Wikipedia talk:Consensus

“ Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal. ” — Jimmy Wales

Consensus might become hindrance to truth

When Galileo was sentenced to death, the consensus was against what he said.

Recently someone asked me to gain consensus first even though I cited a strong, universally accepted reference for the material.

What if the right number of editors to reach consensus on a certain topic of an article is absent from participating that discussion?

How does WikiPedia fight fallacy of popular opinions? Kawrno Baba (talk) 07:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Kawrno Baba Please be specific and provide a link to where you were asked to gain consensus. Doug Weller talk 10:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, please read the notice-box on top of here. Kawrno Baba (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

You really should have told User talk:StarkReport you were posting here. Have you read the page for which is the talk page carefully? Doug Weller talk 11:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

As a new editor I was trying to understand the concept of 'consensus during editing' myself first. Kawrno Baba (talk) 12:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, when discussing the substance of articles, it's not editors that we formally rely on (so not what's popular to them), although it's still their job to understandably and in summary fashion relate the relevant body of reliable literature, see generally WP:DUE, so that's what they either have agreement on or need to resolve. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The editor said "Fails WP:NPOV" before saying "Please gain consensus for this first." So what the editor is really saying is "I think there is a problem with this edit and I've told you what it is. Your next step is to take it to the talk page to explain why you think I'm wrong and see what other editors think." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand how an editor can simply remove a content and claim that 'there might be a problem explain yourself'. The concept of judicial system is 'innocent until proven guilty'. This can be applied to other things as well.

It's like accusing someone of theft, and then asking the accused to prove that he did not commit theft. This is irrational.

If some editor thinks there might be a problem, and the said content is well cited, shouldn't he use the talk page to prove why he thinks there might be a problem to the said content? Kawrno Baba (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

You boldly added content. The other editor boldly removed it, citing WP:NPOV (not WP:V).

• What to do if you don't agree with that rationale? Start a discussion, perhaps by {{ping}}ing the other editor and asking why they believe your addition promotes a point of view. Compare Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"#How to respond to a "no consensus" edit summary.
• What to do about your content during the discussion? See WP:QUO. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 07:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Kawrno Baba (talk) 07:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Turning to your question, the Wikipedia goal is to resolve disputes based on the relative strength of the reasons put forth by editors with differing views (and, perhaps, some adjustments to take into account everyone's concern). There is no magic number. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Everyone with a new idea that gets lots of opposition thinks themselves Galileo, the vast majority are just wrong. The Galileo fallacy is also a thing.
If an editor disagrees with you the first thing is to try discussion on the articles talk page, failing that WP:Dispute resolution is a useful guide to other options available. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

This is true, but I've honestly seen it happen multiple times. Consensus can cause a group to react to scepticism like an immune system spotting a bacterium. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Your are right. The consensus is used for good reason, although consensus does not necessarily equate to or imply correctness. Gluo88 (talk) 11:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Split Votes

Hello. What happens when a vote is split 50/50? Am I right in thinking topic neutrality wins? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• First, it’s supposed to be a discussion, not a vote… no one “wins” when we can’t reach consensus. Instead it means we need to explore compromises that might resolve the issue. Blueboar (talk) 11:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough. We have a couple of members who are basically refusing to accept that the vote reflects a need for a the article to remain neutral on certain topics. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  This appears to involve a dispute (currently at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) about whether Zoroastrianism is monotheistic.

  "Neutral" is a term of the art ("jargon") at the English Wikipedia. We say that all articles need to be neutral, but our definition of neutral may surprise you. According to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy:

  • if most/all high-quality sources say that Zoroastrianism is monotheistic, then the article is neutral if it, too, says Zoroastrianism is monotheistic.
  • if most/all high-quality sources say that Zoroastrianism is dualistic, then the article is neutral if it, too, says Zoroastrianism is dualistic.
  • If some high-quality sources say that Zoroastrianism is monotheistic and other high-quality sources say that Zoroastrianism is dualistic, the the article is neutral if it says Zoroastrianism has been classified as monotheistic by some and as dualistic by others.

  An article can only be neutral if it matches the balance of views found in reliable sources. If an accurate reflection of reliable sources would pick "X" as the answer, then having the article treat "X" and "Y" as being equally valid options would not produce a neutral article.

