User:Scribolt/Levels of consensus

xx add brackets dessay|WP:XXXXShortcuts|interprets=the Wikipedia:Consensus policy}} xx add brackets

Introduction

Consensus is the key mechanism for determining what content ends up in the encyclopedia, and how editors behave towards each other. It is a long held principle, both in policy and in practice, that a consensus formed by a smaller group on a topic has less weight than one formed by a larger one. These are commonly referred to as a local consensus or a global consensus but these are more relative terms than they might appear. This essay describes how the level of consensus on a topic can be assessed.

Why is the concept of levels of consensus important?

On a purely practical level, many dispute resolution (and indeed enforcement / disciplinary) mechanisms will consider whether someone is acting against a consensus held among other editors. This is a cardinal sin on Wikipedia. With the exception of a few legal restrictions and WMF mandated behaviour standards, the way an editor acts or the content they publish in whichever space they are working in, is judged against "this what everyone else has agreed we should do in these situations".

Due to the fact that the community has consisted of thousands of usually anonymous people over many years, not all of whom have ever commented anywhere outside of article space, it is impossible to ever accurately state what "the community" thinks about any given topic at any given time. There are some clues though; informal agreements on talkpages and elsewhere, Requests For Comment, topic oriented noticeboards, and dedicated policy and related discussion pages.

It is considered disruptive to act against a previously held consensus, but how then to manage situations where consensus changes? One part of the communities views are no less valid than another, and anyone can ignore the rules at any given point if required, but the one of the ways the community (or at least the part of the community that wishes to get involved) judges whether or not a new consensus is emerging is to contrast the level of new consensus against the old. This helps to prevent old and possibly contentious issues being re-litigated, but is not without it's own challenges.

Defining some terms

CONLEVEL states "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale."

Exactly what "limited group", "one place and time", "community consensus" and "wide scale" mean is open for interpretation. At least in the context of this essay, it's important to establish some terminology.

Topic The subject under discussion. This could be content, or deciding on how processes are applied.

Discussion The interactions between at least two editors concerning the subject.

Consensus The outcome or decision of the discussion regarding the topic.

Local A relative term (see global) that indicates that the consensus is more limited in application than a different consensus on the topic.

Global A relative term (see local) that indicates that the consensus is more widely applicable than a different consensus on the topic.

Widely / Narrowly Advertised Indicates the volume of of editors who can reasonably be expected to be aware of a discussion and the subsequent consensus.

Correctly / Incorrectly Advertised The degree to which interested or editors who will be impacted by the new consensus can reasonably be expected to be aware of a discussion.

Some common, but not universally accepted, assumptions and related caveats

Policy text represents the highest level of community consensus on a topic. This is often true. One of the reasons we have policies, and the expectation that they are followed in the absence of a compelling reason, is that they document established consensus so that it can be referred to. It is important to note that the policy text only represents the consensus that led to it being added. Policy pages are often watchlisted by many, which means that unrepresentative or malicious changes tend to be reverted, and even minor alterations are often analysed in great detail on their talk pages. Not every change though is subject to a formal discussion, and with some of the less popular policy pages and/or guidelines, this may be quite a small number of editors who are even aware of the change. Also, by it’s nature, policy text reflects the thinking of editors when it was written, it seldom leads the way and may become outdated as editing practices change.

If a discussion is at the wrong venue, then any resulting consensus is more local than that from a discussion at the correct venue. This can be true. Certainly being at the wrong venue may negatively impact how widely (how many people have the page watchlisted?) and correctly (are the people who can meaningfully contribute to a discussion on the topic aware?) the discussion is advertised. But these issues can be mitigated to an extent with sensible notifications, and discussions at talkpages can attract hundreds of contributors on occasion.

If a discussion is not a properly formatted RfC, then any resulting consensus is more local than from a discussion that is. This can be true. An RfC generates automatic notifications (for those who have signed up for them) and is theoretically visible to the whole project via central listings. Also, the discussion format helps to structure and regulate the discussion in way that leads to clearer outcomes and (sometimes) a formal closure by someone uninvolved. There are no guarantees though that the “right” people see the notifications at the right time, or indeed attend.

A discussion with a high number of attendees means the consensus formed is global. This often true. In the situation where 100% of active editors discussed something, the outcome would be a truly global consensus. However, even the most well attended discussions generally only attract a fraction of the community, and below a certain level, it's hard to state that a discussion involving 3 editors has a meaningfully state higher consensus level than one involving 4. Exactly where the line lies, is an open question.

The outcome from an discussion should be applied in other similar situations. This can be true. If there is consensus to include something in policy, then it should generally be applied during editing. If there was a discussion that was deemed to represent a global consensus on a specific topic, it should also be applied to that specific topic. However, reasonable minds may differ on exactly whether a global consensus was reached in a particular situation. Also, depending on the wording of the outcome, there is a difference between the community saying that a explicitly saying that all situations meeting a criteria should be handled in a certain way, rather than using the outcome of discussion of limited scope to inform similar but different cases.

If topic that has been discussed, then a community consensus exists on it. This can be true.

So what does this mean?

It means that there is no simple formula for determining the level of consensus within the Wikipedia community and this should always be borne in mind when discussing with others. There are some commonly accepted elements that can be considered as increasing the level of consensus associated with a discussion outcome, but there no consensus on how to weigh them in proportion each other.

• Already documented in policy
• High number of editors aware of discussion
• Appropriate central noticeboard
• Formal RfC
• Correct venues / participants notified of discussion
• High number of participants involved
• Explicitly wide scope identified

All of these elements should be considered together when trying to determine the level of community consensus there is on something. So what recommendations are there in terms of how to frame or assess arguments in relation to consensus level?

• Do not dismiss something as being "only a local consensus" or use disparaging terms without explanation.
• Do not baldly state that there is already a “global consensus” on something without referring to both the discussion and why you believe it carries more weight than something else.
• Do carefully check the scope of what was decided in a discussion. Just because there was a recent discussion that concluded that we should always handle Foo a certain way, doesn't mean the same should apply to Bar. Even if it appears clear to you that it should be applicable, be open to discussing further.
• Do remember that even though you participated in a discussion that occurred on a page you consider to be important to the project, that anyone who challenges the applicability of that outcome elsewhere might have legitimate reasons to do so.
• Do follow policies wherever possible, but when someone wants to do things differently, remember that they are always open to change, and that seeking change can be a positive thing for the encyclopedia and readers.
• Do not endlessly challenge or refuse to accept any form of consensus formed elsewhere. Although consensus levels are subjective, it's disruptive and contrary to the philosophy of the project to reject all forms of consensus for not being "global" enough.