User:Visviva/DDV

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Decisions on Wikipedia are made by consensus, which is formed through discussion. For this reason, it is preferred on Wikipedia to discuss issues rather than formally voting on them. That is not to say that voting is forbidden, but it must be used with care, and alternatives should be considered.

Problems with voting include:

You might miss the best solution (or the best compromise) because it wasn't one of the options in the poll.
By polarizing discussion and raising the stakes, the poll may contribute to a breakdown in civility and make it difficult for participants to assume good faith.
Participants in a poll often expect that a majority or supermajority will automatically win the argument. However, on Wikipedia this is not the case; this may lead to enduring bitterness from those who feel they "really" won.
Participants in a poll often expect that the poll's result will be binding. However, decisions made by the Wikipedia community are never binding. This, again, can confuse and alienate those not familiar with the wiki process.

When voting is OK

Polls can be constructive, in certain limited cases. For the most part, these cases are limited to non-controversial topics not directly tied to article content. Examples include value-neutral choices of style or format, or choices of a focus article for a particular project. In cases such as these, voting is not evil, although it may not be a good idea. It is recommended that any such polls follow the recommended straw-poll procedures. Anyone carrying out such a poll should remember that the outcome of the vote is never binding, not even on the participants.

Choosing direction

It is often useful for project groups to hold votes to decide on specific areas in which their efforts should be focused. For example, Wikipedia:Article improvement drive uses approval voting to select the weekly focus article. In such a case, the choice is basically non-controversial; although editors may not be interested in improving a particular article, they are always free not to, and can form a project of their own to focus on the articles that they are interested in. Note that such polls do not actually compel anyone to do anything; even editors who support the article that is chosen are free to reconsider their choice and work on something else. If such a poll becomes divisive, every effort should be made to reach a compromise.

Standardization

Once it has been decided by consensus to standardize an issue (e.g. template layout), it is likely there will be several suggestions for standards. Unless one of them is clearly preferred, an approval vote is recommended to select the best-liked standard. Once again, however, it is far more helpful if the participants discuss and elaborate their reasoning, instead of simply voting.

Testing the waters

When a user or group is working on a new proposal, it is helpful for them to ask community opinion, concerning whether they are moving in the right direction or not. However, this should not take the form of a poll, as these are generally not constructive in that they focus on whether the current text is "good", as opposed to asking what should be changed. Even a supermajority in support of a new proposal is not sufficient to justify its adoption. Further, even if a majority of participants oppose the proposal, the proponents are not bound to abandon it. However, in such cases the then-present wording is {{rejected}}, and proponents are advised to take a new direction.

Also, some people consider it useful to gauge the current state of consensus among the currently active editors on a page, particularly in the course of resolving a dispute. However, historically on Wikipedia, most polls conducted in the course of controversies have not been constructive, and have not aided the discussion. It is therefore generally not advisable.

Discussions that resemble votes, but aren't

There are numerous cases where Wikipedians seem to be voting. However, most of these "votes" are actually discussions which will guide a final decision by the person closing the debate. Although in practice the final decision usually reflects the majority view, the closer of such discussions has no obligation to follow the will of the majority, or even the will of the supermajority.

Deletion and featuring

Wikipedia has several processes to deal with deletion (e.g. WP:AFD) and featured content (e.g. WP:FAC). These are sometimes wrongly assumed to be majority votes. When it is noted that, for example, "AFD is not a vote", we mean that "the outcome of an AFD debate is not decided by vote counting". Indeed, these processes can be "decided" in favor of the numerical minority, on the strength of the arguments presented.

Because the point of these processes is to form consensus, it is preferable that people discuss the matter rather than simply voting -- that is, people are encouraged to explain their reasoning, respond to others and possibly compromise, rather than signing a one-word opinion and not looking back. Attempts to "vote stack" such processes are ineffective and potentially disruptive. "Votes" without reasoning may carry no weight in the final interpretation.