  Perhaps another way to say this is: Wikipedia editors need to neutrally reflect the contents of reliable sources. If the sources don't treat the options equally, then a WP:Neutral reflection of those sources will not treat the options equally, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, I see. As close as we can tell, opinions vary wildly and depend on where in the history of the religion you're looking at. We have a few meta papers that seem to indicate no consensus regarding the claim. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  Changes appearing over time are usually pretty easy: "From the Xth to Yth centuries, Zoroastrianism was often considered a dualistic religion, but modern Zoroastrianism is more usually described as a monotheistic religion" (or whatever the actual facts are).

  Usually, this approach results in the one side is satisfied because the article says it was originally their thing, and the other side is satisfied because the article says that it really is the other thing now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  Not this time, lol. They stonewalled the idea, even though it's exactly what their sources say. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  Have you actually run an RFC? If not, we can help you write a clear question. There are also other approaches to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, if you'd rather try a different process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Pretty much. I think it's been resolved now and we have an academic sending us better sources for the page. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  Congratulations on getting help from an expert. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Some problems with consensus

1. There are people demanding consensus to
   1. essentially prohibit any kind of change they don't like.
   2. deliberately make non-problematic changes look controversial.
2. Some people's attitude is "convince me (but I won't be convinced no matter what)".

I am not against the consensus policy itself. But this is how consensus is sometimes actually used in Wikipedia. Those "brick wall" people drive good contributors out. 172.58.208.47 (talk) 03:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:STONEWALLING is definitely a problem, but I'm unsure that it's a problem with the model of consensus and not rather a problem with the nature of people.
The opposite of your points, 'I insist my change must be made', 'my problematic change isn't controversial', 'It's intransigence not to accept my flawed arguments', are also common issues.
Both behaviours stem from very human behaviour of being sure of what we known to be true. We can try and distance ourselves from that, try to be open to arguments against our held position, but if that was easy then the world would be much better place than it is. A different consensus model, voting for instance, would be no less effected by this issue.
Stonewalling, as with WP:CIVILPOV pushing, are difficult to deal. RFCs can help, as they attract the larger editing community who may be less convinced of the current status that the local editors. The question is how to convince editors to be less dogmatic in their positions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

A consensus is sort of a "super-majority" typically of votes (and yes, I know it's not supposed to be a vote) and arguments. And so a common warrior maneuver it to try to make it so / claim that the other side has to have a super-majority in order for their view to prevail. In other words, "my side wins by default unless the other side gets a super-majority". Or " "no consensus" means my side wins" North8000 (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• It is a tricky problem, though, because we do generally need to have one specific version in the article, even in situations where there's no consensus. One of the reasons I'm opposed to interpretations of policy that give overwhelming preference to one side in a dispute is that it can encourage stonewalling and discourage engagement, consensus-building, and compromise. But ultimately there's always going to have to be a version and unless there is a clear supermajority in favor of it, there's always going to be people saying that it's the wrong one; there's no policy or practice that can perfectly solve this. I think that the most useful advice for people who are running into problems like this is to point them to the ways of escalating discussions and attracting more opinions. Generally speaking stonewalling and the like are a more serious problem in articles and discussions that have few people contributing to them - when more people contribute there will usually be some sort of consensus at the end, but it can be really hard to tease a consensus out of two or three people who are starkly at odds with each other. --Aquillion (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

"no consensus" means my side wins" is basically what the policy states if "my side" is preference for an older version. But what consensus do we need to have to modify the policy on consensus? Oloddin (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

If you're looking at the sentence in WP:NOCON that says the long-standing version is usually retained (assuming, e.g., that there is a long-standing version, that editors can agree on which version is the long-standing one, etc.), that's a description of a fact ("the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit"), rather than a rule being imposed ("You should..." or "Editors must...") or even a best practice being recommended ("It's a good idea to...because...").

