Wikipedia:Consensus

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

Wikipedia works by building consensus. Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process. The basic process works like this: someone makes an edit to a page, and then everyone who reads the page makes a decision to either leave the page as it is or change it. Over time, every edit that remains on a page, in a sense, has the unanimous approval of the community (or at least everyone who has looked at the page). "Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus — somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it. Most of the time, consensus is reached as a natural product of the editing process.

When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite discussion and negotiation on talk pages, in an attempt to develop a balanced view which everybody can agree upon. If we find that a particular consensus happens often, we write it down as a guideline, to save people the time having to discuss the same principles over and over. In the rare situations where consensus is hard to find, the dispute resolution processes provide several other ways agreed by the community, to involve independent editors and more experienced help in the discussion, and to address the problems which prevent a consensus from arising.

When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. Even a majority of a limited group of editors will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within policies.

Wikipedia consensus process flowchart

Consensus on Wikipedia

Consensus on Wikipedia always means, within the framework of communal consensus, as documented by established policies and practice. Consensus never means "whatever a limited group of editors might agree upon", where this contradicts policy and practice. This means:

1. Editing decisions are not based upon pure "vote counts". A "vote" based upon ignoring Wikipedia policies does not usually count as more than a personal view or wish. (See WP:IAR for rare exceptions)

   Example: 14 editors vote on an article deletion. 11 users vote for deletion arguing the article is "offensive" or "unnecessary", without realizing that policy deems these non-valid arguments. 3 users vote for keeping and submit evidence that it is notable and verifiable. Even though the "delete" votes are strongly worded and the majority, the consensus of policy related points is to keep.

2. Even strong opinions and strong support expressed in specific polls, almost never change the need to abide by communally-agreed policies, guidelines and practices. Consensus on a small scale is not expected to override consensus on a wider scale very quickly (such as content-related policies/guidelines).

   Example: 4 editors who strongly agree on some viewpoint end up dominating discussion on the article's talk page. Even if they all agree, and are all sure they are right, and all sure other editors are wrong, they cannot override the requirement of policy to represent the opposing views neutrally and fairly, because the community has indicated a very high level of consensus that this is non-negotiable.

3. A proposal to change policy or practice needs care to be sure it really does have communal approval, and a rationale others will support, or it will be quickly challenged.

   Example: The proposal to merge certain key policies under the title Wikipedia:Attribution was a serious and wide-scale discussion but when tested, did not in fact have communal support. It failed.

Even when consensus or policy does change, this still happens within the framework of community consensus and established practice. In other words consensus agreement is still required by the broader community (the agreed process) and the process would still need agreement under communally approved practices that relate to policy development.

Reasonable consensus-building

Note that consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject. (e.g. insisting on insertion of an insignificant factoid into an article in opposition to many other editors has been judged a violation of consensus; see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute.)

It is difficult to specify exactly what constitutes a reasonable or rational position. Good editors acknowledge that positions opposed to their own may be reasonable. However, stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice. (Note that in the rare case that the "eccentric" position turns out to have merit, the consensus can change.)

Even if an editor's contributions appear to be biased, keep in mind that their edits may have been made in good faith, out of a genuine desire to improve the article. Editors must, in almost all situations, assume good faith and must always remain civil.

Consensus can change

Once established, consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind. A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision about an article, but when the article gains wider attention, members of the larger community of interest may then disagree, thus changing the consensus. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision.

This does not mean that Wikipedia ignores precedent; for example, editors should not continuously nominate an article to WP:AFD until it reaches their preferred outcome. However, an issue that was decided in the past can always be discussed again, especially if there is new information to discuss. An editor who thinks that a consensual decision is outdated may ask about it on the relevant talk page, at the Village Pump, or through a Request for Comment to see whether other editors agree. No one editor can unilaterally declare that consensus has changed.

Wikipedia is ever-changing, because new people visit every day, and through new information and new ideas, we may gain insights we did not have previously. It is important that there is a way to challenge past decisions, however these decisions were reached. Decisions should therefore practically never be "binding" in the sense that the decision cannot be taken back. Some decisions that have been made by a large number of editors (for example, the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule) would need a great number of the Wikipedia community to participate in a discussion to form a new consensus before it could be removed. This would not, however, apply to showing that there was a new consensus to altering the interpretation of a detail of the policy. In the first quarter of 2007, there appeared to be a consensus to combine several policies into a new one called Wikipedia:Attribution, which was duly promoted to the status of policy. However, when the issue was put to the larger Wikipedia community, it emerged that there was no such consensus. Currently, Wikipedia:Attribution is a summary page of Wikipedia's core content policies: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

"Asking the other parent"

It is very easy to create the appearance of a changing consensus simply by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people will discuss the issue. This, however, is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works. Wikipedia's decisions are not based on the number of people who showed up and voted a particular way on a particular day. It is based on a system of good reasons. Attempts to change consensus must be based on a clear engagement with the reasons behind the current consensus — so in the new discussion section, provide a summary and links to any previous discussions about the issue on the articles talk page, or talk page archives, to help editors new to the issue read the reasons behind the consensus so that they can make an informed decision about changing the consensus.

