Misplaced Pages

talk:Consensus: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:28, 6 July 2007 editFreedomjustice1919 (talk | contribs)46 edits →Ouch← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:35, 23 November 2024 edit undoWhatamIdoing (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers121,671 editsNo edit summaryTag: Undo 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader|WT:CON}}
{{archive box|
{{policy talk}}
* ]
{{FAQ}}
* ]
{{User:MiszaBot/config
* ]
|archiveheader = {{atnhead}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 24
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Consensus/Archive %(counter)d
|minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 2
}}<!--

-->{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Misplaced Pages talk:Consensus/Archive index
|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:Consensus/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes
}} }}


''"Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal."'' -- ]

__TOC__

I NEED HELP!?!?
HOW DO I "TALK" AND "DISCUSS" AND ADD TO AN EDIT???
It wont tell me how or how to contact this bigotted "ISpylab" guy!!

== Ouch ==

:''Misplaced Pages works by building consensus. This is done through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus. 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. Normally consensus is reached via discussion on talk pages. In the rare situations where this doesn't work, it is also possible to use the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution processes, which are designed to assist consensus-building...''

And so it goes. What does it all mean? If we're trying to be all "descriptive, not prescriptive" and all that stuff, then let's face it, "consensus" is an abused word around here. What is consensus, as it relates to the wiki process, can we explain these without trying to define consensus in terms of itself. I wish I could provide more focused criticism, but my head hurts. ] 20:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

: Does ] help any? Note that wikis use consensus per definition. If there is consensus on the state of a page, the page is not changed, if there is not consensus on the state of the page, the page gets changed. It might get several changes before a new consensus is settled upon.

: of course, with all the um, things going on all over the place on wikipedia these days (including talk pages, project namespace pages, wikiprojects and goodness knows what else), this basic, simple concept of consensus gets pushed to the background. But it's still there, and it's still the main mechanism, simply because it's there on every page :-) ] 21:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

:Would it make your head feel better if we define it in terms of related concepts? I.e. "consensus is the result of thoughtful dialogue, which takes place ''both'' through the ], ''and'' through ]." Actually that's basically how I read the page as it stands, but perhaps it could be clarified to appear less circular. -- ] 15:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

:: See also: ''] #3''
::] 18:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
This anon has a good point. This page needs to describe the overall consensus process in much more concrete terms. The page treats consensus as the way to deal with conflict, rather than the foundation of how a wiki works. We are missing some of the most basic concepts. I'll give examples of what I think is needed:
*'''Silence equals consent'''. This is the ultimate measure of consensus for every page: somebody makes an edit and nobody objects and nobody changes it.
*'''Experience matters'''. People need to put some effort into understanding how things work before they try to change things.
*'''Change happens slowly in small steps'''. Radical changes to the entire project are near impossible to enforce except by decree by Jimmy Wales or by RFA. Otherwise, the change has to happen slowly by experimentation and dialogue. People with good ideas for change should be encouraged to experiment.
*'''Multiple ways of doing things can coexist'''. When there is no clear consensus, people can do things several different ways until one becomes common practice and the other fades into the background. This is often a good way to deal with disagreements.
*'''Technological changes have an effect on policy'''. I'll cite as examples how {{tl|CategoryTOC}} changed categorization policy.
*'''Collaboration is essential'''. Editors must be open-minded and willing to work with others. Experts have to be able to work with novices. People with opposing political views must be able to work together.
*'''Quality trumps quantity''' This is the essential reason why we don't "vote". One good well-thought-out argument is more important than dozens of comments from people who only say "keep" or "delete". Ultimately a consensus is not measured by counting "votes" but by whether conficts get resolved, and they get resolved through creative solutions and force of argument.
::--06:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Amen to that. Although I'm not 100% sure all of those would belong here --i.e., really relate directly to consensus -- they do help to elaborate on what ] means by the "wiki process." More and more people are being drawn to Misplaced Pages because of its prominence as an information source, and often become heavily involved without taking the time to understand how the underlying process works. We need more materials to help educate/acculturate this growing throng. -- ] 08:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
::I'm starting to add some of this. -- ] 22:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Your edit was a step in the right direction. ] 16:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

== While we're on the subject ==

It just struck me as weird that "consensus" is a guideline, whereas "consensus can change" is policy... :) (]) 15:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

:Oddly, that seems about right to me. :-) -- ] 16:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

:If you walk this path all the way, well, that would be interesting. :-) ] 18:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC) ''<small>Have you noticed any other odd taggings, lately?</small>''
*Yeah, several. I'm working on it, though. Any in particular you had in mind? (]) 11:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
:: Not really, it'd just be interesting if you continue looking at the situation on a general scale. I'm curious if you'll draw the same conclusions I did. :-) ] 18:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
::*Yeah, I am. The two main problems seem to be (1) too much bureaucracy, and (2) many new(ish) editors make incorrect assumptions about how Misplaced Pages works, based on misinterpretation, partial observation or just not based on anything much, and strongly resist having these assumptions challenged. This is both caused by and causing the utter mess that is the Misplaced Pages namespace, and is difficult to work with. For a more concrete issue, it seems that the 3RR has become a net detriment, because the relevant process is downright byzantine, and because it tends to give people the impression that edit warring is acceptable if one sticks to the boundaries, and that it's okay to recruit people for the fourth. (]) 10:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
:This ''is'' odd. I don't see how consensus can be anything but policy, since it is an integral part of the wiki process. As I have mentioned above, I think this page needs to describe that process better, and should be less about resolving disputes and polling. Re-written this way, it would be policy as it is a foundation of Misplaced Pages. A page about how to solve disputes using consensus would be a guideline. -- ] 18:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
:: Yep. As ], all of our policies and guidelines depend on this thing called "consensus", but no one really knows what that means. — ] 06:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
*That's a good idea. ] 10:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

==Policy==
This seems like it should be a policy rather than a guideline. I'll change it in a few days if nobody has a problem, but that's a big change so it's best to wait awhile and discuss here. ] 02:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*There's related discussion on the talk page of ]. Arguably consensus is such a basic principle that it could be policy. ] 10:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
**Arguably, using a Policy to say that a Guideline is not binding is ridiculous.] 19:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
***I don't think ] is saying that ] is not binding; it's saying that ''consensus'' on Misplaced Pages does not constrain itself. So I don't really see the problem with this remaining at guideline status, although I have no particular objection to the change. -- ] 15:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
****It's just that it's irrelevant to state here as a policy, rather than there, that wikipedia decisions are taken by consensus.] 16:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking at the talk page for WP:CCC. What discussion are you referring to? Where is the difference between a policy and a guideline explained anyway?
* According to ] - none really, but policies "more official and less likely to have exceptions". It's not really made clear what's official and what's not in this context, let alone what would make something more or less official than something else.
* The ticky boxes for both policy and guideline are identical, except:
** Guidelines have blue tickies, policies have green tickies.
** Guidelines are "not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception" in the guideline box, with the last two words linking to ]. This suggests that policies are set in stone and not amenable to exceptions and common sense.
Missing something? ] 03:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

:I'm not sure that it's accurate to say that policies are ''not'' amenable to exceptions and common sense, but it is accurate to say that making exceptions to policies requires a higher burden of proof than making exceptions to guidelines. There are obvious exceptions to the principle of consensus on Misplaced Pages: for example, Office actions and decisions of the Foundation supercede any opinions expressed by consensus; similarly, if there were an apparent consensus to include unsourced information in violation of ], that wouldn't fly. These exceptions should probably be included explicitly on the page, but if they are I would support this shifting from "guideline" to "policy". —] <small>(] • ])</small> 03:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

== merge proposal ==

I don't think it's pertinent to have these pages separate when one is basically discussing a specific aspect of the other. While keeping them separate was pertinent when their status was different, it seems irrelevant to keep them separate now, and seems closer to POV-forking (where users have been using ] to assert that consensus is invalid because it can change at a later date.] 17:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

: Agreed. Since "no binding decisions" has had its name change to "consensus can change" it is more obvious that it actually describes a part of the concensus process, and could well be merged here. // ] 23:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:Agreed. CCC should redirect to the appropriate section, though. — ] 00:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

== Exception ==

Whether a fact satisifies ] and ] is, and always has been, decided by consensus. If this policy will claim that ] is not subject to consensus, then in order to avoid trolling wikilawyer editors it is necessary to point out that just because a troll doesn't think that ] or ] is met doesn't mean that it actually is not met.

I agree with the spirit of the exception, which is the '''unverifiable''' material cannot be included even if a consensus agrees to do so. But if a consensus agrees that the material is verifiable, then it is not OK for a troll to remove it claiming it is not. ] · <small>]</small> 18:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that you're talking about a ''local'' consensus to include unverifiable changes there. The global consensus (global to the entire project) is that it's not ok to add unverifiable material. I'm not sure why this particular case of global vs local has been chosen, specifically? --] 22:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:I don't know - it was added a few days ago, and I was just trying to clarify what was here before it got "stuck" the way it was. ] · <small>]</small> 23:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

== What? You still don't get it? Do you want me to draw a picture or something?! ==
]
Well, here you go then! ;-)

For review, I applied my -admittedly rusty- vector art skills to actually drawing a flowchart of how consensus works on-wiki. Note that in normal editing on most pages, you generally don't get to the talk page much at all, really.

--] 05:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:Wow, nice picture. Throwing that into the main article certainly wouldn't be a bad idea.--] 06:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

: One quibble. Being unchanged for a long time creates a presumption of consensus but that's only ever an untested presumption. Lack of further edits might only mean that the edit has so far been overlooked. But I'm not sure how to integrate that quibble into your flowchart in a way that makes sense. This will be helpful. Thanks. ] <small>]</small>

Shanel was complaining about not knowing where to start, and verily, a proper flowchart has a Start. :-) (Added) --] 06:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Titoxd came up with an idea to get somewhere in the right direction wrt what Rossami has been saying. Is this an improvement? --] 07:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The next step is, of course, to get a good descriptive text to go along with the picture. Years of confuzzlement and confusion have sort of eroded away any original description, if it even ever really existed. I hope some folks will help. I'll put up the diagram for now at least. --] 15:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:Yes, I've run into what I think is an interesting case of confusing (or conflating) consensus with status-quo. I noted how the flow-chart does return to the beginning (i.e. status quo) and that is significant as well. I had the following thoughts regarding an explanation. Not sure if it goes with or just near the diagram.

::Lack of change, or status-quo, is necessary to establish consensus, but defending the status-quo is the opposite of building consensus. Consensus building is an inclusive process that seeks to involve more people. Defending the status-quo alienates people, and stunts progress. Consensus cannot be actively maintained, it can only be interactively broken and re-established.

:I'm off to work, and this is just my first pass. So please kick it around if you like] 11:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:: By some coincidence, on a wiki, the status quo on a page happens to coincide with consensus on that page. If you spot the page, and you happen to not agree with the status quo, then there is no longer a consensus :-)

:: You are quite right about defending the status quo too... there's a suggested method ] for dealing with that kind of thing. But all of this needs more writing to be done, IMHO. --] 11:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I really like the idea of a flowchart. — ] 00:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
: I like it. Makes consensus a lot simpler to work with when there's a flowchart :). '']'' ] 03:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

] I tried to squeeze things a little tighter so that it could be readable at a smaller size, and ended up completely redoing it, so I uploaded as a different file name. — ] 04:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
*Cute. Can you do a jumping arrow thingy so that there's one "consensus" box at the bottom, rather than two of them? ] 10:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

: Actually, I was thinking that it would be better if the arrows both went back up to the original Consensus box to show more clearly that it's a cycle, but it would need to be laid out a little differently, and I didn't know how you draw "unsoldered wires" in a flowchart. Is that what you mean by "jumping arrow"? — ] 15:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

]
: I tried to implement this and make it skinnier in the process. (The skinnier it is, the more legible the text will be without taking up the entire width of the policy page.) The word "implement" fitting in between those two boxes makes it wide. :-) Please try to think of a skinnier alternative layout. — ] 03:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


Well, it's skinnier, but the crossing lines and placing of the words make it less readable than your last version (the 2nd version on this page is the most readable of the 3 :-) ).

The best way to try and prevent crossing lines is to redesign/ refactor the process to be ], of course. But that might not be descriptive. Hmph. :-p



<small>''Here's some rules that I seem to remember for flowcharts, maybe they're handy: "ovals" should typically only be labled start or stop (I cheated with consensus, because it is the ultimate "stop" point for wikipedia). "Start" may not have any arrows towards it, and may only have one arrow departing. "Stop" may not have any arrows departing. Decisions are associated with the departure point from a diamond. Additional process names are associated with the box from which they start. Crossing lines are evil. ''</small>
--] 05:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, on the basis of flowchart rules above... maybe putting consensus in a box in the center, or a slight variant where the flowchart is all creative and curvy and circular looking. (Tricky to implement, I know :-P)... hmm... --] 06:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was a bit funny to have consensus at the top. If you begin with consensus, then there's nothing much to do. I see consensus as belonging at the bottom. ] 06:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You begin with the current consensus. You disagree with it (so now there's no full consensus), so you set about to change things to bring it back to consensus. So consensus is both at the beginning and at the end, forming a cycle. That's what Omegatron has been trying to illustrate better, and how he came up with his third attempt. --] 07:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

:I do prefer the new diagram's graphic layout, but there should be two ovals, one at the top that represents "Previous Consensus" and one at the bottom that represents "New Consensus". The revert path should return to the top, the edit path should lead to the bottom. This illustrates the point that consensus can change, forming an new starting point, as explained in the note at the bottom.. It also better illustrates the subtle but important corollary that consensus does not exist unless the person proposing the change agrees, not whether the person making the revert disagrees. With one consensus box at the top, the consensus change is not as obvious, and the distinction between consensus and status-quo is blurred. ] 11:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Great ideas.

I think this will do wonders for people who think their revert warring is justified or who misuse "consensus" to mean whatever they feel like that particular day. Simple graphics are much harder to wikilawyer than text. We should create flowcharts for all of our policies! :-)

What do you think of the color and linewidths, etc? What about the sideways "Implement"? — ] 06:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

: I've found that typically, you know you are in a doomed bureaucratic organisation when people have pretty flowcharts for all their policies. Ut oh. ^^;; --] 06:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

:: You started it. :-) But I think it's actually a good thing in a wiki-based organization where policies can be subtly changed over time to suit the desires of small numbers of people. A graphical flowchart is much less likely to be messed around with and misinterpreted.
:: I agree with the idea of having a "Previous consensus" and "New consensus", but I don't see any way to have a single "New consensus" box without crossing paths. — ] 01:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

]
Yet another version. — ] 02:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
:Nice! -- ] 03:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

:::OK, I guess a revision/revert cycle does create a new consensus in a sense, so it is not necessary to return to the top. This would make the diagram cross-over again anyway. The one touch-up I think we should also incorporate is to change the "as you like" in the note on ] to "as necessary". As you like implies that people can do this on a whim, and there really should be a more substantial purpose for making a change.] 10:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

:::: Done. — ] 14:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the diagram, but, should this policy really say that you should go straight from previous consensus to editing? What happend to "discuss changes on the talk page first"? WP:Bold is important, but sometimes its better to talk first. I suggest two routes from “previous consensus” to “Make an edit”. One direct, the other via “Discuss on the discussion page”. ] 23:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

:Well, there are other paths to consensus, so we should probably just note that this is the path for many good faith but not all. -- ] 05:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

]
There's a more general image here, by the way. — ] 00:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting! This is for general purpose real world use? I actually do see this process used on talk pages too at times. (though it is much slower than wiki-editing... ^^;;) --] 01:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


{{clear}}

== The quote in the "Consensus vs. supermajority" section ==

I can not see that this quote has anything to do with supermajority at all! It does not describe supermajority. Either it is a good description of consensus; then it should be included in the first section. If it is not a good description... then it should be removed. // ] 23:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel the section is a bit problematic, and have just had a try at improving it. I don't think the quote is sufficiently authoritative. Perhaps its content should be intregrated into the text, as assuming its content is important, it should be reworded, and reduced to a citation. ] 06:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

:I'm unhappy with the edit SmokeyJoe made , as it seems to denigrate the quote (which I feel to be a decent description of consensus as it works — when it works — on Misplaced Pages). Also, I'm not certain that the use of the word "supermajority" in the text was a reference to the proposal ], which I had never even come across; at least, I had always assumed that the use of "supermajority" was just a descriptive term.

:The current version of the section seems to suggest that whenever an unreconciled minority exists, consensus has not been reached. I don't think that's accurate, and ] would seem to agree. I'll see if I can think up a better wording myself — if you don't like whatever I come up with, feel free to revert me. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 07:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

::Well, I gave it a shot — the bit I'm fondest of is splitting the quotation out from "Consensus vs. supermajority" into a section on "Consensus in practice", since that's really what it's about. Also, the quote is more about the difference between consensus and ''unanimity'' than the difference between consensus and ''supermajority''.

::I'm less certain about my wording for the "consensus vs. supermajority" section — I hope that some wordsmith may be able to condense what I was trying to say into something clearer. The point, I think, is that although supermajority is different from consensus, it is possible to have a consensus to abide by the will of the supermajority, and in areas such as RfA that's pretty much what happens. Improvements to my awkward wording are invited. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 08:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Josiah. Sorry to have made you unhappy. The quote is given a lot of prominance for an except from an email to a mailing list, don't you think? To be used properly, shouldn't it be attributed to the individual? If it contains some valuable wisdom, but the source was not notable, then it should be rephrased with credit given.

Misplaced Pages:Supermajority has a long history intertwinned with this page. It originated here, was split off, and then rejected.
:Afterthought: I don't object to ignoring the rejected policy. Rejected (perhaps like consensus at wikipedia) is a misused word. There was not a consensus to reject it. People gave up before reaching any agreement. ] 10:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome." This is not true in the world I live in. People agree to abide to majority decisions, but they don't claim that this makes them consensus decisions. People can be bullied into abiding a decision, which does not make a not consensus.

It seems to be that "consensus at wikipedia" is a perversion of the word consensus. Consider the definitions from the merriam webster and from the oxford english dictionary:

oed.com
<blockquote>
1. Phys. General agreement or concord of different parts or organs of the body in effecting a given purpose; sympathy. Hence transf. of the members or parts of any system of things.


1854 G. BRIMLEY Ess., Comte 320 In the universe..he resolves to see only a vast consensus of forces. 1861 GOLDW. SMITH Lect. Mod. Hist. 24 There is a general connexion between the different parts of a nation's civilization; call it, if you will, a consensus, provided that the notion of a set of physical organs does not slip in with that term. 1870 H. SPENCER Princ. Psychol. I. II. ix. 278 A mutually-dependent set of organs having a consensus of functions.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
2. a. Agreement in opinion; the collective unanimous opinion of a number of persons.
1861 Sat. Rev. 21 Dec. 637 Bishop Colenso is..decidedly against what seems to be the consensus of the Protestant missionaries. 1880 Athenæum 10 Apr. 474/3 A consensus had actually been arrived at on the main features involved.
</blockquote>
m-w.com
<blockquote>
Main Entry: con•sen•sus
Pronunciation: k&n-'sen(t)-s&s
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Latin, from consentire
1 a : general agreement : UNANIMITY <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports...from the border -- John Hersey> b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
2 : group solidarity in sentiment and belief
usage The phrase consensus of opinion, which is not actually redundant (see sense 1a; the sense that takes the phrase is slightly older), has been so often claimed to be a redundancy that many writers avoid it. You are safe in using consensus alone when it is clear you mean consensus of opinion, and most writers in fact do so.
</blockquote>
In both, the reference to unanimity is strong. In my real world experiences, consensus (when not immediately achieved) may only be achieved after a process of considering a multitude of possible positions, and often only a very weak consensus can be acheived. This may mean that the final resolution includes an acknowledgement of differing opinions, as which point the dissentors formally yield. ] 10:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

:You are correct that the meaning of "consensus" as used on Misplaced Pages is different (or at least, often different) from its meaning in the English language. I have found that this results in a great deal of confusion and I think it would be better to find a different word. On a related note, the mantra that "decisions on Misplaced Pages are made by consensus" ignores the fact that, often, decisions aren't made at all. All the fancy flowcharts in the world can't change reality. ] 11:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

: While I am usually very deferential to the authority of the writers of published dictionaries, in this case they are wrong. The dictionaries are still using an outdated and simplistic definition of the word "consensus". We use it in the sense commonly used by ] and Organizational Decision-Making experts - that is, one mode on a spectrum of decision-making modes. I tried to describe that spectrum ] but would appreciate a reference if anyone still has the original article where this model was discussed. ] <small>]</small> 14:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

: Even with the strict dictionary definition, the concept of using consensus on a wiki still makes sense. If you come across a page and disagree with it, then there is no consensus anymore, and therefore you may edit it. Note that consensus in this case is "consensus among all those who have seen the page recently" as opposed to "consensus among all 3 million registered users".

: If it helps any, note that there can be many reasons for people to agree with something, even if they are not happy with it. You might agree to a page version because it's perfect. You might agree because you're too lazy. You might agree because it's good enough, and changing it is not worth the effort. You might hate the new version, but want or need to be diplomatic for some reason. You might dislike it, but can live with the changes for now, etc...

:Canonically, the decisions of a tyrannical dictator always have consensus, because everyone who disagrees with them has been shot dead, and those wiser souls who are still alive tremble in fear and dare not oppose. For some reason, I do not actually recommend that particular method of consensus formation for use on wikipedia, but it does serve as an (extreme) illustration.

: --] 16:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

::Wow, that's very well put. I really like the pat about noting the difference of consensus between "among those who have seen the page recently" and "the entire community/everybody". -- ] 16:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

:: The second paragraph of what Kim has written above, is in essence the same as that quote from the mailing list. We don't need it in the form of a quote, we need it described in the actual text of the page. // ] 20:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the word concensus is used in several different meanings, also in this text, maybe we need a section that defines different usages of the word? Currently, there is a piped link in the first sentence to ]. Unless we really define consensus the way it is used and explained in that article, it should not be there. There are several other articles you could link to, for instance ]. For now, I just remove the link. // ] 22:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

==Per ]==
I changed the wording slightly. It used to say "Editors ''must always'' ]". I think, per AGF, that users are allowed to cease doing this when there is overwhelming evidence that a user is ''not'' acting in good faith, although they must strive forit whenever possible. <font color="green">]</font> 19:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
:Sounds very reasonable to me, good idea. -- ] 19:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
: A very important point. — ] 06:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

== Rough consensus ==

I've made a first mention of ''Rough consensus'' again, but we have a bad definition of it. Note that in that same line, I also state that certain processes may have been somewhat misdesigned if they wish to use consensus (because they do not scale well, and have too many people participating (ie, more than Dunbar's number predicts to be a good idea.) Philip reverted it saying there is no consensus, well... note that this is an objective statement based on predictions made by peer reviewed scientific research (see the links). I don't care how broad a consensus there is for the sky being green. Get proof! :-P --] 11:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

==Exceptions==
What was incorrect about the section? I agree that it should be reworded, but not completely removed. ] 16:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
: I have added it back pending discussion on specific failings or rewording. ] <small>]</small> 16:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
:: Apologies, I'd removed it already, but ended up scratching my head a little too long.
:: At any rate, local consensus can, may, and should override wiki-wide policy, (I'd almost say ''duh'', it's a consequence of ignore all rules). Note that things like verifiability will still apply anyway, as long as more people come along and look. Office actions can be overridden by sufficiently large numbers of people forming a consensus, though typically at the meta level. Same goes for all the top brass type people. Finally, foundation issues ''can'' be modified by consensus at the meta level, but it's a mite tricky to pull off. So while in practice they're very *hard* to override, they still can be. If it needs to be pointed out here that they're *hard* to override, so be it... but at the same time, I want to continue to stress the impression that everything is consensus based. <still scratching head> --] 18:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
:::"local consensus can, may, and should override wiki-wide policy," I'm sorry, but I can't swallow that. In very cases I can think, it's either policy ''interpretation'' that is involved, or policy was changed. Policy is Policy, there's little to add.
:::I reordered them for now. While the two last are admittedly debatable, the first two, I think, are hardly so.] 18:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
:::: On a consensus based wiki, policy is a kind of illusion. What you see written down on pages in the project namespace is a description of what compromises, ideas, and systems people have discovered to work best, anytime they tried to edit as per the chart above. Even when people start out with a vote (like has been experimented with once or twice in the past), the end result still gets smoothed by consensus in wiki-editing. So not only isn't policy policy, in fact it doesn't even exist. (And if you don't believe me, we have a policy that says so explicitly, called ]). If this sounds confusing, I might still know one or two better ways to explain it.
:::: The reason some people started calling certain things policy is that that way they could save a lot of time trying to get newbies to do the right thing. I have always been rather opposed to that move, since it makes things rather confusing later on (as we can see :-P ) .
::::--] 19:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
:::: Note that the ordering you have now runs from most debatable to least debatable... Verifiability is the smallest scope concept, and only applies on (en.)wikipedia. Office actions are typically done by arbcom, or certain foundation employees. Jimbo and Board can override office (but not in reverse). Finally, even the board must obey the foundation issues in practice, because people typically join on the basis of the foundation issues, and violating them would cause a large number of those people and in fact entire projects to either defect or fork (or both) --] 19:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::"policy is a kind of illusion" But a necessary one if we want to avoid descending into chaos, basically. Consensus comes into play when debate is involved, not when policy appears to contradict itself. If you prefer, Consensus can't override the spirit expressed by policy. ] makes points that can hardly be overrun by any consensus,if only because they are extensions of the Meta basic principles.
:::::"Note that the ordering you have now runs from most debatable to least debatable..." Sorry 'bout that. My edit apparently didn't register the first time around.] 19:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::Because, for the most part, content policies at least are pretty much immutable, I rewrote the entry to emphasize that aspect.] 02:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::The thrust of it seems OK to me. I softened the language to should, rather than must; these really mean the same thing in the context of a consensus based system. I think the word "cases" might be better as "articles" but it's not that significant. ] · <small>]</small> 02:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Policy is not an illusion, it is consensus. Policy is the current consensus opinion of how to apply the basic principles in practice. ] is just the corollary to ] -- since building a better encyclopedia is a basic principle, with a very wide consensus, any policy that stands in the way has a narrower consensus, and that consensus must change. So it is not contradictory at all. ] 02:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::: That's a much better way to explain what I'm trying to say. <bows to the superior explainer> --] 10:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

== Consensus or Agreement ? ==
:I believe the primitive notion that underpins Misplaced Pages is agreement. Agreement is defined as "a meeting of minds" in contract (common) law. It requires an offer and its acceptance. In the language of common law, one may 'accept' or 'reject' an 'offer'. A counter-offer is just another 'offer'.