That particular line was added originally by a now-blocked editor after multiple discussions (here and at WT:V) in which people (including me) said they weren't sure that it was entirely true. So apparently the answer to your question is: It's not difficult to change this policy. Sometimes we even let changes happen when we think they're dubious. Getting it into the policy was easy; getting it back out of the policy has proven to be much harder than getting it in. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Prohibiting any demand for consensus (things like "this change needs consensus", "no consensus to change", etc.) will help a lot. Demanding consensus is like "you need my approval to make this change". 73.66.2.97 (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Idea for a new feature

I was thinking that there could be a new feature where someone makes an edit but instead of applying it, ticks a box so that it has to gain approval from one other editor to be applied (and can’t outright be refused). This is a much less time consuming method that would replace talk page spam and be more of a proposal. It would also be ideal for contentious topics, to stop incorrect or uncertain content from being applied. Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Selfstudier (talk) 11:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

thanks Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: The box at the top of that page says "Proposed policy changes belong at Village pump (policy)." (If you do start a discussion there, be sure to drop a note here with a link to that discussion.) - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

On second thought, if you are proposing giving the editor the option to seek approval (or not) then maybe this would not be a change to the Consensus policy. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Proposed edits feature Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request for an essay on CONLEVEL

Hi all. For anyone who is interested, I recently moved an essay I wrote into WP space, and I'd greatly appreciate any feedback anyone has (good or bad) or improvements. You can find it here. In the conversations I've seen here and elsewhere, I've noticed that ironically there doesn't seem to be much consensus on how to measure the level of consensus that something has, and I've tried to highlight some of the various factors in play without being too prescriptive in terms of how to do it. Hopefully someone might find it useful when CONLEVEL discussions come up. Scribolt (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Cool. I will take a look, WP:CONLEVEL comes up quite frequently.Selfstudier (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOCONSENSUS

Wondering if the old wording was more clear? We seem to have a new generation of editors that have a different interpretation of this policy. That caused us more edit wars than it solves. Nostalgic old man. > Moxy🍁 20:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that closers must be more active in this, its no use just saying it's Nocon, go ahead and sort it out. OK, in some cases it can be very clear but often it won't be so clear, as in the case that has prompted this question here. Selfstudier (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I do agree with this point..... if someone's closing an RFC they should not tell people just to go ahead and have another RFC. If bold edits are contested and RCF are inconclusive...... those that edit wars in the contested content should be dealt with accordingly not rewarded with the content be included with experience editor having to deal with consequences.Moxy🍁 21:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I think in this case it is clear; an edit in place for just six weeks doesn't become the status quo.

If it had been a few months, then things might be ambiguous, but that isn't the case here - six weeks is just too short. BilledMammal (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that we seem to have forgotten how to reach compromises. Blueboar (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus after discussion, aka NOCONSENSUS, does not belong in this policy. No consensus is not a strategy for achieving consensus. No consensus belongs in WP:Editing policy and WP:Closing discussions.

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I like the idea of putting it in Wikipedia:Closing discussions. Also, I think the rather dubious bit about WP:STATUSQUO usually applying after the discussion is over should probably just get lost on during the trip to that page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

That’s two of us, with a silent audience. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Three of us, really, though how does one progress such a thing? Selfstudier (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Either we do it, and see if BRD will identify a Very Interested Person™, or we have an Official Discussion™ (RFC or otherwise). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Any day now maybe. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll get grief if I bold edit that, it's a policy page, so I guess an RFC.

Here? (Editing policy is also a policy page).

Question " Should Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus after discussion be moved to Wikipedia:Closing discussions? (and/or Editing policy).

with this convo as RFCbefore. Selfstudier (talk) 09:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I think a split/merge discussion is the usual format. I've started a separate sub-section at Wikipedia talk:Consensus#Moving NOCON to CLOSE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Not entirely opposed to moving it, but I think some form of it needs to be retained in policy, and if not here then at WP:EP. Otherwise, the guidance may be viewed as a demotion of sorts at an informational page. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Quite happy for the details to be examined (impartially). If there's some volunteers. Selfstudier (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The post close discussions/editing have not achieved any consensus either and I have opened an RFC to try and settle the matter. Selfstudier (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

You have opened an RFC to try and settle the matter? Where? SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Genocide of indigenous peoples#RFC Palestine. Selfstudier (talk) 11:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Years ago, Kim Bruning used to talk about the importance of "the wiki way" in identifying consensus, which is to say: If an edit sticks, it probably has some level of consensus. It might be a shaky, tenuous, temporary weakling of a consensus, but it's enough of a consensus that other editors don't feel obliged to instantly revert the edit. This may be difficult to achieve on hot-button issues (or if someone has outside influences, such as a paid editor or a volunteer for a political campaign), but that's the goal: to find something that the other 'side' won't revert. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I miss Kim. He was very wise.