Requested moves

Surveys are a standard part of the requested move process, but they are not binding. If the move is appropriate, it should be supported by consensus; the survey will simply document that fact. As with deletion discussions, the survey is intended only to guide the decision of the person closing the debate.

People

Whether certain people are trusted for certain functions is put to a community vote, in particular on WP:RFA and with the ArbCom election. However, in both cases the vote results are subject to interpretation by the party who makes the decision (i.e. the bureaucrats or Jimbo). There is no exact "target" percentage that forms the cutoff point. Again, in these processes it is preferable if people discuss, ask questions of the candidate, and state their reasonings, rather than simply voting "yes" or "no" with no further comment.

There are several discussions at the moment regarding how much RFA does and should resemble a majority vote.

When voting is especially unwise

As a rule, voting should be avoided in cases where the matter at issue is particularly controversial, and especially in any matter related to article content. There are several reasons for this. Votes on Wikipedia are never binding, per Wikipedia:Consensus can change, and so have no actual power to resolve disputes. Despite this, a vote on a controversial issue is often extremely acrimonious. It is not unusual for dedicated Wikipedians to leave Wikipedia entirely, or to drastically reduce their activities, due to the bitterness left by such votes. Such outcomes are not acceptable. We need everyone's help to make Wikipedia better; that is one of the most important reasons to work towards true consensus, and to avoid voting in any cases where voting is unlikely to be constructive.

Article content

The article-writing process on Wikipedia is guided by the core policies Verifiability and NPOV. These are not negotiable and not even the consensus of involved editors can permit articles to violate them. For disputes which are beyond the scope of these core policies, editors are expected to work towards consensus. It is often tempting to call a vote when an "impasse" seems to have been reached, but in the long term this is unlikely to resolve anything.

Policy and guidelines

Since Wikipedia is not a democracy, policy and guidelines are never accepted or rejected by vote. People sometimes think that a page cannot be a guideline if it wasn't voted upon, but actually no guideline was ever enacted through a vote. Similarly, most policy was never voted upon. We have historically voted on a select few policies (WP:3RR, WP:AP and the older parts of WP:CSD) but even in all of these cases, a vote was carefully put together only after discussing the matter for a month or more. In all other cases, policy was decided through discussion, or in rare cases imposed by the Board or Jimbo.

The aim of guidelines is primarily to describe current practice, to help editors to understand how Wikipedia works. This means that it is unnecessary, and in many cases unwise, to hold a straw poll on a proposed policy or guideline. If a proposal is not controversial, there is no need for a headcount; if a proposal is controversial, a headcount will not resolve the controversy, and may polarize it further. The controversy may spill onto the poll itself, causing debate on its mechanics. People often respond to ill-advised polls by voting against the poll, adding a section for "voting is evil", or removing the poll entirely.

A successful proposal is made by discussion. Conflicts are best resolved by listening to objections and rewording the proposal accordingly until a compromise is reached. While straw polls can be helpful for value-neutral choices of style and format, asking people to vote for or against a certain version of the proposal precludes compromise and is generally not helpful. A poll can never create consensus. It may show consensus, but generally consensus is already apparent from the discussion.

Feature requests

Changes to the MediaWiki software are made by the developers and are usually discussed on BugZilla. Some people are tempted to call a vote on feature requests on the assumption that the more people support a feature, the more likely the developers are to implement it. However, this is not generally the case, as to the developers, issues of feasibility and server load are far more important.

What to do instead

So you've reached an impasse. As we've seen, voting is unlikely to help. So what should you do instead? For the complete and official guide, see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. In general, the following steps are recommended:

Discuss. If that doesn't work, discuss some more.
Step back for a while.
Seek input from other Wikipedians. Fresh eyes may see the controversy in a new and more constructive way.
Seek mediation.
In a handful of extreme cases, it may be necessary to file a case with the Arbitration Committee.