Jump to content

Wikipedia:Consensus: Difference between revisions

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
trying a better first sentence ("consensus is a policy" doesn't sound right)
→What consensus is: well, if we're posing the question, we might as well make some attempt to answer it (this is my first try)
Line 8: Line 8:


== What consensus is ==
== What consensus is ==
There is no single definition of what consensus means on Wikipedia. Ideally a consensus decision would have the agreement of all interested editors, but sometimes this proves impossible to achieve, and a majority decision must be taken.

=== Process ===
=== Process ===
{{further|[[Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing|Editing policy—Talking and editing]]}}
{{further|[[Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing|Editing policy—Talking and editing]]}}

Revision as of 15:27, 11 July 2010

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

Conduct policies

Consensus describes the way in which editorial decisions are made on Wikipedia. Editors typically reach consensus as a natural and inherent product of editing; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, then everyone who reads it has an opportunity to leave the page as it is or change it. When editors cannot reach an agreement by editing, the process of reaching consensus is furthered on the relevant talk pages.

What consensus is

There is no single definition of what consensus means on Wikipedia. Ideally a consensus decision would have the agreement of all interested editors, but sometimes this proves impossible to achieve, and a majority decision must be taken.

Process

Further information: [[:Editing policy—Talking and editing]]

Discussions should always be attempts to persuade others, using reasons. If discussion turns into a polarized shouting match then there is no possibility of consensus, and the quality of the page will suffer.

Level of consensus

Shortcut

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

In the case of policies and guidelines, Wikipedia expects a higher standard of participation and consensus than on other pages. In such cases, silence can imply consent only if there is adequate exposure to the community.

Consensus can change

Shortcuts

Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions. While past "extensive discussions" can guide editors on what influenced a past consensus, editors need to re-examine each proposal on its own merits, and determine afresh whether consensus either has or has not changed.

Wikipedia remains flexible because new people may bring fresh ideas, growing may evolve new needs, people may change their minds over time when new things come up, and we may find a better way to do things.

A representative group might make a decision on behalf of the community as a whole. More often, people document changes to existing procedures at some arbitrary time after the fact. But in all these cases, nothing is permanently fixed. The world changes, and the wiki must change with it. It is reasonable and indeed often desirable to make further changes to things at a later date, even if the last change was years ago.

Exceptions

Shortcut

Some exceptions supersede consensus decisions on a page.

Policies and guidelines

Policies and guidelines reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important if the community is to have confidence in them. Editors are therefore typically expected to propose substantive changes on the talk page before making them. Don't do big things suddenly; the community is more likely to accept your edits if you do them slowly and make effort to keep the community involved. While consensus at policy pages can and does change, it usually does so slowly.

Consensus-building

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

Several processes can attract editors to resolve differences:

Try not to attract too many editors at once.

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

Consensus as a result of the editing process

When an edit is made, other editors have these options: accept the edit, change the edit, or revert the edit. These options may be discussed if necessary.
See also: Wikipedia:Editing policy

Someone makes a change to a page (any page other than a talk page), then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to leave it as it is, or change it. When two or more editors cannot reach an agreement by editing, consensus is sought on talk pages.

This is the simplest form of consensus, and it is used in everyday editing on the vast majority of Wikipedia's non-talk pages. It begins with an editor boldly changing an article or other page. In response, the viewers of the page have three options:

  • accepting the change,
  • trying to improve the change, or
  • reverting the change.

If your changes have been edited or removed, you may wish to try to improve on them. If other editors do not immediately accept your ideas, think of a reasonable change that might integrate your ideas with other editors' ideas, and make an edit. You can also discuss the changes at the talk page, in an edit summary, or as a note to others at a user talk page or other widely read pages, such as the Village Pump or a relevant WikiProject.

Articles normally go through many iterations of this form of consensus editing to achieve a neutral and readable product.

If other editors accept your changes, then this silent acceptance is, itself, sufficient proof that your changes have consensus at this time. Consensus does not require either that you get prior "permission" to make changes or that the acceptance of your changes afterwards be formally documented. Edits that are neither changed nor removed are always presumed to have consensus until someone actually challenges them. Consequently, you should not remove a change solely on the grounds that there is no formal record indicating consensus for it: instead, you should give a policy-based or common-sense reason for challenging it.

Edit summaries are useful, and should contain a summary of the change made to the page by the edit, or an explanation of why the editor made the change. A short summary is better than no summary. If the reason for an edit to a non-talk page is not clear, editors are more likely to revert it, especially when someone inserts or deletes material. To give longer explanations, use the talk page and put in the edit summary "see Talk".

Edit wars, such as repeatedly inserting the same content when other contributors are rejecting it, lead to page protection and suspension of your ability to edit rather than improvements to the page.

Consensus building in talk pages

See also: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

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. This consensus cycle (see figure) is a common theme in Wikipedia. Wikipedia expects changes to policies and guidelines to achieve more participation and consensus than other pages. In cases where consensus is difficult, independent or more experienced editors may need to join the discussion. If edit wars or disruptive editing impede the editing of a page, or if consensus is impossible, formal dispute resolution is available.

Community discussions and polls

Shortcut
Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal. —Jimbo Wales

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

In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority. Editors decide outcomes during discussion, polls are regarded as structured discussions rather than votes. Both during polls and discussions, opinion has more weight when you provide a rationale; convince others of your views, and give them a chance to convince you. An argumentative approach rarely convinces others.

Improper consensus-building

There are methods of building a consensus or the appearance of a consensus that are improper in Wikipedia.

Canvassing is sending messages to many Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion. It is normal to invite more people into a discussion to obtain new insights and arguments. Messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion, however, compromise the consensus-building process and may be considered disruptive. Invitations must be phrased in a neutral way and addressed to a reasonably neutral group of people, e.g., sent to all active editors of the subject or posted at the message boards of the relevant wikiprojects.

The use of multiple sock puppet accounts by an editor to give the illusion of more support for a viewpoint than actually exists is prohibited. Meatpuppetry is a similar technique that involves the recruitment of editors to join a discussion on behalf of an editor, usually with the aim of swaying consensus in that discussion, and is also prohibited.

One or more editors who oppose a viewpoint that many other editors support may engage in tendentious editing practices where they refuse to allow consensus they don't agree with and are willing to perpetuate arguments indefinitely, effectively "filibustering" the discussion. This may eventually result in a "consensus" in their favor simply by outlasting proponents of the opposing viewpoint, but this cannot reasonably be considered a true consensus.

See also

Wikipedia essays and information pages concerning consensus:

Articles concerning consensus:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Consensus&oldid=372915997"