:It is equally important to recognise that the flip side of the 'agreement' coin is 'conflict'. ie. People may 'agree' to 'disagree', so disagreement alone is inadequate. Indeed, unless opposing parties choose to agree to 'fight' there is no fight! Without conflict (arising from the diversity of access to Misplaced Pages editors), the articles and even the rules of Misplaced Pages would never grow / adapt. Remember Wale's 'Ignore all rules' policy? ie. Every policy, guideline or any other rule may be ignored if it hinders improving Misplaced Pages.

:Do people think some policy needs to be written on agreement and or conflict? ] 01:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

== Failures? ==

Just throwing out ideas here, so feel free to shoot me down, but shouldn't there be a section that explains that consensus - god, it cheeses me off when people misspell that - is not perfect as a way of deciding what should be done and may occasionally not work? And that despite this, however, due to its general success and the fact that there is no evidence to support the contention that any other system would be any better, we still use consensus to decide things?

I believe that there have been several ArbCom findings of fact to this effect. ] <sup> ]</sup> 13:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

: ''"It's the worst system, except for all the others?" --] 13:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC) <small>''may Mark Twain forgive me''</small>

::Something like that. So, is this a good idea, or not? ] <sup> ]</sup> 13:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

::: It's something that we should certainly think about. Maybe try on a separate page first? --] 07:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

First draft is at ]. Cheers, ] <sup> ]</sup> 22:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

== 2nd person ==

Does anyone else think the 2nd person "you" is inappropriate in the ] text that was merged in? ] 00:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

:Yes. ] · <small>]</small> 00:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

::It probably wasn't as obvious when it was a stand-alone article, but it really sticks out now that it is merged in. ] 01:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

:::I reworded it and also rephrased this sentence: "You cannot declare a new consensus all by yourself without the participants in the discussion agreeing that the previous consensus does not apply anymore." If consensus has changed, you still may not get others to explicitly say it has changed. What matters is whether other editors act as if it has changed, and whether they revert you when you write that it has changed. So maybe someone can expand that sentence a little.
:::Also, the third para in that section is pretty bad. ] · <small>]</small> 01:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

::::Nice job! ] 02:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I also noticed 1st person "we" in the second paragraph as well. ] 16:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

== Two Consensus flow-charts? ==

Hey, I ''love'' the flow-chart for consensus-building, but I feel that there really should be an extra level of process for edits to policies, guidelines, and other documents which have gained consensus of a large section of the community. The flow-chart as it now stands works beautifully for articles, but I feel that the first action when building a new consensus for "massive-consensus" articles like policies and guidelines should be at least a post on the article talk page, if not a notice at the Village Pump as well.
:I personally feel that essays should also be included in this flow-chart, but I don't think that's as crucial as emphasizing that policies and guidelines need an "extra mile" approach to consensus.--] 04:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You make 2 errors. First, all policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. Second policies and guidelines (including this one), can be edited in the same way, and no harm will come of it. Try it! :-) Worst that can happen is that you simply get reverted, and have to take it to talk anyway. --] 07:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

:Oh. Right. ]! Thanks for clarifying that!--] 08:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

== How long to wait for a consensus? ==

I can't find anything in the policy that tells us how LONG to wait for a consensus to form. This came up recently in a dispute on ], with one user giving a 12-hour deadline to respond to his comments before they reverted the article. If this has not been addressed elsewhere, I propose that following be included in the policy:<br /><br />
''How much time should I wait for a consensus to form?
:''Consensus can take 5 minutes to 5 years. Generally, if there is still discussion occurring about an issue, then consensus has not been reached. However, if the discussion has stalled, or there have been no additions to the discussion after the initial proposal, then it is appropriate to assume consensus after the corresponding length of time has passed:''
::''1) For a lightly-edited article, 24 hours;''
::''2) For a heavily-edited article, 3-5 days;''
::''3) For Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines, 1 week.''
'''''Important Note: If you do wait the requisite length of time before making your desired edits, and someone then reverts the edits that you have made, then DO NOT REVERT THOSE CHANGES; it is a sign that the discussion needs to be re-opened, and a new consensus formed.'''''

*Thoughts? --] 06:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
: I tend to give lightly-edited articles ''more'' time, not less, on the hypothesis that fewer people are watching it and more people need more time to find and decide to join the conversation. ] <small>]</small> 06:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

::I had been working on the assumption that the heavier the editing, the more editors would be involved, therefore it would take longer to come to a consensus. However, what you say makes sense, too. How about:
::''1) For a heavily-edited article, 3-5 days;''
::''2) For a lightly-edited article, 1 week;''
::''3) For Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines, 2 weeks.''
*More thoughts? --] 07:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not fond of this thread. If we start talking about how long to wait, people will start wikilawyering when someone objects one day after anything posted. This kind of language is not in the spirit of consensus. Consensus forms when it forms, it changes when people give inspired reasons that are convincing. Quantifying the amount of time involved will just make things worse. -- ] 07:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I realize that. I guess I wasn't clear in my proposal. I'm not looking to provoke wikilawyering (you're right, that is a danger), but to provide a guideline for how long to wait before editing/reverting when there has been NO RESPONSE to your proposal. You can't form a consensus without discussion, so if there's no discussion at all, how long should you wait before just ] and going for it?
:Hmm. I think this is actually moving away from something that belongs on the concensus page. I'll post a query over at ]. Thanks for your input!--] 07:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

:How long should you wait if there's no discussion? You should probably just give up. I've posted several proposals that got absolutely zero response. It means that nobody liked it, or nobody bothered to read it, or both. If it is something you can undertake on your own, you can be bold and try it, and see if it remains. I started ] that way. On the other hand, if after lots of heated discussion, nobody responds to a proposed solution, it often means that everyone can live with it, and you should probably be bold and see if it survives once it is posted. -- ] 08:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
::Actually, I was more sort of thinking along the lines of proposing an edit change on a policy talk page and having no one respond. However, in that case I agree with you that probably the best thing to do is just do the edit and see if someone reverts it. Thanks! --] 08:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
This is already covered. No further wording is needed. --] 08:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
:True, but it's not really explicit. However, I'm hesitant to make the policy any longer. That would ] everyone out, I think. :-P--] 08:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

:: Well, you're right about one thing. Anything you don't explicitly nail down... someone will come along and abuse it. (see this page as the ultimate example of what can go wrong). I don't feel good about writing tiny tiny bureaucratic rules though. :-/ --] 08:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

:::I think you're right not to feel good about it. We shouldn't have to write down all these rules. Basically, most of them come down to "Don't be a jerk" anyway, so if someone starts abusing the process, we can shut them down then.--] 08:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
:::: <Snicker> You been introduced to ] yet? :-) --] 08:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::It's already on my talk page. :) Found it last night. --] 08:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::: :-D --] 08:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
:It's rarely a good idea to set firm numbers like time limits, but I agree with the general idea. If a proposal has been made, a long time passes with no response, it's probably fine to be bold and try implementing the proposal. The flipside is that it's a bad idea to make a proposal with a time limit/ultimatum along the lines of "If I don't get a response in X...", particularly if it's a relatively short timeline. It's wrongheaded to assume that because a few hours are passed, nobody cares, especially in an ongoing discussion where people have already given opinions. COI was a funny situation in that it wasn't even a case where a proposal received no responses. There was quite a bit of discussion and objection to proposed edits, but one editor seemed to think that if the others had an obligation to continue the conversation even though they had given their opinion, and that a lull in the discussion was an indication that everyone else stopped caring and it was OK to ignore the objections and edit away. I'm always leery of editors who insist "nobody is responding to me" or "not discussed on talk page" when it has been discussed...but they just don't like the responses.
:I don't know if Consensus is the best place for an addition along those lines, or if it would be more appropriate somewhere else (assuming it doesn't exist already). --] 14:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

:I agree with that - the test of consensus is whether your changes are removed, not whether you can wear down your opposition until they stop responding. This comes up all the time in articles, when determined editors will spend months pushing for non-consensus edits of certain articles. Leaving a comment and waiting for a while, depending on the severity of the changes you plan to implement, is a polite thing to do, but a lack of responses doesn't necessarily mean others agree with you. ] · <small>]</small> 14:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
:: ''"Leave a comment first"'' is overused perhaps. If you do leave a comment, also edit. If you see an edit you disagree with, check back in 5-10 minutes to see if a comment shows up. --] 15:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thinking more about it, I am ''very'' uncomfortable with this concept. For one thing, the time you wait and the default action you can take can depend very much on the wording you use in your proposal. "I think X is a good idea and will implement unless someone objects" is very different from "I think Not X is a bad idea" or "I've ranted about X for the 10th time and people stopped bothering to respond to me". For another, the appropriate time has more to do with the nature and scope of the change than with whether or not the page is heavily edited. If the edit seems non-controversial, I'm going to ]. If I expect it to be highly controversial, I will allow months for consensus to emerge. I don't think we can define even loose guidelines here. Sorry. ] <small>]</small> 14:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
: You should be bold in both cases. Worst case you will end up in a ] cycle, otherwise you can just continue with normal consensus editing. --] 15:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
*Strict time limits would be pretty much instruction creep. Not such a good idea. ] 15:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

== Making page strictly en.wikipedia ==

This recent edit by CentrX ties consensus specifically to the en.wikipedia definition . I wonder if we're actually creating these pages at the correct location? (Perhaps we should be working on meta?) --] 21:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

== Dunbar's number, and predictions about RFA, AFD ==

When discussing RFA, AFD, etc...

"
, therefore these processes may have been somewhat misdesigned. As a first heuristic in these decision-making processes, people might first see if the criterion of ] is achieved, and on that basis make a first order assumption on how close one is to rough consensus"

This is not correct?

--] 12:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

:No I do not think it is not correct because I think it is a minority point of view "that the processes may have been somewhat misdesigned." If it were not, then they would not be as they are. That they exist and are in very heavily used shows that there is a broad Misplaced Pages community consensus on the use of these processes. As for the second sentence please see the British ]. --] 14:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

:See also ] which allows for a guillotine on ]ing. I do not think that such an act means that Parliamentary democracy is somewhat misdesigned. --] 14:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

:: The first section is to do with the fact that they do not take Dunbar's number into account, and may therefore ultimately be self-defeating. Whether or not they have wide community consensus is irrelevant, as communities are quite capable of becoming pathological and self destructive if misdesigned.

:: The wording here implies that literature suggests/predicts that these processes might be flawed, and therefore these processes should be closely watched. Seeing the discussions ongoing at for instance ] over the past months, people seem to state that there are known problems, so perhaps the literature-based prediction is turning out to be correct. AFD has long been known to be a problem area.

:: As for the second sentence. Please {{template|sofixit}} rather than deleting. That's what wikis are for. :-) --] 15:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC) <small>''Perhaps the whole block needs to be rewritten in Plain English. I was initially merely concerned with expressing the situation in as exact terms as possible.''</small>

:As Kim has asked (on my talk page) for more. There is no point in the follow up sentence if the previous phrase is removed. I think I have said all that I want to say on this subject and others should contribute their POV as to whether the first phrase stays and if the sentence "As a first heuristic ..." is worth keeping. --] 17:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

:: No, you cannot enforce your own personal process over consensus. Please follow regular process. I am reverting you for that reason and that reason alone. There's no hard feelings, and I am assuming that you are acting in good faith. Feel free to come back and discuss at any time. If possible, please provide solid sources or reasoning for your position at that time as well. (see also: ] as a means to effectively implement your reasoning.) --] 18:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me expand a bit on my reasoning for that last revert, just in case it isn't fully described elsewhere yet.

We shouldn't typically accept "It's community consensus" as an argument, since it is impossible for a single person to know the thoughts of the entire community. At best, a single person can only put forward their own thoughts and reasoning when challenged, even if those thoughts already constitute a sytnthesis of the concepts of the entire community. Consensus is mostly formed during wiki-editing of a page, so there is also no need for the "it's a consensus" argument.

Note that reverting good faith edits without providing reasoning on the talk page holds other people hostage to your whim, which is probably not what you intend. Let's agree on maintaining the process as described in the flowchart here. Discuss until we have some modicum of (temporary) agreement, and then and only then taking it back to the page itself. (though I have no trouble with "so how does this look! :-)" type edits to the page, even during discussion.)

Something like this has also been written at ], but perhaps not to that length.

Philip: Could you put forward your personal argumentation please?

--] 18:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

:I do not agree with "''therefore these processes may have been somewhat misdesigned.''" (which leads to deleting the second sentence as well), and nothing you have written here has convinced me othewise. As I have said there is a clear community consensus to use these processes and your presumption that "wide community consensus is irrelevant, as communities are quite capable of becoming pathological and self destructive if misdesigned" does not convince me that you are correct on this one. --] 00:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
::I stated (for context): "...consensus-building can be unwieldy due to the ] of contributors/discussions involved, therefore..."
:: Why do you accept the reference ], but then reject the conclusion? That does not compute... Wait... that wording wasn't really very clear on that either, now was it. How's this? --] 00:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I still do not agree with your wording. The reason for this is that one can only reach a consensus when the group who hold differing points of view strive to reach a consensus and are willing to compromise. In the case of a Westminster cabinet there is a vested interest compromising for two reasons. One, there is a danger of collective loss of decision making (they loose the next election and the other lot get in), if they are not seen to agree, or secondly an individual who does not accept the decision of the others must resign from the cabinet and the loss of a government job is quite a large stick. But in a Misplaced Pages debate there are no carrots and sticks available to other members of a group to insist that their views prevail (and few to make a majority consider a compromise with a minority) ... But you know all this because it has already been discussed at great length in these talk pages. So to say that some processes are missaligned makes an assumption that there is an correct method within Misplaced Pages to reach a consensus which is not true. Now we could go off on a tangent and discuss ]s, the ] etc, but I do not think that is necessary nor do not think that the introduction of the article "]" at all helps in this context, because I do not think it is relevant as to why a guillotine on what amounts to filibustering is desirable on some wikipedia administrative processes. --] 17:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

: Ok, Let's get back to Dunbar's number in a minute. But first, why do you bring up Filibustering? --] 18:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

== Consensus of few overruling consensus of many ==

An issue I keep noticing with our guideline pages is the disparity between what the guideline says, and what editors actually do. A consensus of 10s of people can be enough to solidify a guideline, even when it is at odds with the editing habits of 1000s of people. Then, once the guideline is written, it only takes a few committed people to protect that guideline from change. Do we have any way of dealing with this proglem? - ] 01:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

: The typical way is to simply define consensus as the 1000 people who are doing it their way, and/or ] whatever ] this particular set of guideline writers are playing.

: Not exactly ideal, I know. I do keep pointing out that whatever is in the project namespace sometimes has little relationship to what people are actually doing, due to this tactic.

: A better way is to demand that people write descriptive (not prescriptive) guidelines. Maybe we should finally write that down in a policy. :-)

: Finally, the best way is to simply patrol guidelines, and make sure that isn't happening. It's a big world out there though. Could you tell me which guideline(s) you've encountered it on? --] 01:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
::We really ought to find a better word than "guidelines", because that isn't what they are. They are, at best, common practices, and in some cases they are merely what some people ''think'' should be common practices. Perhaps the most egregiously mis-categorized "guideline" that I am aware of is ] which is really just an essay, and a "common opinion," since there is no "common practice" or anything really actionable involved. As the discussion on that page indicates, the reason that the main proponent wanted it to be a "guideline" was because people wouldn't listen if it was merely an essay. Someone else on that page (who favored it) said the purpose of making it a guideline was to be able to shut down polls. In other words, it was an opinion that was turned into a "guideline" for purposes of intimidating editors who dared to have a different opinion. Or, looked at another way, it was a supposedly "descriptive" statement that is called a "guideline" to discourage any change in what is being described -- and it thereby becomes prescriptive. ] 06:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I would not call the "default" behavior of many Wikipedians to be a consensus. A consensus suggest that pros and cons were considered, that there was discussion, that people were aware there were even options. In many cases people just repeat what they saw from another place, and not for any major reason. Common practice ''can'' represent a consensus, but not always. -- ] 08:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
*There was a big discussion about this at a recent naming convention, where members of a wikiproject claimed that since the project had a consensus, the matter was decided even though people who were not members of that project disagreed with the outcome. It took several months of debate, but eventually the wikiwide consensus overrode the project-only consensus. ] 10:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

== Asking the other parent ==

Hmmm, interesting addition. Could our friendly IP editor give some more background information or examples of situations where this applies? (though I might be able to think of one or two myself, perhaps :-) )

--] 01:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

==A Miracle Happened Here==

This article gives a flowchart. It says "Find a reasonable if temporary compromise" in one box. Good plan. But perhaps that should be labeled "".--] 11:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This page is nearly useless. --] 14:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
*What do you think is missing? ] 15:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

::Clarity and reality. The problem starts with the heart of wikipedia. "The (internet) encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit". It then moves into the sense that wikipedia is NOT a democracy (but really it mostly is). The denial of the democracy here leads to a sense of "no voting". This is enhanced by a desire for "collegiality" on articles. When everyone is super pure and super good this will work. For normal people it will not.

::Example: Two people disagree on a paragraph. Where is the consensus? None? Does the paragraph get struck? No consensus for that. So we ask for a third opinion. The third opinion gives a real third opinion not a "tie breaking vote". What is the consensus now?

::Example: One lone expert holds out against and then gets overridden by 10 other ignorant editors. What is the consensus?

::Example: Five editors guard an article and revert changes instantly. Between them they have at least 12 reverts a day and maybe 15. They chase off other 20 or 30 other editors, one at a time. What is the consensus?


::A more realistic guideline would say "Consensus is what someone can get a majority of people who are editing this week or this day to agree to include or exclude in the article. The majority will decide issues through the use of discussions as possible or as they desire and decide the issue through reverts and volume at other times." This may sound like the words of a bitter person. I am not bitter. I feel fine. I am trying to honestly say what I think is wrong with the consensus article. It does not define consensus very clearly. Without a clear definition, it is useless. As evidence, just look at how frequently it gets cited in debates and the nature of those cites. It is almost never cited until someone announces the achievement of consensus. Upon which point someone else is likely to disagree and then the article gets cited as a touchstone for both sides of the issue. On the other hand, if a cite for Attribution is brought up, it typically results in a recognition by all of the issue. That is because WP:V or WP:ATT are clear. WP:CON is not. --] 16:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
*I think you are overlooking the important point that, barring a small but vocal minority, Misplaced Pages editors tend to be reasonable, well-meaning folks who can compromise on issues and can change their mind over discussion. If you make that assumption, consensus is not problematic; if you deny that assumption, Misplaced Pages is doomed. Forming consensus only becomes problematic when sufficient unreasonable people become involved to drown out the reasonable debate. This does happen on articles on controversial issues, but there is no real way to avoid that in a wiki. ] 16:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

::Well, it only comes to play on controversial articles. And as you say, there is nothing that can be done about that.
::I have seen consensus work on a controversial topic only once. It was beautiful. It was rare. I know it happens. It requires a very strong assumption of good faith as a minimum and often it requires a level above good faith -- active goodness of heart. I believe I have personally witnessed at least one case where the "sufficient reasonable people" have both: 1) come to their own consensus and value it now above new contributions -- and thus become unreasonable, and 2) they have been attacked for their perspective until they no longer believe that anyone but them has good faith. But let's suppose that this policy is not for those contentious times but rather it is for collaborative times. In collaborative times, a fuzzy guide will work fine, but this guideline also tries to cover consensus when people are disputing and fighting. That also muddies the water. Perhaps the WP:CON page should say: Consensus rarely emerges from a fight and the presence of strong and on-going disputes is an indication that there is no consensus. No one can claim consensus under those conditions -- they can only claim majority opinion. Saying that would be anathema though. --] 16:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

::: Current best estimate is ~3K controversial articles where consensus is unlikely to work, and ~3M articles where consensus is very likely to work.

::: Slogging through working on guidelines for "just" the 3M articles is already way too much work for me, especially since the system is not really designed to help people describe process. <small>''(actually make that: it was never designed, full stop. Perhaps sharpening the axe we work with would be a good idea, hmm... )''</small>

::: Sometime in my copious free time, I'll try to figure out what works on the remaining 3K. AFAIK, nothing has been written on the latter topic, yet. --] 17:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

::::Kim, that is an interesting response. On one hand, the guidelines that reflect the majority of the instances (I am accepting your numbers as correct) is clearly descriptive. But in those cases, it is not needed. When it is needed is when there is a problem. The 3k need the guidelines more than the 3m do.
::::Incidentally, I do not know if it comes thru but I respect almost every word you type. Even though I am sure we do not generally agree, I think you are really fantastic. I am a fan. --] 17:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
::*It is true enough that consensus rarely emerges from a fight. However, the presence of a dispute does not necessarily mean there's no consensus. In particular, a few controversial articles have a reasonably stable state but get "attacked" by outsiders every week. This is rather unfortunate, and one of the things Stable Versions (]?) was supposed to remedy. The problem with "disputing and fighting" cases is that there really isn't much we can state in policy that would actually work against that, because of the wiki model. ] 08:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

== Flowchart: Wait .... how long? ==

Very nice flowchart, but unless it states for how long the wait is, then it makes the whole thing rather un-followable! --] 11:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

: It depends on the number of people participating on the talk page, the size of the article, etc. We need to seriously cut back on detailed rules like "wait 2 days" and emphasize more common sense rules like "wait and see what other people say". — ] 13:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The wait can be for three reasons

# First, your edit is too new. No one has seen it yet.
# People have seen it, but the person who will object hasn't seen it yet.
# Your change has been consensus for years, but consensus can change, and now someone disagrees.

For sanities sake, in all three situations, we just say that your edit "has consensus" until someone finally changes it. (though arguably, in the first case, you don't know for sure). --] 02:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

== Not policy? Overridden by other guidelines? ==

Errr, that's not right afaict. CentrX, care to explain?

(And if you reply with something like "there's no consensus for this to be policy" ... well... that would be funny ;-) )

--] 02:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

:I would go farther than policy, even. The "wiki process", which I take to be essentially the same as consensus decision making, is a foundation principle, along with NPOV. Of course everyone knows this, I just want to point out the irony of a foundation principle that is not a "policy". ] · <small>]</small> 02:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
::The "wiki process" is not consensus as defined here, and consensus does not not over-ride those other policies. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 03:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

:: We should have a foundation-issue tag, perhaps? --] 03:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

:Consensus is always in reference to the encyclopedia. There cannot be a consensus to over-ride neutrality, or freedom, or even simple reasonable deductions about what is an encyclopedia. Consensus as the basis of everything is meaningless, because consensus requires absolutely a goal. There is no consensus without a goal. In any case, a notion of "consensus" being policy is wholly separate from whether this page itself is policy on the order of any policy. This page precisely fits into what a guideline is, and is nothing like neutrality or verifiability in its firmness of what is acceptable on Misplaced Pages. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 03:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
::Also, see above, at section ] which is the entire extent of the discussion preceding the tag change. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 03:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

:::If the content of this page doesn't reflect the accepted policy on consensus, I think the appropriate thing to do is to change the content to reflect the policy, rather than leave the content alone and remove the policy tag. I think that there should be some page, somewhere, that explains the policy on consensus decision making, and this is the natural location for it. ] · <small>]</small> 03:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
::::The problem is there has never been any firm or good definition of consensus. It is appropriate to say that "Decisions on Misplaced Pages are made by consensus" and tag that statement alone as a policy (i.e. on some "Misplaced Pages:Decisions" page), but there are problems with making an entire page about "consensus" be a "policy" because any definition always runs into infirmities and holes of the kind that belong with a guideline. We can say "Be bold" is policy too (and that ''is'' part of the "wiki process" cited above), but there are specifics and exceptions that make any page about it a guideline. We can say the same for ]; being polite is a good policy, but that's just an extrapolation of ], with advice and exceptions. The idea of ] can be said to be "policy" (could it ever be policy that it is okay to disrupt Misplaced Pages?) but the specifics of it fall under guideline. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 03:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
::::: So basically, what you are saying is that a lot of pages describing fundamental aspects of wikipedia are/should be marked "guideline", while less important pages are "policy". Back to square one. *sigh* . Well, maybe not quite. You're not going to revert ] back to essay status as well, are you? --] 03:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC) <small>''perhaps we should abandon the policy/guideline/essay system, since it doesn't prioritize very well. ''</small>
::::::Not so much importance, the pages are categorized by ''primacy'' and ''firmness''. While ethereal "consensus" has higher primacy, this page itself is simply filled with some good suggestions and is somewhat essay-like; it is no where near canonical or comprehensive or firm. ], on the other hand, is the most prime of all and because of its simplicity also has the luxury of being firm (just as the sentence "Decisions are made by consensus", formulated in the pillars in "find consensus", has the luxury of being relatively firmer policy). —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 03:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::: By that criterion, if a particular principle is divided among multiple pages, would the "tag level" of all the pages drop? --] 04:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::It depends on what you mean. An important principle still warrants a super-page that generally encompasses the others. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 00:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

:: As far as I'm aware, this is just about the only page that actually takes the time to explain any part of the wiki-process at all. Consensus is a key component of that process, of course.

:: I agree that consensus by itself doesn't do much, but in many ways it is inherent to the fact that wikipedia is a wiki. A wiki by itself also doesn't do much of course, hence the decision to use this particular wiki to write an encyclopedia. With those basics down, we have the concept of "wikipedia" mostly covered. Throw in a GFDL, and off we go. :-)

:: Note that verifiability is currently under contention, and people are using the consensus decision making process to decide its ultimate fate.

:: NPOV is not so much under contention, but that's because it's a foundation issue. Even so, note that even the foundation issues are subject to debate and gradually changing views. (And, in fact, an update to them is required right now)

:: --] 03:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

:::], ], and (much of) ] are all about the wiki process. The concept of verifiability is under no contention whatsoever; the only contention is about replacing or merging the ''page''. Again, the issue here and for Verifiability is the ''page'' and where it belongs; there isn't a guideline on Misplaced Pages whose ''principle'' is not sound policy. Neither verifiability and neutrality are under contention because they are fundamental to a wiki encyclopedia, sine qua non to Misplaced Pages. Consensus cannot over-ride these things; consensus cannot annihilate Misplaced Pages, it can only fork it. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 03:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

:::: On wikipedia, policy is just a word that means that something has general consensus (see the policy tag "a wide acceptance among editors"). This doesn't mean that something with a strong general consensus isn't very important. Basically the strong general consensus is what makes them important, and that's why we respect those concepts.

:::: Incidentally, did you notice the discussion about "verifiability, not truth?"

:::: --] 03:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::Guidelines also have general consensus and wide acceptance, but they are nevertheless different sorts of pages. There is no guideline on Misplaced Pages that we should not follow in principle, but all of them, such as this one, are not so strong or even good in their particulars. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 00:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

== how can this page be improved ==

How can this page be improved to better reflect the true policy? I read through it again, and some parts seem very appropriate. For example, the lede section is very good. It looks to me that sections 1 and 5 are the most problematic. ] · <small>]</small> 11:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
: That's odd. 1 is supposed to summarize ], although the current version might be rewritten more constructively. 5 is supposed to summarize ] (though may need to be better integrated into the text). (The concept there is simply that wikipedia is a wiki, not a discussion site. Use the fine wiki! )

: I would think 3 and 4 would cause the most issues.

: But that's all just me :-)

: Could you explain issues you see with the sections you indicate?
:--] 11:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

::For section 1 (Reasonable consensus-building), it's mostly the tone that I dislike. The second para is not so great.
::For section 5 (Note on use of discussion page), there are several issues. The title needs to change (is it a footnote, or a section?) and it shouldn't start with a bullet point. Those are very minor. The prose is choppy, which is less minor. The one para mixes two issues: being bold, and using the talk page instead of just edit summaries. This could be split into two pieces.
::I agree that the other sections could also use some work. ] · <small>]</small> 11:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
::: That's probably fair criticism. Have at it! :-) --] 12:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

== How much makes a consenus? ==

Hi all. I have a question on the application of consensus. In a feud by a user I'm curious at knowing how many contributors are needed to make a consensus. I understand that most times arguments engage several contributors, however, in some cases, arguments include small numbers of contributors. In these cases, should the argumentors ask help from others or discuss it amongst themselves and have the minor party conceed? Cheers. '''<FONT COLOR="#000000">]</FONT>''' ''<FONT COLOR="#FF0000">]</FONT>'' 12:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

:Everyone needs to agree (or at least needs to agree to disagree). Else try asking for help at ], they can help you sort out consensus issues. --] 15:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

:See ]. Also, consensus is about creating an encyclopedia, not about the numbers on opposing sides. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 17:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

== Removing concept that Consensus subject to other guidelines ==

I think that that is a "suicide clause". Consensus is very fragile, more fragile than even democracy. If anything else stomps on it, it ceases to function. --] 23:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

== The not formally "verifiable" link ==
The not formally "verifiable" link to the mailing list for a "definition" is problematic, as is the tone that seems to imply that on Misplaced Pages, Consensus == Majority/Supermajority

First, we should use a "verifiable" definition of consensus, not one from a mailing list, especially as a primary definition. If we need the link to the posting from the mailing list, it should be posed as a contrasting opinion. The formal definition of consensus includes not only absolutely no voting (the Society of Friends - i.e. the non-religious arm of the Quakers - have been doing consensus-based decision-making for hundreds of years without ever once voting) of any kind, ever, under any circumstances, as well as making sure that every opinion, no matter how contrasting, is heard. When an organization shifts to or uses majority/supermajority voting mechanics in place of consensus, an organization has then stopped using consensus.

I strongly feel that the implication of this policy that consensus and majority/supermajority are equivalent is dishonest and disingenuous. It potentially leads to Deletion Review closers and other admins thinking that nose-counting is consensus-making when it's clearly not, and it leads to us drifting away from the stated point of consensus.

I don't really mind whether policy is changed to reflect the reality of procedure (i.e. some processes use voting instead of consensus) or whether we start using actual consensus again, but the situation as it stands where we at Misplaced Pages say that we do one thing (consensus) but in fact do another entirely different thing (voting, in some cases), is definitely not okay.

I'll try to furnish some actual edits soon, boldly, and then we can revert and discuss them as needed. --] <small>] / ]</small> 21:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
: There's already been some attempts to clarify the difference. Tread lightly :-) --] 22:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

==If no one cares enough to comment, is there consensus?==
See ]; a move request was closed as no consensus when I was the only one commenting, and I supported the move. --] 10:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:In some cases, like requested moves and {{tl|editprotected}} requests, the admins are looking for evidence of consensus, and may refuse to take action if there isn't any. This is an acceptable, conservative approach to administrative actions. In this case, I think the admin's remark on the article talk page means that he or she is looking to see more comments at the wikiproject talk page. Try restarting the conversation there. ] · <small>]</small> 12:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

::If no one commented when I posted a link there, why would anyone comment this time? Note how many threads without response are on ], and the lack of comments at ]. What you're suggesting is ], an impossibility on a volunteer project. --] 13:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:::If you feel the request by the admin in question was unreasonable, why not raise the issue on his talk page to see if he will reconsider or at least explain his thinking? If that doesn't lead to a good resolution, you are always free to request the move again with an explanation. ] · <small>]</small> 13:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

::::I ]. I think my move request was pretty clear in showing what the ] is; why would requesting the move again lead to a different result? --] 14:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::I wish you had indicated from the start that the closing admin in question has already explained their reasoning . The advice given in that comment seems sound. ] · <small>]</small> 14:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

::::::I don't understand what I am to do. I've already tried to get others to comment, to no avail. Any more would probably be ]. --] 14:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::Specifically, someone has said that he supports using the common name, but is not sure exactly how one would find that. Would I be allowed to specifically ask him to comment? --] 14:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::::It is all right to do so, particularly if you won't do it too often. Just do it once, and hopefully he will go and support your idea. No mass mailing to everyone, though.--] 15:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

== Local or global consensus ==

I am trying to understand how consensus interacts with guidelines, and in particular whether there is such a concept as "local consensus". Can the editors of an article agree that the article ignore particular guidelines? Or can other editors, citing the guidline, breeze through and enforce it anyway? (Note: I am talking about "guidelines" rather than "policies"). I am as guilty as anyone of editing articles I've never seen before to enforce guidlines to meet ], Manual of Style, etc. But what if the other editors of the page disagree in consensus? Is there some "Misplaced Pages wide consensus" that applies over and above any particular article's dedicated editors? ] 07:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
:There is absolutely at least for ], ] and ], but for guidelines and less frequented pages like the Manual of Style subpages, it is not necessarily so clear. Ultimately, though, if someone really wants to remove an external link from an article or conform to the manual of style, you are going to need to convince them of why that should not be done, in the interests of having a good encyclopedia article, and if there is a good reason in the particular case it might be good to make a small change to the guideline page about it. Guidelines are best practice written down. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 15:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I do mean written down, well defined, guidelines. (But not policy). For example ] is a guideline. What if a consensus of editors ''on a page'' agree they will ignore the guideline (not policy). Do visiting editors have any right to ignore their consensus and do what the guideline says? ] 15:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
:What is the particular issue? If the consensus of the article editors is to add some advertisement, that is absolutely not appropriate for the encyclopedia. If, on the other hand, ] has some obscure provision about Usenet links not being appropriate on Sundays--which few people have probably read anyway--despite the eminent relevance of the link to the article, then the link should be included and the guideline should be softened. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 15:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a specific issue. My question is an overspill from another discussion. I don't want to complicate this with a specific issue, because I'm trying to understand how Misplaced Pages processes work, to solve future issues. Do guidelines (such as ] or the manual of style) trump consensus, which is a policy? If guidelines ''do'' trump consensus, then how do I deal with this consensus of editors who have made up their mind? Can I warn each of them who reverts me, immune from 3RR warnings myself? If not, how does this work? ] 16:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
:No, guidelines don't trump consensus, but I think you're asking the wrong question here. Guidelines should have rough global consensus to begin with, or they shouldn't be guidelines. They should also not conflict with policy, which should absolutely have consensus (or be mandated from on high, in the case of a few key provisions). But locally, there is wiggle room if there's a significant reason to deviate from the written guideline. If this happens often enough, then the guideline should be modified to describe the exception (they should be descriptive, not proscriptive). But I can't think of any guideline that allows you to violate the 3 revert "rule", no, as long as the edits you are disagreeing with are not vandalism or violating core policies. -- '']']'' 17:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
::What he said. The general answer is that guidelines can and do have exceptions. ] 09:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
:::What if there's a proposal based on a guideline, and the only comments saying why the guideline based proposal shouldn't go through are the gist of "I don't the agree with the guideline" and not anything about why it doesn't fit in a particular scenario. Then does the guideline beat local consensus (or lack thereof)? <span style="font-size: 90%;">'''] '']'''''&nbsp; 07:10, May 8 2007</span>
:::*Quite possibly. Could you please be more specific? ] 08:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
:::: that got me interested in consensus. <span style="font-size: 90%;">'''] '']'''''&nbsp; 09:06, May 9 2007</span>
::::: *pulling out a 10-foot bargepole* Eeeuw! That's a requested moves spam :-/ . Nothing to do with consensus at all! The amazing thing is that it actually almost worked here, and people point out that the page shouldn't be moved, and provide solid reasoning. Of course, requested moves only entrenches people in one option or another, so you've basically just sunk any chance of moving it. That's the risk you take and the price you pay for using RM. :-/ --] 14:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::Please AGF---once a RM failed, there's no way I'd try to move over that, and that's not what I was trying to do. In hindsight, I should have just been bold and moved it and sighted the relevent guideline, but that's not what I'm asking about.
::::::I see this issue of local v. global consensus everywhere, and this was one of the first cases that I was involved in that brought it to my attention, and it's a great one to link to, because it was made clear that the opponents of the move didn't agree with the guideline--one flat out said that my case would work except that he didn't agree with the guideline.
::::::So I'm asking what I or someone else can do if a move or Afd or something splits like this in the future, and it's clear, as clear as a user saying that they disagree with the guideline or policy... Then what happens? Does local consensus overrule global consensus? Can someone close in favor of global consensus if no one raises a legitimate issue with the guideline or policy and how it applies in the case in question? The theory of global consensus is all well and good, but I keep seeing again and again 3 or 5 people showing up and saying "I don't like ____" and overruling Misplaced Pages's guidelines and policies, and asking what can actually be done about this. Pretend you're closing the RM and those are the only editors who have commented and those are the comments you have to go by. What happens? <span style="font-size: 90%;">'''] '']'''''&nbsp; 06:34, May 11 2007</span>
::::::: The guidelines form the starting point for a discussion. If people then point out that the guideline is silly "in this particular case", then perhaps it may just be so. At that point, take a look at the guideline, and perhaps modify that instead. :-) . In the example case you point out, it seems like both titles have only ever been released in japan. Insisting on using an English translation ''does'' seem just a little odd then, and one person points out that the translation does not appear to come from a reliable source , and that's a guideline too... Hmmm... --] 11:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC) <small>''In general this class of problem is mostly "political" in nature, since we do have redirects. If we could have pages under two or more titles with equal priority, this kind of discussion would be entirely unnecessary :-P''</small>
::::::::Unreliable? The translation came from a Nintendo press release years ago when they were planning to release the game in English. The translated name is copyrighted and trademarked by them. And I wouldn't have put it up for a RM, because the page has a ton of redirects, except that there's a nav box. When the page is in the nav box (which is on and off and that is for political reasons), the page was in their by the Japanese name, which didn't help people in terms of navigation, especially since it was the only page to go by the name. I was just confused by the whole thing. Everyone insisted on it being an official name, even though the guideline says that it only had to be a common name, and it wasn't just a common name, we had a Nintendo press release as a source, and given that that's a Nintendo game, that seems reliable to me--and none of the other articles had issue with it. I just guess I have an issue with two or three people being able to say "eating ice cream is against policy" or "I don't like policy" and if not enough people are there to stop them, policy or guideline is thrown by the wayside. And since wikipedia moves so quickly, I do see this happening and if it's subtle enough, or not too bad, it's often just left to set. <span style="font-size: 90%;">'''] '']'''''&nbsp; 04:58, May 12 2007</span>

== Continued appeals to "Consensus has been reached" ==

I'm not quite sure where to ask this, but on a talk page I've been involved in, there are a group of editors who consistently argue against any change based almost exclusively on the claim that "consensus has been reached", despite the fact that there are ''currently'' several editors who are trying to discuss changes to this, and despite the fact that for several months, there have been continued debate over the issue.

How do you deal with this? ]] 16:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
*Generally by pointing out that ], and by getting outside people to comment via ]. ] 09:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

*You can also try moving to a more inclusive stance. Instead of trying to decide whether A or B is the correct position, try to come up with a proposal that includes both A ''and'' B. For instance by saying "X says A, but this is refuted by Y who says B." or something similar. If you can come up with a wording that both groups agree is accurate, you have created something that can be truly enlightening. Often arguments get bogged down because both sides believe they are protecting the truth. In cases like that, both sides need to move to a broader understanding, which is recognizing that people can have different interpretations of the same facts and events. The issue, instead of determining the truth, is determining how much weight to give each perspective. This can be settled by looking at the citations presented by each side. This moves the discussion from "truth" to "scholarship". When the discussion moves from truth to scholarship it separates the zealot from the scholar. Zealots don't seem to last long here. They end up blocked, or leave on their own accord. -- ]<nowiki>uel Wan</nowiki>]<nowiki>man</nowiki> 07:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You disagree with the situation, so possibly there might not be consensus, and those people may just be confused. --] 11:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

::Hard to know. After all, "What is consensus?" Never defined, it is not even necessary, but it is constantly referred to. Probably the least useful policy on wikipedia because of the vague nature of its definitions and content. Second is ]. If we have a bunch of people who agree with one another, editing the same articles... are they meat puppets or not? I saw two guys who are friends and who edit in agreement, get blocked for a week for WP:MEAT violations, even though each was acting to his own personal direction. So... What makes some meat puppets and others not meat puppets? And, in particularly, when we are looking at "Consensus", are all the people who agree with each other Meat puppets? Again, this is another large area of vague interpretations. --] 14:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
::*Hm, that's interesting. The meatpuppetry policy is intended to prevent a deletion debate on e.g. a website being flooded by users of that website, registering Misplaced Pages accounts solely to prevent that article from being deleted. Such accounts should generally be ignored rather than blocked. I would like to know which meat case you're referring to, because it appears to have been an improper block. ] 14:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Yes, it is interesting. is the block notice. is the blocking admin's explanation -- which seemed pretty thin to me. and I requested further information because it appeared to me that the standards enacted are regularly violated by other people who "guard" a particular article. It looked like a double standard. In reply, I was essentially . So .
:::Interestingly enough, the article under discussion there was up for a review for featured article. There was a poll taken. I think that 50% said it should not be featured article and 50% said that it should. (In fact, it might have been 17 for and 18 against -- I would have to go back). Many of the problems of the article that would have technically denied it featured status were not actually addressed. Despite the vote, and despite the pesky technical issues there was apparently a consensus for the article to be featured because that is how it was closed -- although just a couple of weeks earlier, Kim, who contributes here, had closed it as not featured (and then re-opened it when someone complained that the close was improper). Isn't consensus ]? But at least its ]... you would have been so proud about how ]!
:::And speaking of weird, the individuals who were blocked for one week, had brought a complaint against an Admin who was the chief editor and contributor on that article. This same admin had been reported for 3rr violations in the past a few times and always got off by the narrowest of constructions of the policy, while to my eye, these two non-admin editors who were questioning some of his actions got hit with a week for rather flimsy reasons. Interestingly, not long after that incident, Raul, who is a strong supporter of that Admin -- to the point of egregiously insulting other editors, was himself blocked for actively and unapologetically edit warring on the article. 6rr and personal insults to other editors in less than 24 hours so he got a 12 hour block overnight while he slept. ], I know, but ] is ]. I am sure that had he been a ] instead of ], he would have just been ], but I know they had to set an example, so they were and ]. Later, when a question about the process and the decision to close that article as featured was brought up on the FARC talk page, the Closing Admin closed off all discussion and told everyone to appeal the decision to the boss of "featured article status". Who is ... Raul! Of course, there is ], but you know how ] get... they might think all of this looks ]. Thankfully though ] know that all of this was an ] of ], just like ] says. --] 18:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
:::: Insofar as I was involved, I discovered that particular actions I took did not have consensus. Therefore I undid those actions, as is correct on wikipedia. After that I stayed away from the Global Warming article, and from the discussions, simply because I lack the time to deal with it (argh!) ^^;; --] 18:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::(In case of misunderstanding -- I think you are blameless. That is your habit -- you are always doing things well.)--] 18:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::*This seems to be a rather complicated issue. On the one hand making sockpuppets is not usually a problem, on the other hand using them to astroturf an issue ''is''. It's a bit late to do anything about it; in the future I would strongly recommend (if you cannot reach an agreement with the admin in question) to bring up the matter on the ]. I would also recommend being less verbose in doing so, brevity is wit and all that. Durova's reaction is rather curt but this may be caused by the verbosity. ] 15:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::All excellent recommendations. I was not upset so I did not pursue it. But it seemed a bit wrong. Thanks for the notice on my talk page. Also... question: What is meant by "astroturf"? In this case it is not sockpuppets, it is two guys who work together editing. I think one is a radio talk show guy and the other is his producer or something like that. I am not sure of the details. They agree with each other though. --] 01:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
And yet existence of (temporary) consensus can be detected unambiguously. --] 15:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::*]. Basically using sock- and/or meatpuppets to make an issue seem more supported than it actually is. ] 08:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::*Kind of like this. ] 08:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

To the original question, ] addresses this quite directly, "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." Why not just go there? ] 10:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

:Well the original question is misleading at best, an outright lie at worst. What the editor (because there was only one editor who used the phrase "Consensus has been reached") at the page was telling Cogswobble, was that one of his points was addressed previously and that he should read the archives, because no one wanted to keep repeating themself. Cogswobble made a few suggestions, some of which were incorporated into the article. At no point in time, was discussion ever cut off. ] does not require editors to constantly repeat all arguments once every "Johnnie-come-lately" comes to an article. Or does it? ] <sup>]</sup> 17:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

::If people don't want to repeat arguments, they can give links or precise directions to exactly where the arguments are. I don't think it's fair to just say that the arguments are in the archives "somewhere". The other person might read the entire archives and not find them because they don't see them as convincing arguments. If people get tired of pointing to the same arguments over and over again, they can make some sort of FAQ or pointer to them. "Convincing arguments are in the archives somewhere" is not a valid argument because it is not refutable. --] 17:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Your FAQ suggestion is very interesting because one was created for the page, and Cogswobble deleted it. He felt that it was being used to suppress discussion. In addition, said links were given over and over, and over again. This just seems to be a sour grapes discussion thread. Also of note is that all of these so called editors who felt that consensus had changed have now moved on to other aspects of the article, and the original text reads exactly the same as it did before they got there. A success for consensus actually being reached I would say. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

::: Undelete the FAQ... And /FAQ pages seem like a good idea in general to me. :-) --] 18:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC) <small>''Sounds like a good "alternate rule for heavily edited pages"''</small>

::::The problem with the FAQ is that there were a group of editors who were pretty much using the FAQ, and appeals to consensus, as the primary argument against any change or even discussion about an issue. Their arguments typically went like this "There's already consensus, and I'm sick of repeating this over and over to different editors for the past eight months". Note the hostile attitude of this editor in his response above - "Well the original question is misleading at best, an outright lie at worst". The FAQ was and is being used to discourage discussion. ]] 18:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

::::: Well, if you take issue with certain entreis in the FAQ, you can edit them (and go ] worst case), or you could challenge the assertions in the FAQ. Would either of those be a good start here, or is there more to this? --] 18:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

::::: To Kim Bruning...Yeah, there is a lot more to this, like 4 archives (including 2 RfC's, an ArbCom request, and confirmed and suspected sockpuppetry) of discussion on the Fox News Channel talk page (which would seem to contradict this assertion that discussion was discouraged). Again, discussion wasn't discouraged when we adopted some of Cogswobble ideas, but when we disagreed with his ONE point, because it was addressed previously in detail (and in two RfC's), then we are discouraging discussion. To Cogsobble-- You can't have it both ways. I'm sorry you came in at the end of the discussion, but you have been provided links to the archives, and the FAQ. And I will give you credit you have been one of the more reasonable Johnie-come-lately's (not intended to offend, it's just that its kind of innaccurate to call you a latecomer). Whenever you raise a new point I have and will continue to address your concerns but there is no burden on me or other editors to constantly repeat the same points over and over. Finally, your post here is misleading because we've been through this before and you've admitted that I did not discourage discussion. The problem you have is with one editor in particular. But up there you make it seem as though there was some sort of cabal at that page of which I would be a member. And if you are saying that I have discouraged discussion using the argument that "consensus has been reached" that would be lie, wouldn't it!? There is nothing hostile about my attitude (trying to discern an attitude from a post is an often useless endeavor since in effect, you are simply reading text on a computer screen. It's better to just simply ask the editor instead of assuming hostility--outside a blatant PA of course). I just figured that both sides should be presented. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

==Talk pages==
I am now in a controversy, with ] who insists that article talk pages . (The point at issue is a project tag he insists on adding to a talk page which only he thinks in relevant to the project.)

Has anyone met this aberration before? If so, should we clarify the page to say explicitly that consensus governs '''all''' pages at Misplaced Pages? If not, will someone click on the link above and tell him so? ] <small>]</small> 16:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

:I guess a talk page is somewhat of a different animal. Individual comments are not governed by consensus. They are a means to reach consensus. But what about the common items such as the tags at the top of the talk page? It seems that those should be consensus driven, though most of them are far from controversial. What project tag and page are of concern? maybe the specifics make a difference here. --] 19:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
::I think the account at ] is intelligible. It links, eventually, to two other discussions and the talk page concerned (]. ] <small>]</small> 22:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

== Ode to Consensus ==

:A yakkity-yak,
:A hackity-hack,
:A talk page archive or two.
:Put 'em together and what have you got?
:Something that's scary and blue.
] - ] 22:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

:In serenity
:Everyone stops arguing
:That is consensus.

*Courtesy of ]. ] 12:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


:Oh, some see through smudgy lenses,
:And some with extra senses
:And many don't even know their proboscis from their tail.
:But I’ll go by consensus
:For that is what defends us
:From the trolling and the polling that otherwise would prevail.
:...with apologies to ]. -- ] 12:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

== "Clear consensus" ==

At ], you can read:

:''']''' – Overturned and deleted. AFD showed a clear consensus to delete which is apparent here too. – ] 03:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Following Srikeit's suggestion, I have posted the issue at ], so a discussion may develop there, but my basic question, after carefully rereading ], is how anyone, even an admin, can boldly claim that there is "clear concensus" in the face of dozens of objections by various users. In the case cited above, this has been going on for months, if not years (], ], ] (May 2007), ], etc.).

] has commented that "this page set is going the way of other perennially nominated pages and it will, eventually, be deleted simply as a matter of time. ] bringing it here is pretty much a death knell for the page set as this is a highly respected contributor and admin. Therefore there is simply no way it can be kept for the long term owing to continued attempts to delete by persons who vigorously oppose its existence. It is not original research, it is not useless, and it is not unmaintainable but it is unpopular - and that is the reason why it is ultimately doomed to deletion".

I'm willing to learn, so who can explain to me what is "clear" about the consensus above? ]] 12:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

:No one, it seems. ]] 21:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

==NPOV==
I think this policy should state that it doesn't override ]. What is the use of having a ] if majority rules overrides it? There may be an instance where someone does not want to follow NPOV at all. Ideally, we should reach consensus with the goal of NPOV, but where in this policy does it state that requirement? Some editors could say they have arrived at a consensus in which they desire to only show one POV where other notable POVs exist, overriding the NPOV policy. This policy should state that it doesn't override the WP:NPOV.--09:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
:While it's not made explicit, both the "consensus can not quickly override existing policies" and "consensus does not trump Foundation Issues" include NPOV, with the latter link mentioning it specifically. It would be foolhardy in my view to try to enumerate all the things that consensus can and cannot override on this page. -- '']']'' 15:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
:: Local consensus on one wikiproject cannot override Foundation issues by themselves. However, Consensus Can Change, and even the Foundation issues evolve ever so slowly over time, as conditions and our understanding change. --] 18:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

==How to Avoid Consensus==

It seems to me that the idea of consensus has one huge loophole. If an editor is involved in a content dispute or just simply wants to be a pest, all he has to do is be a persistent three revert violator. Once reported to ] an admin may simply lock the page and request further discussion, instead of blocking the disruptive editor. This encourages holdout editors to avoid ever reaching consensus, in the hopes that they could frustate other editors off of the disputed article. Perhaps, we can ask admins to dig a little deeper, before locking an article brought to their attention from ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
: Admins should block the 3RR perpetrator, not punish other editors by protecting the page. --] 18:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
::Unfortunately though, I've seen more than one admin do precisely that. Of course, you don't want 3RR to become a race where the first one there becomes the content dispute winner by getting the competition blocked, but you don't want the situation I described above either. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
::: Hmm, typically I refer people to ]. Is that useful? --] 19:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
*Well, there are a number of people that argue that if ''they'' never agree to any compromise or suggestion, then the "present version" must stay since there is obviously no consensus for moving away from that version. Since this attitude can be disruptive, such people have a tendency of ending up blocked. In general this approach by definition causes a fuss which attracts attention, and attention tends to show that the approach is invalid. ] 15:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

== Moved from ] ==

this needs a tag - is it a policy, guideline, edict or something else? ] 20:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

: I think a great many of the old grandees of Misplaced Pages (and no, I'm not including myself in that category - I'm far too new around here - though I would, also) would say that it has, indeed, been policy right from the start. "Edict" sounds like it comes from on-high, which is the wrong idea; it's more of a backbone of the social contract of Misplaced Pages, I would say.
: ] ] 22:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

::Disagreed. The picture I'm getting is that Misplaced Pages is evolving into an environment where the community votes on everything procedural. <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;]]&nbsp;</span> 23:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

::: I would use the term "mutating" rather than "evolving". It is not a welcome change, and it is not a change for the better, and it '''is''' a change.
::: ] ] 00:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

This can't be a policy since it's simply not accurate. If binding polls were not permitted, neither RFA nor any of the deletion pages would exist. If a complete absence of voting is desirable (on which the community is far from unanimous), we've got a lot of reform to do. &mdash; ] | ] 23:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

: They're not binding polls. The closing admin (or bureaucrat) evaluates using their intelligence to gauge consensus. The distinction may appear slight, but it's important.
: ] ] 00:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

::Fair enough; however, this distinction should be made very clear, and I've attempted to make it so. &mdash; ] | ] 01:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

::: Just wanted to say thanks for putting the clarification in, even though I've already thanked you in IRC. :-)
::: ] ] 01:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

==Voting is not banned==
Voting is not banned. What do you think happened during the ]? How do you think ] are determined? The policy has always been ], not don't vote at all. ]] 03:06, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

:I've moved the page from ] to ] to reflect this. ]]

:: Elections are not part of the '''Misplaced Pages''' process. Neither are Arbitration cases. Feel free to bring up an actual example of something to do with Wiki'''p'''edia, as opposed to Wiki'''m'''edia in general. Otherwise, this should be moved back.
:: ] ] 09:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

:::Of course arbitration cases are part of the Misplaced Pages process. After all, their outcome is actively enforced.--]] 12:15, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

:::: How Arbitration cases are handled internally is irrelevent to the community's use of our decisions, however. The Committee's internal workings are not a community process, and we're talking about that here.
:::: ] ] 14:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

== Consensus on voting :-) ==

It appears to me that some of those who are so heavily advocating consensus are at the same time trying to steamroll over those who feel that voting is legitimate under certain circumstances. I hope that I'm mistaken. Titles such as "Voting is banned" are certainly not likely to engender productive discourse, so I'd like to thank Angela for moving the page to a more appropriate title. I have attempted to rewrite the page to reflect the actual policies and practices on the English Misplaced Pages and the beliefs of its inhabitants.

Before you bring up a vote/poll distinction: Please look at the dictionary definitions for both words. Neither word automatically implies that the result is "binding", or that a particular process is to be used.--]] 04:10, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

: Before you quote a dictionary at us, remember that we have dozens of terms of art and distinctions of this kind on Misplaced Pages. "Poll" and "vote" do not mean the same thing on Misplaced Pages (much as "ban" and "block" have very different meaning).
: ] ] 12:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

:: These definitions, to my knowledge, have never been laid out, and we cannot expect any reader to understand an idiosyncratic usage of the terms "vote" and "polls". So let's be clear about what exactly is allowable and what not.--]] 12:36, September 1, 2005 (UTC)


: Community knowledge is very rarely laid out; that's why we're only creating this page now, 4 years after it has been use. But you want definitions; very well, here you go:
:; Poll
:: ''n.'', system whereby people simplistically but clearly list opinions on each of the sides of a debate in a helpful manner to ease understanding of community consensus.
:; Vote
:: ''n.'', aka "binding poll", poll (''q.v.'') system wherein instead of community consensus being allowed to be evaluated, a rigid system which violates the Misplaced Pages principles of flexibility and open-ness is used where the community is forced to be bound.
: ] ] 14:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

==Voting is not banned, but binding voting might be==
Following discussion with James F. about this, it seems the main issue is the binding aspect of a poll or vote rather than the occurrence of such a method itself. Therefore, I've moved the page to ] since it isn't only polls/votes that shouldn't be binding, but the result of any decision making process. I feel polls can be a valid decision making process if used correctly, and if they are not binding, they can not be accused of undermining consensus. ]] 13:17, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

: I agree that straw polling can indeed be helpful. I'm happy with the current title, and the current wording too.
: Others?
: ] ] 14:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

::Sure; looks OK from here. ] ] 15:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

:::As the one who was initially responsible for the original title (I suggested Kim write it on IRC), I am perfectly happy with this. May I suggest that meta is a better place for this? ]</nowiki>]] 17:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

:::: The problem with putting things on meta is that people immediately say that they don't apply to the English Misplaced Pages.
:::: ''*sighs*''
:::: ] ] 10:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

:::::Which proves our main problem: people are stupid. ]</nowiki>]] 16:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

No binding decisions eh? Does that include the decision for the policy "No binding decisions"? :) --] 09:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

==Precedent should matter==
While I understand what this is trying to say, I think it almost comes across as an endorsement of arbitrary decision-making. I think it's especially important in AfD debates to look at the outcome of recent debates and the presence of similar, long-established articles. Consensus may change, but change will probably take some time, and when it happens, it should be reflected consistently in the treatment of different articles. I've seen the NBD policy used to justify multiple AfD nominations in a short period of time, which I think reflects a misunderstanding of what it's trying to say. --] 20:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
: If there's no consensus to delete, how do you think re-polling will change that consensus?

:Right! It won't.

: A poll measures current consensus, it doesn't nescesarily change it. No matter how often you measure, the outcome will always be similar! :-)

: <small>''(it won't be '''exactly''' the same, because consensus is constantly slowly shifting, and a poll only samples that consensus at at a single point in time)''</small>
: ] 11:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

==Contradiction==
Isn't this kind of a contradiction? Misplaced Pages has no binding decisions. Except the decision that we have no binding decisions. That's binding. :-) --] 00:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
: It's a fundamental property of the wiki concept. Any software that implements a wiki will tend to enforce it by default. There is no contradiction with policy and guidelines, as those are made up by ''users'' of the sofware, and looked after by hand.

:This page happens to also be an example of the kind of knowledge was taken for granted in the first few years of wikipedia. I've been pushing old users to actually write down that knowledge; before they leave, and their knowlege and skills are lost to the communuity.

: ] 09:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

==Verification Needed for Assertion of Policy Status==

JA: I have requested verification of the claim asserted by the 02 Sept 2005 insertion of the {policy} template that "This page is an official policy on the English Misplaced Pages. It has wide acceptance among editors". Until somebody provides adequate evidence to support this claim, the template is invalid and unverified and can be removed with impunity at any time by any user. ] 12:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
: That's not how things work. I've removed the tag, please don't put it back. (note however, that it might be interesting to find verifiability rules for guidelines... that might be a great way to cut down on the mess). Note that this particular rule is a logical consequence of how a wiki works, so there's not much we can do about it. That and it's the only way to ensure that wikipedia will be around for ~100 years. You need to be able to get out if you accidentally paint yourself into a corner. ] 15:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
:: Hoping that Misplaced Pages will be around for an entire century is a bit ambitious. Copies of it will probably still exist, but let's hope that by 2106 there'll be something even better than this. And then I mean, something better than the world wide web. --] 16:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
::: You can hope, but in the mean time, this is what we have. It's doable and definately worth going for, even though I know it runs a bit counter to the current-day western psyche. It's still much less ambitious than ] ;-P ] 16:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: IC, so U ''do'' recognize the distinction between a ''policy'' and a ''principle'' after all. Thanks, I needed that. ] 20:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

== BRD shortcut ==

Jon Awbrey, it's great that you're re-inventing ], but I've already done the reverting. Could we get to the next step? ] 17:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

==Binding decisions==
We already have a method of making binding decisions, in one small case: the deletion of redirects. ] G4 permits speedy deletion of recreated pages which are substantially identical to the deleted page; and in general that's a good thing. If someone wants to reopen the discussion on whether to have an article, he need merely write a new article on the topic, and it will be taken to AfD.

But if a redirect is ever deleted, that's permanent. There's only one way to make a redirect from A to B, so anybody, any time, who makes the same redirect will find it speedied. (This is already happening with cross-namespace redirects.) ] 18:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

==History and status of this project==

This project page was declared to be a "WikiPedia Policy" by ] on 02&nbsp;Sept&nbsp;2005, when that user posted the <nowiki>{{policy|]}}</nowiki> template on the project page, as evidenced by the following history link:

*

The claims asserted by means of this device, specifically:
# "This page is an official policy on the English Misplaced Pages", and
# "It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow",
are in dispute and should be regarded as the personal opinions of the small number of Misplaced Pages users who actually support them.

JA: '''Under Extreme Protest''', moving the above from main to talk.

JA: Misplaced Pages broke down for a couple of hours when I tried to post the above. I hope it wasn't something I said. ] 20:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: 21 Aug 2006. I tagged this project page as Proposed, and Kim Bruning reverted it:

*

JA: I ''do'' understand the English sentence that asserts of this project page that "It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow". There are three problems with this statement:
# There is no evidence given to support it.
# There is no reason given to believe that it's true.
# There is no source given to say ''by whom'' it "is considered a standard that all users should follow".

JA: That sort of claim is inveighed against in WP articles — I cannot imagine why it should be permitted in WP policies. ] 17:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

: Misplaced Pages guidelines are odd, relative to the rest of the encyclopedia, since we need to do our own research for them. There's no choice in this. There is no scientific document or engineering procedure that can explain how this particular system can be run at this scale, so we need to design our own, and that's what we've been doing in the past 5 years.

: This particular guideline is somewhat stranger, since it's basically a primary source even! A group of old experienced wikipedians was asked to write down one of the design principles of the wiki.

: It actually states one of the design principles behind the wiki-engine, especially the way it allows editing (and reverting). So you can say that the actual ] code has been written based on this rule, and it sets the framework within which we work.

: No matter how you mark this page, or how you edit it, the php code will still enforce the framework. (A rose by any other name ... ) .

: Now if you change the php code, then things would change. However, the end result would no longer be called a wiki.

: ] 17:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: 21 Aug 2006. According to my scan of the edit history, subject to correction, there have been a total of 15 editors on the main page, a total of 14 editors on the talk page, and a total of 21 editors all together on this project since its inception, namely:

{{col-begin}}
{{col-break}}
'''Main Page Participants'''
# 81.xxx.xxx.xxx
# Angela
# Denelson83
# Eloquence
# Encephalon
# Jdforrester
# Jon Awbrey
# Kim Bruning
# KimvdLinde
# Radiant!
# Rdsmith4
# Sam Korn
# Sean Black
# Stevage
# TheDJ
{{col-break}}
'''Talk Page Participants'''
# Angela
# Cheapestcostavoider
# Denelson83
# Eloquence
# Jdforrester
# Jon Awbrey
# Kim Bruning
# Mindspillage
# Pmanderson
# Rdsmith4
# Sam Korn
# Thryduulf
# Thunderhead
# W.marsh
{{col-break}}
'''Combined List'''
# 81.xxx.xxx.xxx
# Angela
# Cheapestcostavoider
# Denelson83
# Eloquence
# Encephalon
# Jdforrester
# Jon Awbrey
# Kim Bruning
# KimvdLinde
# Mindspillage
# Pmanderson
# Radiant!
# Rdsmith4
# Sam Korn
# Sean Black
# Stevage
# TheDJ
# Thryduulf
# Thunderhead
# W.marsh
{{col-end}}

JA: That does not warrant claims of "wide acceptance among editors", even if all 21 editors agreed about every issue among themselves, which I know for a fact that they do not. ] 18:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

: With that, you are (partially) answering a point I made a couple of days ago, not the point I made today. ] 18:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

: Right. Would you care to answer the point I'm making now? In a sense you're forgetting to mention ], I think ;-) Any idea why I think you're forgetting him? ] 20:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: I just munged the edit histories into a table and sorted — if I missed an edit line please supply. Thanks, ] 20:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

: It's nice that you're doing this work, but you're not addressing my current point yet. If you'd like to continue on the previous point though, perhaps you'd like to talk with each of these people? Especially James Forrester might be handy. ] 20:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: As to the point that you are trying to make, I quite frankly hesitate to articulate it, and apparently so do you. So I can but wonder why is that? ] 20:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

:: JA: what you may be missing is that Misplaced Pages, and wiki communities in general, are not empirical. Wide acceptance may be asserted of anything which is widely practiced, without need to justify this with a poll of the community. It's rather like saying lawns of grass are widely accepted; it's not universal, it may be virulently opposed by a segment of the population, yet any reasonable survey of lawns will find the vast majority have grass as a consituent element. - ] 20:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

My point was . ] 21:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

==Point, Counterpoint — and Fugue==

JA: I was afraid of that. And my point is that no amount of techno-mumbo-jumbo is an excuse for making false or misleading statements on a content, policy, guideline, or project page. Software is made to serve society. Society is not made to serve software. Let's call it "Simple Rule Number 1". ] 21:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

: Darn, we can't work with those definitions. Please see ] as a start. But ...there's more to it than that. ] 22:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Please try to understand, I did not come here to join some kind of ] (BRO), or fade and dissolve my storm-tossed exhile of selfhood in a mystical etherium of wiki-karmic-goo. I came here to write high quality encyclopedia articles on subjects that I have invested a lifetime getting more or less adequate in. There are all sorts of wikis in space(.com) that have no other purpose but to preserve the cultivation of their lotuses (loti?) by providing their "users" with a Feel God experience, but that's not what WikiPedia claims to be. If the software does not serve the espoused objective well enough, then those of us who really share that objective will find some other tool to that purpose. The software is not a replacement for society. The software is a tool of human purposes that antedate it by many, many evolutionary cycles. ] 02:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

: Good. That means we're both pragmatic. Now let's discuss how an amalgamation of software and social systems can allow you to write your high quality encyclopedia articles, and also how -without adequate constraint- they can conspire to prevent you from doing so. (see also: ], ], ], ]) ] 09:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Our ] are as ] as our ]s. There are many forms of ], ], ]. The most pressing problem at the moment is that there is a false or misleading statement at the top of the project page that you have resisted correcting or removing for reasons that you have yet to articulate fully, much less render in the least bit convincing with regard to ordinary standards of acceptability. And that is normally considered a ''bad thing''. When we have dealt with that tiny dust bunny, then we can can think about ]. ] 13:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

: I will not be drawn into a philosophical discussion. I have neither the time nor the inclination at the moment, sorry.

