Wikipedia talk:Citing consensus

Opinions? They are appreciated.--Pharos 01:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comments

A few brief comments:

Looks like you're reformulating points from WP:WEIGHT, which could be a very good thing.

I like that it states secondary or tertiary sources are required. Having more than one isn't really a necessity though.

Rather than encouraging editors to do surveys, they should look for sources that incorporate such surveys.

Overall, looks like a good start. --Ronz 02:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only problem is it is a direct call to do original research! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a big, unsolvable problem. The way to establish consensus is to reference a reliable source that states consensus exists. Anything else is OR. JulesH 07:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this redundant with WP:NPOV? >Radiant< 09:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea would be to supplement the NPOV page with a specific guideline for citing "consensus", an issue that seems to be coming up more and more. This proposal is specifically meant as a guideline on how to reference statements like, "the proposition that biological evolution occurs through the mechanism of natural selection is completely uncontested within the scientific community".--Pharos 03:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are on to something here. WP:WEIGHT tells us what content to prefer, but there are serious flaw in how this is implemented. Are we citing sources to silence unreasonable POV-pushers, or to be helpful to our readers? What is the purpose of all the footnotes after the phrase "all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute" in the intelligent design article? I think it's all there to make the ID POV-pushers shut up. Fine... but it should be done on the talk page! Too often one can see traces of edit-conflicts carrying over to the actual article. Instead, sources can be collected on a subpage of the talk, organized neatly, and in order to keep POV-pushers away one can use HTML-comments in the article text to link to the discussion archive. While we are yet to reach an agreement on the exact phrasing, I think the approach here, is better than over-citing all the evidence. --Merzul 22:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of Consensus

Consensus does not mean that the majority agrees, that's called majority rule. Consensus means that all or a vast majority agree that such a version is the best possible version that everyone can agree on. You also cannot simply support a fact because most editors believe it to be true, you have to actually verify it. If there are open challenges to the statement, majority rule doesn't say it stays in, it needs to be cited with an actual source.

KV(Talk) 12:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, the source is there, but Wikipedia is not supposed to be making a stance and saying that one is the correct version, as it appears this policy would do.

KV(Talk) 12:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had similar concerns and have added this sentence "Without neglecting opposing points of view in our attempts to present a neutral point of view article in keeping with fundamental Wikipedia principles." to the end of the second paragraph. It seems like I could have worked it in there better or worded it different. If someone thinks they can improve it please do. Jeepday 13:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best if you didn't use the term consensus at all except in reference to WP:CON. "Majority opinion" or "majority viewpoint" maybe? --Ronz 16:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but we're talking about more than majority viewpoints here, in articles like evolution, the references are trying to establish that there is virtual total agreement among scholars in the field (in that case, biologists). The only synonym for "consensus" in that context I can think of would be "uncontested" or something along those lines.--Pharos 03:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All

Should this be posted at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All? Per the directions at Category:Wikipedia proposals * To find or advertise active policy proposals and content questions, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All. it would appear that would be appropriate. Jeepday talk 13:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've now done this.--Pharos 02:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong place?

~~It seems that while this is laudable concept, it should be addressed as part of Wikipedia:Consensus, rather than developing another page. --Kevin Murray 02:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Within the context of recent discussions about consensus among WP participants, I misperceived the purpose of this page, thus withdraw my comment. --Kevin Murray 15:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

This proposal could really use some examples. Kaldari 06:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, I guess it's about establishing consensus in external sources? If so I don't think it's very workable, there are too many subject domains with way too many types of sources for any workable global guideline. - cohesion 01:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are trying to measure consensus formed by others, without (A) a complete understanding of the subject, and (B) complete access to all of the opinions. While some among us may understand the subject, collectively we are amateurs. This seems analogous to primary research or establishing a conclusion from a synthesis of secondary or tertiary research etc. --Kevin Murray 15:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very bad idea

As formulated above, I am concerned that this will mean tyranny of a majority vote. It reminds me of the the vitriolic Global Warming debate, and I will say here what I said there; Consensus is not fact nor does it make something true, such as Global Warming for example. I would be curious to hear how this improves upon the pre-existing criteria already given at WP:WEIGHT Thanks Judgesurreal777 23:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]