What I read him as expressing is what is now called BRD and SILENCE. What I have deduced is that BRD is good for rapid development, and was more often appropriate in 2004 than 2024. Now, different to then, it is much better, expected, almost demanded, that there be a talk page record of consultation. Number of Watchers is no longer meaningful, and a quiet bold edit on a quiet page can be reverted as undiscussed even years later. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Nothing should be reverted "as undiscussed." Editors should provide a substantive rationale. For more on this topic, see wp:DRNC. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Moxy, just for clarification, what exactly is this "different interpretation" you're referring to? Here's a version from 2017 that predates some of the recent tinkering. Is that the "old wording" you had in mind, and if so, what about this version seems more clear? Presentation, phrasing, or both?

FWIW, this version was the last revision I paid attention to. I now see that some mini-subheadings have since been added along with a bullet covering FfDs. While well-intentioned, I think these unnecessarily crowd an already cluttered NOCON that's struggling to be concise. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

more clear here. Moxy🍁 09:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, well that's taking it way back! Is it more clear though? I suppose it depends on how the RfC is worded. The "proposed change" could be in reference to the bold edit added a year ago...or...it could be in reference to the recent effort to remove it. I suspect that's why additional verbiage was added later on. Unfortunately, as we've seen, it hasn't really gotten us any closer to solving the underlying issue of determining when a bold edit achieves some level of consensus without discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Moving NOCON to CLOSE

As suggested above, let's move WP:NOCON over to WP:CLOSE, where it will have more immediate relevance. No changes to the wording/facts/etc. in the section are suggested – just a simple move of these words out of this page and over to the more closely related page. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Will you propose to move the last sentence of WP:ONUS to CLOSE as well? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I haven't thought about it, but I think we should deal with one thing at a time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan! Let's deal with the ONUS sentence first. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

This question was already asked three weeks ago, so it's too late to do something else "first". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

NOCON and the last sentence of ONUS are yin and yang. You can't make this change without changing the balance between the two. I oppose moving only one into CLOSE. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

That's interesting to know, but not very clear. Do you think it would ultimately be best for NOCON and ONUS both to get moved to the other page, or do you think it would be best for neither to move? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: I am only talking about the last sentence in ONUS.

I think it would be best for NOCON and ONUS to be reconciled and put in one place. CLOSE is probably the best, but it is not a policy or guideline. And that is the primary problem with putting only NOCON in CLOSE, it leaves ONUS as the only policy statement on the issue.

On the other hand, good luck getting community consensus on reconciling NOCON and ONUS. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Neither NOCON nor ONUS belong in WP:Consensus.

I think both belong primarily in WP:Editing policy. I have no issue with ONUS remaining described in WP:V, but NOCON should be no more than a pointer to WP:EP.

With both nested in WP:EP, both can be mentioned in WP:CLOSE. Both are true regardless of whether there has been a formal discussion to be formally closed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Apart from the seeming logic of such a move, the thing that interests me most is whether it will result in closers paying more attention to it in their closes. Do you think? Selfstudier (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea if it will affect closer behavior, or if it might affect "closee" behavior (e.g., fewer close challenges, close challenges that are better explained, etc.). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:CLOSE is not policy, so moving NOCON over there would just remove it from policy, which I do not think would be a good idea (when there's no consensus, there needs to be an answer, whatever it may be, to the question of what to do). I've thought before that it'd be good to have some sort of guideline on closing (like WP:DGFA but not just for deletion), but as long as WP:CLOSE is a mere "information page" I would oppose this. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ, NOCON doesn't (and isn't supposed to) say anything that doesn't appear elsewhere.

So, e.g., if the dispute is over BLPs, then you can currently say "Well, NOCON is a policy, and it says that WP:BLP says that contentious matter gets removed if there's no consensus", but you could just as easily say – and probably ought to be saying – "WP:BLP is a core content policy, and it says that contentious matter gets removed when editors don't agree that it's adequately sourced".

