User:Isaacl/Community consensus
There are certain structural issues with relying on community consensus to manage discussions in Wikipedia.
Challenges with managing unmoderated discussion by consensus
[edit]Wikipedia has a tradition of consensus governing all aspects of community discussions. This helps ensure everyone can contribute their thoughts and opinions, which creates a broader base for input and constructive feedback. Unfortunately it also makes it difficult for a WikiProject or a task force to define its scope in a specific area. Once a project/task force attracts the attention of a larger group of highly-opinionated editors, its focus can be dissipated into the perennial concerns of this group.
WikiProjects and task forces are groups of editors with a self-declared common area of interest within Wikipedia. In a volunteer environment, any editor can choose to contribute towards any topic, and so there is no bar to entry for any WikiProject or task force. This openness has the beneficial effect of avoiding a closed clubhouse group that excludes reasoned discussion from outsiders. But it also means the scope of any group discussions is prone to drift towards the same set of common concerns that a large body of engaged editors like to discuss.
A case in point is WikiProject Editor Retention, which was created with the original intent of providing a place to co-ordinate discussion of issues and potential solutions related to improving the retention of editors. At present, its talk page is largely indistinguishable from that of a half-dozen others where editors air their grievances. By Wikipedia's consensus tradition, if that's what most editors would like to discuss, then they are free to proceed. Unfortunately it can have the detrimental effect of chasing away editors not interested in these topics. As a result, Wikipedia's tradition of consensus can homogenize discussions, rendering them all similar in tone and scope.
Consensus decision-making is problematic in a large group setting
[edit]When an entire group is strongly aligned in its goals, consensus decision-making can be effective in maintaining a unity of purpose. Unfortunately, as a group increases in size, it also becomes increasingly unlikely that all members will be strongly aligned. (*) Consensus decision-making favours those who are less accommodating over those who are more accommodating, and so Wikipedia's discussion environment selects for less collegial editors over more collegial ones. Asking for proof with on-wiki diffs that it is the more collegial editors who are leaving is a catch-22: first, it would not be collegial to discuss someone else's lack of social graces; second, most people who stop posting to a web site just do so, without bothering to tell anyone about it.
In addition, the percentage of editors who weigh in on any discussion is a small percentage of the number of active editors on a whole. (As of January 2014, 25% of all edits to Wikipedia are made by the top 4000 editors (see File:Top Wikipedians compared to the rest of the community, 8 January 2014.svg), and 75% of the edits are made by the top 10,000 contributors (see File:Top Wikipedian editors, 8 January 2014.svg)). The number of participants in a discussion is typically well under a hundred. Thus Wikipedia's consensus model gives undue weight to the most activist editors.
(*) For example, some people may feel that English Wikipedia should be written at a fifth-grade reading level, to make it more accessible to a wider readership, while others may feel that it should be written at an eighth-grade reading level, to allow for greater concision when explaining complex topics. Both viewpoints are valid; they just are products of different underlying goals.
Wikipedia's unmoderated discussions leads to overly verbose, repetitive discussions
[edit]The lack of moderation in discussion threads leads to many branches, as participants can reply to any post and divert the conversation in a different direction. Often there is a great deal of repetition and overly-long statements, which reduces the effectiveness of discussion and works against building up a consensus from small agreements to larger ones. This effect is exacerbated when the participants have a diverse set of goals: an attempt to discuss one topic can easily be sidetracked by a larger group into another discussion area.
Mitigating issues with Wikipedia's consensus tradition
[edit]There is a stalemate in addressing the issues with using consensus to resolve disputes, given that consensus is required to adopt new approaches. It is possible, on a case-by-case basis, for interested parties to agree upon ways to structure discussion to make it more effective. Available techniques include the following:
- Separate initial statements by participants from detailed discussion. Consolidating discussion helps avoid repetitive comments. This has been used effectively for numerous Request for Comments discussions, including the first RFC in the 2012 discussions about Pending Changes.
- Summarize discussion with lists of pros and cons. Avoids repeating points that have already been established.
- Allow a working group to perform an initial analysis. During this preliminary phase, the group should be able to self-select members who are receptive to an even-handed examination of all points of view.
Co-operation of key interested parties is necessary for any mitigation approach to succeed.
References
[edit]This analysis used the following statements as a starting point: