Jump to content

Wikipedia:Consensus

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Collect (talk | contribs) at 14:04, 2 January 2012 (nothing sacred about numbering for sure - using "means" instead of "understood to mean" if that works). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Conduct policies

'Consensus' is the primary and preferred manner in which decisions are made on Wikipedia, and is considered the best method to achieve our goals. "Consensus" on Wikipedia does not mean "unaninimity" as that is not always achievable, nor is it a numerical vote either. It means that the decision-making process includes an active effort to incorporate editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting our norms.

The issues discussed here include:

  • What "consensus" means on Wikipedia
  • What should be done in order to achieve it
  • How to determine when it has been achieved
  • How to proceed when consensus has not been achieved
  • When consensus is not valid for a decision (including specific exceptions stated by policy)

Achieving consensus

Consensus should be a natural product of editing. After someone makes a change or addition to a page, others may either leave the page as it is or to amend it. The associated talk pages are used for discussing such edits and discussion on improvement of the article involved.

Consensus decisions take into account all the proper concerns raised. Consensus is not necessarily unanimity. Generally it involves as wide an agreement as can be reached with the least objections. When no widespread agreement is evident, consensus-building involves compromise to reach the greates support among editors.

Reaching consensus through editing

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

Consensus is a normal process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed, or evidently the topic of a prior dispute, or reverted by another editor can be assumed to be accepted. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that the new edit is also accepted. The article is gradually amended and improved over time without any needless procedure – editors do not need permission before making changes. Often all that is required is a minor change in wording to satisfy all editors' concerns. Clear communication in edit summaries, such as stating which word is at issue in an edit, makes this process easier.

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


Reaching consensus through discussion

Where there are clear conflicts in the opinions of editors as to material and wording in an article, the first place for discussion is the article discussion page. There each editor explains their position about any given item in the article, and, with patience, the issues may be resolved. Alternate solutions get discussed and where some agreement is found, that agreement("consensus") is then used in the article. By definitions, compromises are never "perfect" but a well-crafted one can prevent useless ongoing discussions. Where new editors come into an article, or new information appears on a topic, sometimes prior consensus can change, and a new consensus may develop.


Sometimes discussions appear to contain two or more intractable groups of editors. For this reason, Wikipedia has [[WP:Dispute resolution}dispute resolution]] practices.

Where only two editors are in dispute, [[WP:3O}Third opinion]]s may be sufficient - that is, asking an uninvolved thirdparty to look at what is in the discussion.

Beyond that are requests for comment, informal mediation at the Mediation Cabal), and processes which seek greater amounts of input from others including formal mediation. The Administrator Noticeboards andArbitration deal primarily with policy and behavioural matters and not with content issues, however.

At the higher levels of dispute resolution, the primary concerns go beyond the initial content dispute, and actions by administrators or the community may include blocks or bans on editors who are causing problems on the project.

Also note that "edit war", "sock puppetry" and other specific violations of Wikipedia policies are not matters related to "consensus." .

Consensus-building

Further information: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution

Editors who are able to lay aside their own points of view and can maintain a civil demeanor can usually reach consensus on an article (see WP:PIECE). Editors who see discussions as something to "win" have a much harder time.

Consensus-building in talk pages

See also: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines
Shortcut

Be bold, but not brazen. The first thing to try is a straightforward edit to the article, and sometimes making such an informed and moderately worded edit will resolve a dispute. Always explain the edit in the edit summary. If the edit is reverted, try to address the concerns expressed in the reverter's edit summary. Then do not try re-editing unless and until a talk page discussion is in place. Sequences of reverts may be considered "edit war" and subject to sanctions.

When reading discussions, heed the concerns of the other editors. "Like" and "Not Like" are not very strong arguments in any discussion, and are unlikly to result in any compromise. The strongest arguments are those founded on what reliable sources state on a topic, and how Wikipedia policy says to deal with the specific claims made by them. Try to incorporate the material which is properly sourced, giving it proper wieight, and in accord with all policies which affect the article. Then move on.

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

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

Consensus-building by soliciting outside opinions

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

Third Opinions
3O is reserved for cases where exactly two editors are in dispute. A neutral third party will give an opinion about how the dispute should be resolved. Third Opinions are nonbinding, but help the parties reconsider the issues from a neutral point of view.
Noticeboards
Most policy and guideline pages, and many Wikipedia projects, have noticeboards for interested editors. If a dispute is in a particular topic area or concerns the application of a particular policy or guideline, posting a request to the noticeboard may attract people with some experience in that area.
Dispute Resolution Noticeboard
Similar to Third Opinion but not limited to two parties, mediator/clerks help the parties come to consensus by suggesting analysis, critiques, compromises, or mediation.
Requests for Comment
A formal system for inviting other editors to comment on a particular dispute, thus allowing for greater participation and a broader basis for consensus.
Informal Mediation by the (purported) Cabal
A place to seek help if prior efforts at dispute resolution have failed. This is a voluntary process that creates a structured, moderated discussion—no different than an article talk page discussion, except that the mediator helps keep the conversation on focus and moving forward, and prevents it from degenerating into the type of heated conflicts that can occur of unmoderated pages.
Village pump
For disputes that have far-reaching implications—mostly ones centered on policy or guideline changes—placing a notification at the pump can bring in a large number of interested editors. This ensures broad consensus across the project.