You'd lose nothing any maybe even gain something by citing the policy that is most relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Extraordinary Writ, thanks for a good observation. I oppose making WP:NOCON a non-policy. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I wish that I'd never started NOCON.

Okay, guys, let's try this again from the top. Here's the facts:

1. BLP says we remove contentious matter unless editors agree that it's well-sourced. This encompasses both "we have a consensus that it's badly sourced" and "we don't have a consensus that it is well-sourced".
2. BLP is a policy.  A policy is not magic pixie dust, but BLP is definitely, absolutely, indisputably a policy. It's even one of our Wikipedia:Core content policies.
3. Some years ago, I added a little copy/summary of the BLP rules to this page. This little copy did not create or change any rules.

Now the question for @Extraordinary Writ and @Peter Gulutzan: If we removed NOCON, would you:

• Still be able to remove badly sourced contentious matter when editors can't form a consensus that it's well-sourced, because the BLP policy requires this action, or
• Have no idea what to do, because the BLP policy isn't enough all by itself, and you need to be able to cite two policies to get the badly sourced material removed?

If you pick the latter, then please tell me what we would actually lose by "only" having the BLP policy as an official policy that requires this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, and not just in BLPs, the problem remains that the version in the article is presumed to have consensus, including that it belongs in the article for all the right reasons (sourcing/npov/nor/noncvio). So if there is no consensus, its presence in the article misrepresents a consensus that does not exist. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. The version in the article might be presumed to have consensus up until the consensus was disputed, but NOCON is about when that presumption has just been proven false. You literally cannot have a presumed consensus in the article when the discussion just ended as no consensus; it is an X-and-not-X situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

What you just said, is another way of saying what I said, if it's in the article it has consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Right, the issue is usually about how long it has been in the article in relation to it being contested. Selfstudier (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker, if it's

• in the article, and
• an RFC just closed saying that "there is no consensus about whether this should be in the article",

then "if it's in the article it has consensus" is a false statement, right? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Nope. Practice has it that it depends how recently the material was added and the NOCON means nocon for inclusion or exclusion and then if it was there for long enough, it has consensus pending any possible further discussion to resolve the nocon discussion one way or another. Of course this leads to altercations and I think closers ought to at least opine, if not decide, on such matters in their closes (and discussion openers should ask them to opine as well). Selfstudier (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I also think that it's helpful, for the minority of discussions that get formally summarized, for the closers to express an opinion on what to do next.

I wonder if you have thought about the distinction between "There is no consensus either way, and that means we keep/remove/undo/whatever" (=what I've been saying for years) and "There is no consensus either way, and that means this version has consensus" (=what you appear to be saying here). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying that, I'm saying it depends, on when it was added and possibly some other things too (eg conlevel). As for your first version, that's what I want the closers to do, although they are more likely to opine than decide. What they tend to do now is say nothing and leave it to editors to figure it out. Selfstudier (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

And this to me would be an inconsistency and an overall issue that requires guidance. Concur with Selfstudier.

No consensus to keep is also no consensus to remove. If something is:

1. Verifiable
2. Has been in place a reasonable amount of time
3. Within an article with a reasonable amount of traffic
4. Was subject to discussion including a reasonable amount of participants

Then a stalemate should result in retaining the disputed content...for now. Relegating this advice to an essay demotes it. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The statement that "No consensus to keep is also no consensus to remove" is not literally true. When you have a consensus to remove, you also have "no consensus to keep". I realize this sounds pedantic, but this kind of P&G content really needs to be as wikilawyer-resistant as we can make it.

I really wish editors would quit fixating on the idea of additions and removals, when the real question may be something like "Shall we have ==This== section or ==That== section first?"

@GoneIn60, the Wikipedia:Editing policy takes a default position of retaining information (though it cares about whether Wikipedia retains information, rather than whether any given article retains the information). Removing this particular sentence from this policy would not actually make it impossible for you to claim that A Policy™ Requires the outcome you prefer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Best thing is to get the principle right, get it done and then wikilawyer it. Trying to wikilawyer it first just results in nothing getting done. Selfstudier (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

When a proposal to take action results in "no consensus", then logically the proposed action is not taken. What happens next depends. The conditions I listed count for something, and in applicable situations, they can be enough to tip the "no consensus" balanced scale in favor of retaining disputed content. It seems most that participate in these discussions agree with that sentiment. Where we seem to differ or want more clarification (or where the wikilawyering sets in) is in regard to reasonable amount; how is that determined?