A good sign that you have not demonstrated a change in consensus, so much as a change in the people showing up, is if few or none of the people involved in the previous discussion show up for the new one. In this situation you may find that any changes you make to the article are quickly reverted by people outside the new talk page discussion. Do not be tempted to edit war but instead post comments on the talk page encouraging others to participate in the new discussion.

Asking for a consensus in a completely different "venue" or section of Wikipedia, in the hope of finding more support for a failed proposal, is known disapprovingly as forum-shopping. It's better to find the most appropriate page for discussing the topic, then ask there first and only. (This doesn't mean you can't take your proposal elsewhere if you're told you chose the wrong page for the topic.)

Consensus in practice

Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome. The following description of consensus, from the mailing list, argues a difference between consensus and unanimity:

In fact WP's standard way of operating is a rather good illustration of what it does mean: a mixture across the community of those who are largely agreed, some who disagree but 'agree to disagree' without disaffection, those who don't agree but give low priority to the given issue, those who disagree strongly but concede that there is a community view and respect it on that level, some vocal and unreconciled folk, some who operate 'outside the law'. You find out whether you have consensus, if not unanimity, when you try to build on it.

Note: In disputes, the term consensus is often used as if it means anything from genuine consensus to majority rule to my position; it is not uncommon to see both sides in an edit war claiming a consensus for its version of the article.

Consensus vs. supermajority

While the most important part of consensus-building is to thoroughly discuss and consider all issues, it is often difficult for all members in a discussion to come to a single conclusion. In activities such as Requests for Adminship, Articles for Deletion or Requested Moves, consensus-building can be unwieldy due to the fact that more people participate than can effectively cooperate (see: Dunbar's number). These processes may have been somewhat misdesigned, in that they have not scaled cleanly. As a result, it is sometimes hard to determine what the consensus is in such processes.

To compensate for this, people first simply check if the criterion of supermajority is achieved, and on that basis make a first order assumption on how close one is to rough consensus.

Formal decision making based on vote counting is not how wikipedia works (see Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy) and simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate. When polling is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus.

Nevertheless, some mediators of often-used Wikipedia-space processes have placed importance on the proportion of concurring editors reaching a particular level. This issue is controversial, and there is no consensus about having numerical guidelines.

See the pages for RM, AFD and RFA for further discussion of such figures. The numbers are by no means fixed, but are merely statistics reflecting past decisions. Note that the numbers are not binding on the editor who is interpreting the debate, and should never be the only consideration in making a final decision. Judgment and discretion are essential to determine the correct action, and in all cases, the discussion itself is more important than the statistics.

Exceptions

There are a few exceptions that have superseded consensus decisions on a page.

• Declarations from Jimmy Wales, the Board, or the Developers, particularly for server load or legal issues (copyright, privacy rights, libel), are usually held to have policy status (see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines).
• Wikipedia:Office Actions on a specific article (such as stubbing or protecting it) are normally considered to be outside the policies of the English Wikipedia.
• Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to override consensus on a wider scale very quickly (such as content-related policies/guidelines like Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:No original research).
• Foundation Issues lay out the basic principles for all wikimedia projects. These represent a consensus on a very wide scale indeed, among all Wikimedia projects. This means they evolve very slowly.

Note on use of discussion page

While the consensus process does not require posting to the discussion page, it can be useful. Edit summaries are short and can be misinterpreted. Discussing your edit may help it attract consensus. Posting a comment before editing is the best way to avoid misunderstandings. If you are unsure about an edit someone has made, wait a reasonable amount of time to allow them to post a comment. Also, when considering edits, be sure to check the discussion page to see if there are any open or closed discussions on the area you were about to edit. But once you have checked and contributed to the discussion, don't be too timid, BE BOLD.

See also

Articles

• Consensus
• Consensus decision-making
• Groupthink

Project pages

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
• Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines
• Wikipedia:Supermajority
• Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle