot of time discussing the wisdom of several hundred edits, the sock wins IMO. Anyway, feel free to revert me, I reverted his addition of a see-also link. He also was the person who changed the Canvassing section, but others have edited since then, so I don't want to blindly revert that. Please look at WP:CON#Improper consensus-building and consider whether we should revert to some previous version, such as the August 31 version. - Dank (push to talk) 03:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with your removal. As a matter of fact, I'm actually tempted to nominate that page for deletion, which is extremely unusual for me. It's one saving grace is that it is an essay... that and deleting things here is just bad on principle, in my view.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

System of good reasons

What's the deal with these changes? HarryAlfa seems to show up every now and then and put the text (about working to a "system of good reasons") in; someone else reverts; and there seems to be no discussion about it. On the face of it the change seems reasonable - we shouldn't be counting heads, but comparing reasoning - what's the objection?--Kotniski (talk) 10:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"non-reasoning nay-saying is anti-Wikipedian" is not a good language. Ruslik_Zero 11:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)