To your point: "When you have a consensus to remove, you also have no consensus to keep".

I don't see it this way. When you have a consensus to take action one way, then you equally have a consensus against taking action the opposite way. So if you have a "consensus to remove", then you have a "consensus against keeping". You shouldn't phrase this as "no consensus to keep". I prefer to preserve "no consensus" for situations that represent outcomes of inaction, or stalemates. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

They are certainly contrary, and some may just will to see it as consensus version, nonetheless. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

When you have a decision that there is no consensus for a change, then that change does not have consensus. There may be no consensus about what to do instead, but there is no consensus.

This is important for policies to get right, because the alternative is that we reward edit warring to keep m:The Wrong Version out of the article during a discussion (which would actually be a violation of the WP:QUO essay, which I recommend actually reading, because it's one of those WP:UPPERCASE shortcuts that gets cited for the opposite of what it actually says).

What we want is:

• Alice changes something. (NB: Not necessarily adding anything. Maybe she just moved a sentence from one section to another.)
• Bob dislikes it and changes the article again. (NB: Not necessarily reverting Alice's edit. Maybe he rearranged a few more sentences, or added some explanatory text in an attempt to make Alice's change be [in his opinion] less bad.)
• The discussion about what to do closes as "no consensus either way".
• The decisions about what to do next are not prejudiced in favor of Bob's version just because "It's in the article so it has consensus".

What we don't want is:

• Alice changes something.
• Bob dislikes it but decides not to risk an edit war.
• The discussion about what to do closes as "no consensus either way".
• The decisions about what to do next are prejudiced in favor of Alice's version just because "It's in the article so it has consensus".

If anything, we want to reward editors for using restraint. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Which means, that where the discussion is in respect to core content policies (besides in some cases of BLP or CVIO), it results in the article remaining in internal doubt with respect to policy compliance, but external (or on-its-face) certitude with respect to policy compliance. Which is often important for article creation and improvement because we replicate articles in-form across the pedia, by editors going, that's done there, I'll replicate in kind or use it, here. And we believe it also matters to the quality, we provide readers to rely on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by the article remaining in internal doubt with respect to policy compliance, but external (or on-its-face) certitude with respect to policy compliance. Does this mean "No consensus means there actually is no consensus, but we'll pretend, for the sake of convenience, that there is a consensus for some version or another"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Is When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit written down in policy anywhere else? That's the part I'm most concerned about (and the main reason why most people cite NOCON, I think). You're of course right that the BLP wording (and everything else) is just a summary of other policy, and I indeed don't really care about those parts of NOCON—although if we're going to state the general rule, we probably need to cross-reference the exceptions too. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

That's a statement of statistical fact. It is not a rule and doesn't tell you what to do in any given situation. "If BLP, remove it" is a policy requirement. "Yeah, looking at a bunch of these, I see this pattern" is not a policy requirement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I suppose you're right, and if anything my confusion only proves your point that something needs to change. I do think this page has to say something about no consensus (which is presumably why you wrote NOCON to begin with), so I would prefer a rewrite to a full-scale move, though obviously the wording is very difficult. (Prefacing each bullet point with "According to WP:EXAMPLE..." might help somewhat.) That said, although NOCON has somehow come to symbolize the objections to ONUS, getting rid of the symbol won't get rid of the conflict or the deep-seated objections: the central problem remains one undiscussed 2014 edit that there was never consensus for in the first place. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Or we could say that the problem is another edit, by a now-indeffed editor, which was not only discussed but actively objected to. The same editor repeatedly removed the statement about BLPs and insisted for years that "no consensus means no change". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Moving NOCON to Editing Policy

No, my first belief, and my long term gut feel, and my latest reading, is that NOCON belongs in WP:Editing policy. Nest there, it can be better referred to from WP:CLOSE. - SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a conflict between NOCON and the last sentence of ONUS. If you demote NOCON to an essay then you are picking sides in that conflict. Is that an intended or unintended consequence of your support for "move only NOCON"? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not demoting NOCON to an essay if moved to Editing policy? Selfstudier (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, OK, you struck it. Selfstudier (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

And move the last sentence of ONUS there as well? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Moving that last sentence out of VNOT essentially removes ONUS from WP:V. That's a big change and something we may want to shelve for now. Obviously, it's a hot button topic with editors on both sides of the fence: WT:Verifiability/Archive 80#ONUS - a different idea.

Policies occasionally provide some brief overlapping coverage, and this would be one such area where it can exist. If editors feel VNOT is not the right place for it, the proper approach might be to flesh out the changes at WP:EP following the NOCON move, bring the policy up to date following discussion, and then decide if ONUS needs revisited. We may find more consensus at that point to remove it from VNOT and/or rephrase accordingly, but now doesn't seem like the time. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like a plan. Selfstudier (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

That plan would require editors to agree to move NOCON out of this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Yep, fine by me and since it's to another policy page, less objectionable for some people, I would think. And we can still leave some sort of summary here pointing to there, that's doable as well, right? Selfstudier (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Consider me on board if some form of NOCON is staying in policy, just being relocated. Don't think I would support a move to an essay, however. I understand the principle behind NOCON already loosely exists in WP:EP from the comments above, but I think the reason for its existence is that it needs to be spelled out; editors need something to point to. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The main reason it exists is because I thought it would be convenient to have a handy summary of all the different rules about what to do when a discussion has a no-consensus result that are scattered about in various policies, guidelines, and procedural pages.

Boy, was I wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

You've weathered a lot of storms in these here parts! ;)

It is handy, or at least it should be, since as you say it was meant to gather in one place several rules that are scattered about on various pages. Despite the number of editors here that may indicate otherwise (which in the grand scheme of things is still a small sampling of Wikipedia's overall user base), NOCON is needed in some form. You were onto something all those years ago. GoneIn60 (talk) 07:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the biggest mistake was not predicting the shift towards revering The Policies™ (may their words endure forever). If I had, the collection probably would have ended up on its own page. Compare, e.g., WP:MINREF, which is a handy list of all the times policy requires in inline citation, and yet is not on a policy page, and WP:NOTGOODSOURCE, which is a bulleted list summarizing the common characteristics of WP:Reliable sources, and yet is no less effective for not being on a guideline page. But this one, especially when people twist "this usually happens" into "The Policy™ Requires this", has been a mistake.

I read decades ago that towards the end of the Roman empire, the tax laws would be written in gold ink on purple vellum, proclaimed with great ceremony, and then ignored by the people who were supposed to be paying the taxes. I would like Wikipedia to take the opposite approach to its policies: They are not statutes. They are not sacred. They are a handy summary of reality. And when they diverge from reality, we should fix them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I support moving NOCON to EDITING POLICY (being sure to leave a link to NOCON in CONSENSUS). - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• I'm fine (support) with moving to EDITING POLICY. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support per discussion above.Selfstudier (talk) 08:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Consensus-based (not correctness-based)

The definition of consensus involves opinions or decisions that are generally accepted within a group, without explicitly addressing correctness. Consensus does not necessarily equate to or imply correctness. Even if the majority agrees on a certain viewpoint, it may still be incorrect. Sometimes, the correct viewpoint of a minority may be overlooked by the majority, but this does not affect its correctness. This means that while consensus plays an important role in the editing process of Wikipedia, it is not always directly linked to correctness

I guess that Wikipedia uses a consensus-based decision-making process rather than a correctness-based one for good reasons. Determining absolute correctness can be challenging, especially in areas where there is ongoing debate or where information is subject to interpretation. Consensus allows Wikipedia to function effectively even in the face of uncertainty or differing opinions. --Gluo88 (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Consensus#Consensus_might_become_hindrance_to_truth triggered my above comments. Gluo88 (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