Many of these broader discussions will involve polls of one sort or another, but since consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should always be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responding YES/NO/AGREE/DISAGREE is not useful except for moral support. responding (DIS)AGREE per user X's argument is better, presenting a novel explanation of your own for your opinion is best. The goal is to generate a convincing reason for making one choice or another, not to decide on the mere weight of public expressions of support.

Administrative or community intervention

Shortcut

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

Wikiquette alerts
Wikiquette is a voluntary, informal discussion forum that can be used to help an editor recognize that they have misunderstood some aspect of Wikipedia standards. Rudeness, inappropriate reasoning, POV-pushing, collusion, or any other mild irregularity that interferes with the smooth operating of the consensus process are appropriate reasons for turning to Wikiquette. The process can be double-edged—expect Wikiquette respondents to be painfully objective about the nature of the problem—but can serve to clear up personal disputes.
Noticeboards
As noted above, policy pages generally have noticeboards, and many administrators watch them.
Administrator's intervention noticeboard and Administrator's noticeboard
These are noticeboards for administrators—they are high-volume noticeboards and should be used sparingly. Use AN for for issues that need eyes but may not need immediate action; use ANI for more pressing issues. Do not use either except at need.
Requests for comment on users
A more formal system designed to critique a long-term failure of an editor to live up to community standards.
Requests for arbitration
The final terminus of intractable disputes. Arbiters make rulings designed to eliminate behavior that is disrupting the progression of the article, up to and including banning or restricting editors.

Consensus-building pitfalls and errors

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

  • Too many cooks. Try not to attract too many editors into a discussion. Fruitful discussions usually contain less than ten active participants; more than that strains the limits of effective communication on an online forum of this sort. Where large-scale consensus is needed then it should be sought out, otherwise the input of one or two independent editors will give far better results.
  • Off-wiki discussions. Discussions on other websites, web forums, IRC, by email, or otherwise off the project are generally discouraged. They are not taken into account when determining consensus "on-wiki", and may generate suspicion and mistrust if they are discovered. While there is an occasional need for privacy on some issues, most Wikipedia-related discussions should be held on Wikipedia where they can be viewed by all participants.
  • Canvassing, Sock puppetry, and Meatpuppetry. Any effort to gather participants to a community discussion that has the effect of biasing that discussion is unacceptable. While it is perfectly fine—even encouraged—to invite people into a discussion to obtain new insights and arguments, it is not acceptable to invite only people favorable to a particular point of view, or to invite people in a way that will prejudice their opinions on the matter, and it is surely objectionable to pretend to gather people by simply using other accounts on your own. Neutral, informative messages to Wikipedia noticeboards, WikiProjects, or editors are permitted, but actions that could reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to "stuff the ballot box" or otherwise compromise the consensus building process would be considered disruptive editing.
  • Tendentious editing. The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. The consensus process works when editors listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they have decided on, and are willing to filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, destroy the consensus process. Issues that are settled by stubbornness never last, because someone more pigheaded will eventually arrive; only pages that have the support of the community survive in the long run.
Shortcuts
  • Forum shopping, admin shopping, and spin-doctoring. Raising the same issue repeatedly on different pages, to different admins, or with different wording is confusing and disruptive. It doesn't help to seek out a forum where you get the answer you want, or to play with the wording to try and trick different editors into agreeing with you, since sooner or later someone will notice all of the different threads. This is also known as "asking the other parent". Obviously, you can draw attention to the issue on noticeboards or other talk pages if you are careful to add links to keep all the ongoing discussions together, but best practice is to choose one appropriate forum for the consensus discussion, and give (as much as possible) a single neutral, clear, and objective statement of the issue. See also Wikipedia:Policy shopping.

Determining consensus

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

Level of consensus

Shortcuts

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

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

Consensus can change

Shortcuts
"WP:NBD" ("no binding decisions") redirects here. For the position of administrator being "no big deal" see Wikipedia:Administrators#History

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

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

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

No consensus

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

  • In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other page being kept.
  • When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted.
  • In article title discussions, no consensus has two defaults: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. If it has never been stable, or unstable for a long time, then it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.
  • In disputes over external links, disputed links are removed unless and until there is a consensus to include them.

Beyond consensus

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

Shortcut

See also

This page is referenced in the Wikipedia Glossary.

Information pages and Wikipedia essays concerning consensus:


Articles concerning consensus
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Consensus&oldid=469124743"