We're not the ones to correct. We are the ones to report the sources. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS – The Grid (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The thing to remember when Galileo is mentioned is the Galileo gambit. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't imply correctnes or truth, but it does show the best understanding that the community has in a certain situation. If editors don't think the outcome was correct they should look to the strength of their arguments. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Very few things are simply objectively correct or incorrect. (WP:Accuracy) and in those cases I'd guess that wp:consensus would go with the accurate side if there was even a debate. Most discussions have much more complex attributes such varying values, differing definitions of "correct"/ "incorrect", varying meaning of words, tilting article by inclusion/exclusion, selecting which of Wikipedia's vague and overlapping rules to apply, conflicting POV objectives (each self-defined as the only "correct" one) etc. "Sources" alone also does not settle it, you can always find a source that has the same POV as you. WP:Consensus is generally our way of making those decisions. North8000 (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

You are right. Therefore, I believe that the quality of arguments aimed at forming consensus should be more related to their persuasive power rather than their correctness. Furthermore, I think that the quality of arguments for consensus can be measured by the level of support they receive within the group. Gluo88 (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

This is already how consensus works, by editors policy based arguements. The second part though comes to close to WP:NOTAVOTE, consensus building shouldn't be a popularity contest. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

OP has added the following section to an essay: Wikipedia:What is consensus?#Not necessarily equate to or imply correctness.

Anyways, I personally find the argument "Wikipedia should reflect the truth" to be pretty weaksauce. It's not that we don't want to reflect the truth, it's that any project this big which values "the truth" will have a pretty tough time governing itself. The reason policies like consensus exists is to make a decision-making process that actually works. It's going to be so worthless when you want to create a decision-making system that follows from "correctness". There's a whole philosophy of that I don't think I'm qualified enough to get into.

There is also the idea that even if my viewpoint disagrees with the consensus, I can still sit in peace knowing I am "right" if I would write things like this. I personally don't think that is a good mindset. What matters most, I think, is justification. How you present your justification matters, just as the justification itself. There will be people who won't accept your justification. That's fine, not because you'd think you are "right", but because you believe you've made a valid effort in getting what you think is right to others.

OP has also created an essay titled Wikipedia:What are High-Quality Arguments for Forming Consensus? and is about why they think how level of support in the community is important. ActivelyDisinterested was quick to spot that consensus building shouldn't be a popularity contest. But hey. There's a reason why OP has asked for an admin on zhwiki to be desysopped, after they have themselves been blocked by said admin citing numerous reasons (one of which is misinterpretation of the consensus policy by suggesting that it is majority rule), then trying to get people to become an angry mob with said admin "abusing blocks".

It's unclear to me why in the request for de-adminship, OP's misquote of a third-party admin that they believed the block "isn't justified to be indef" as "isn't justified" still hasn't been corrected. My hunch is that they are less interested in the "truth" than playing with it as in populist politics. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not agree with your interpretation of my intention and will leave these points for other users to comment on, as I believe you may have misunderstood my intention due to your comments:"There is also the idea that even if my viewpoint disagrees with the consensus, I can still sit in peace knowing I am "right" if I would write things like this", and "My hunch is that they are less interested in the "truth" than playing with it as in populist politics." My essays and above comments were triggered by reading Wikipedia_talk:Consensus#Consensus_might_become_hindrance_to_truth as I mentioned earlier.

In my essays(1, 2), I argue that it is more important for Wikipedia to reflect the collective agreement of its contributors rather than striving solely for objective truth. This reflects my belief that Wikipedia should prioritize representing consensus over absolute truth..

In my essays(1, 2), I also oppose majority voting and fully support the consensus-building approach. The key idea is as follows: The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view can be understood as follows: regardless of whether an argument initially represents a minority or majority opinion, a high-quality argument with greater persuasive power is more likely to be unanimously agreed upon or accepted by the majority in the process of forming consensus. In the process of forming consensus, the final method to determine whether consensus has been reached must be through understanding the level of support within the community, as this aligns with the meaning of consensus. Hopefully, my essay provides a better explanation. Gluo88 (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

"Truth" is a bad word to use because it has two completely different common meanings:

1. Accurate / Accuracy
2. Word commonly used in unsubstantiated or wild claims. E.G. "The truth about aliens at Area 51" "The truth about our alleged moon landings" "The truth about microchips in Covid vaccines"

A part of why we got rid of "Verifiability not truth" was because it denigrates/deprecates the pursuit of accuracy (in those cases where objective fact exists) by using a word with a second common meaning of #2 North8000 (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)