: This page is policy. I have stated why, you reject my premise. Fine. But since the wiki design leans on that same premise (among several others), you automatically reject the existence of wikis. Oops.

: <s>But that's your problem. Resolve it for yourself. Come back when your philosophy and reality are back in the same ballpark.</s> I'm always willing to talk, as you know :-)

: ] 15:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

:: Perhaps the problem is that we're not quite speaking the same language, even though we both *appear* to be using english. Consider yourself a ]. It would be polite and handy to learn (parts of) our language, especially if your own language lacks ]. ;-) At the same time, I might take some trouble to learn yours? In the mean time, we'll get into big conflicts if we keep up like this. Could we call an editing truce? :-) ] 15:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jon. If I am reading you right, you have three issues:
# ''The coherence of the rule itself'': objection based on self-reference
# ''The status of the rule'': doubt that this is actually "policy"
# ''The meta-text of the rule'': the specific claims of the box with the green ticky mark in it, even if it is "policy".
I hope I have not omitted anything, or mischaracterized you on anything I have included. My responses are:
# No comment at this time. Let us get the meta-argument resolved first, and see if there is still an argument left over.
# The policy tag adds it to a particular category. I infer either support, or at least lack of objection, from everyone who would have noticed such a thing over the past 11 and a half months. This should not be underestimated.
# I think it is a bit misleading to suggest "wide support" among editors, when the overwhelming majority probably rarely visit meta-space at all. But it occurs on many policy pages, and has its roots in the need for people to put ticky boxes on things, which is an issue much broader than this particular page. It may be best discussed for the template in general.
Cheers. -anon 16:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

==Hypocrisy & Misrepresentation Breed Cynicism & Mistrust==

JA: 'Nuff said. ] 16:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

: Yes they do. :-) ] 21:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: I'm beginning to see the sand this castle is made on — and I see that you people need some ''serious'' help rationalizing your policies. I'm not even sure you want them to be rational. Doesn't matter, the rest of the world — and Oh Yes, ], the Sandy Claws of Reality will Catch your Act in the Vth — will demand rational justification for what you say and do. I will think on it a while, but right now I desperately need to go work on some genuine articles before I go bats. In the meantime, I would like KB to quit confusing my WikiPedia birthdate with my RealWorld birthdate — I wasn't born yesterday, or late last December. At any rate, back to the grinstone for a now. ] 12:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

: The empirical justification is that it has worked, and outperformed all other known rulesets for the past 5 years, including at least one ruleset used by the ], and one ruleset used by a ]. ] 13:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: '''Not Entirely Non Sequitur.''' I used to think I was the ], but I see now that I've got a lot to learn about the Art of the Non-Sequitur. The best I can do for now is to share the following story, based on true life events, if not exactly ripped from today's headlines.

JA: Every Spring we hang a clear red plastic globe — shaped and colored vaguely reminiscent of a large translucent strawberry, with yellow plastic flower-portals on a subtended green plastic calyx — on a cast-iron scrollwork post in our rose garden, and we fill it full of sugar water on a biweekly basis. Now, the instincts of hummingbirds are clearly plastic enough that they go right to it and sup the refined sugar nectar from where it wells up in the faux-flower ports. But the funniest thing, and it cracks us up all Summer long into Fall as we peek through the bay window that peeps out over the roses, is this — there's more sugar water in a single filling of that globe than the whole gang of hummers in the 'hood could possibly consume in a month, and yet their instincts are not so plastic that they'll ever leave off blustering and dogfighting and just plain enjoy the mix. Moral of the Story? Ay, there's the rub.

JA: Still, I wonder, what your plans are for refactoring ''that'' ruleset, or have you even noticed it yet, with all your idees fixed on that rube mechanical bit? ] 05:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

: It's a continuum. In my career I've found that some some things that looked like social problems could more easily be fixed by software engineering, and some things that looked like software problems could more easily be fixed by "social engineering". I could tell you lots of fun stories about this :-)

: Once I was working in a team with one programmer and one social engineer. One day I was sitting next to the programmer, and we'd determined that our problem would take 3 days to solve, if we didn't want to get in everyone elses way. The social engineer went around and talked with several people and asked them if it was ok if we stomped on their areas for a bit. The problem was solved in 3 hours. :-)

: On the other side of the coin, there exists a famous program called ], which uses clever codified social rules to prevent defection (called ]). By clever enforcement of these social rules on its users, bittorrent allows unprecedented data traffic between machines, and in fact the bittorrent protocol is currently a very significant percentage of all internet traffic. (Use of) Bittorrent has also had several social consequences, most famously leading to the creation and increased popularity of a ] (!)

: So the first thing to understand is not to make arbitrary distinctions between social and software, since they are very much a continuum; in fact I'd consider software to be a subset of social behaviour. If you don't take the entire continuum into account, you will be blindsided. Badly. Mediawiki people have been accused of (deliberately) blindsiding people in the past, for precisely this reason ] 13:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


{{cquote|Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal.|author=]}}
JA: Thank you. This has been very liberating. Naturally, I don't believe you folks for a second. But still, even a bit of ] can be freeing. ] 21:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


__FORCETOC__
: This reminds me of a discussion at the start of a book ... (I think it was ]'s ], but don't pin me on that). In one scene, a monk sets out to philosophically prove that the ] couldn't possibly exist... to a member of ]s expedition, who had just returned from there ;-) ] 01:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


== Consensus might become hindrance to truth ==
JA: Dear ], I hope you don't think I was being sarcastic. I genuinely experienced a moment of ] and immediately went off and spent a ] day in several creative endeavors here and there about Wiki]. My sideswipe of suspended belief is merely the escape pause that reflects long experience, and warns against the perils of ]. ] 20:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


When ] was sentenced to death, the consensus was against what he said.
== Aware, Bware, Cware ==


Recently someone asked me to gain consensus first even though I cited a strong, universally accepted reference for the material.
JA: Making this new section to continue a previous discussion in a slightly different light. ] 21:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


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


How does WikiPedia fight ]? ] (]) 07:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
...because the title is misleading, and this has been confusing new users. An important purpose of policy/guideline pages is to instruct new users, and because of cognitive laziness they don't always read past the first few lines. The point of this page is not that we make no binding decisions (indeed, that would imply a loner can ignore a consensual discussion entirely). The point of this page, rather, is that consensus can change, and that any consensual decision can later be overturned by consensus (but not by a lone editor who didn't like it). ] 16:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
:Got a suggestion? Maybe ], which differentiates top-down decisions and the five pillars? ] has appeal too... -- '']']'' 15:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
*Good idea, and done. ] 20:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


:@] Please be specific and provide a link to where you were asked to gain consensus. ] ] 10:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
== Query ==
::@], please read the notice-box on top of . ] (]) 11:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
:::You really should have told ] you were posting here. Have you read the page for which is the talk page carefully? ] ] 11:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
::::As a new editor I was trying to understand the concept of 'consensus during editing' myself first. ] (]) 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 ], so that's what they either have agreement on or need to resolve. ] (]) 15:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
:::The editor said "Fails ]" 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." ] (]) 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? ] (]) 06:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::You boldly added content. The other editor boldly removed it, citing ] (not ]).
:::::* What to do if you don't agree with that rationale? Start a discussion, perhaps by {{tl|ping}}ing the other editor and asking why they believe your addition promotes a point of view. Compare ].
:::::* What to do about your content during the discussion? See ]. - ] (]) 07:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::Thank you. ] (]) 07:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
:::Turning to your question, the Misplaced Pages 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. - ] (]) 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 ] is also a thing.<br>If an editor disagrees with you the first thing is to try discussion on the articles talk page, failing that ] is a useful guide to other options available. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 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. ] (]) 13:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
::Your are right. The consensus is used for ], although consensus does not necessarily equate to or imply correctness. ] (]) 11:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)


== WP:NOCONSENSUS ==
"Why on earth would you ask about a specific article content issue on Village Pump before on the talk page? that's what talk pages are for, to discuss articles" -- {{User|Derex}}
*Because this page is about how "Consensus can change". If consensus has been demonstrated a few months ago on an article talk page, asking "is this consensus still valid" on that talk page is very unlikely to get you a meaningful response. Hence, if you wish to demonstrate that consensus ''has'' changed, you need to get feedback in a more public spot. ] 14:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


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. > <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 20:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
== Precedent - in or out ==


: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. ] (]) 21:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
I think it would be nice if this page mentioned how precedent should be used on wikipedia. I, for one, think that precedent can be involved in discussing changes - but changes should not simply be made based solely on precedent. Consensus from discussion is key, and precedent (like statistics) can be made to prove anything has support. Therefore, I think this page should mention something about precedent - whether or not there is consensus for using precedent or not. Did that make sense..? ] 09:49, 24 December 2006 (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.<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 21:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
*That didn't really make sense, and the assumption that precedent can be made to prove anything is an obvious fallacy. ] 10:17, 24 December 2006 (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. ] (]) 21:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Part of the problem is that we seem to have forgotten how to reach compromises. ] (]) 21:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
::::], aka NOCONSENSUS, does not belong in this policy. No consensus is not a strategy for achieving consensus. No consensus belongs in ] and ].
::::- ] (]) 22:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::I like the idea of putting it in ]. Also, I think the rather dubious bit about ] usually applying after the discussion is over should probably just get lost on during the trip to that page. ] (]) 16:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::That’s two of us, with a silent audience. ] (]) 23:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Three of us, really, though how does one progress such a thing? ] (]) 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). ] (]) 00:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Any day now maybe. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages:Consensus#No consensus after discussion be moved to Misplaced Pages:Closing discussions? (and/or Editing policy).
::::::::::with this convo as RFCbefore. ] (]) 09:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I think a split/merge discussion is the usual format. I've started a separate sub-section at ]. ] (]) 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 ]. Otherwise, the guidance may be viewed as a demotion of sorts at an informational page. --] (]) 16:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Quite happy for the details to be examined (impartially). If there's some volunteers. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 09:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)


:You have opened an RFC to try and settle the matter? Where? ] (]) 11:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
== Sticky consensus ==
::]. ] (]) 11:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:Years ago, ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 01:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Nothing should be reverted "as undiscussed." Editors should provide a substantive rationale. For more on this topic, see ]. - ] (]) 00:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)


:{{u|Moxy}}, just for clarification, what exactly is this "{{tq|different interpretation}}" you're referring to? Here's 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?{{pb}}FWIW, was the last revision I paid attention to. I now see that some mini-subheadings have since been added along with a bullet covering ]s. While well-intentioned, I think these unnecessarily crowd an already cluttered NOCON that's struggling to be concise. --] (]) 03:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
A popular idea around here is that once a consensus is formed, it becomes "sticky", and you need another opposing consensus to undo it. Like you get a consensus of five like-minded people on a talk page, slap a policy tag on a page and force people to do stupid shit, and you then need to get a lot more than five people to overrule the original five who won't give up their position in order to remove the tag. I think this is quite silly, and not the way things are done. If there's no agreement, there's no agreement.
::. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 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. --] (]) 10:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)


=== Moving NOCON to CLOSE ===
However, ] about the fact that the people who like the status quo aren't going to be participating vocally on talk pages... What do you think? — ] 00:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
As suggested above, let's move ] over to ], 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? ] (]) 23:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
*Yes, that behavior is more common than I'd like, but that doesn't make it right. The sections on "consensus can change" and "local consensus vs. wikiwide consensus" should make that clear. ] 08:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
: Will you propose to move the last sentence of ] to CLOSE as well? ] (]) 15:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
::I haven't thought about it, but I think we should deal with one thing at a time. ] (]) 17:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Sounds like a plan! Let's deal with the ONUS sentence first. - ] (]) 18:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
::::This question was already asked three weeks ago, so it's too late to do something else "first". ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 15:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Neither NOCON nor ONUS belong in WP:Consensus.
:::I think both belong primarily in ]. 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 ]. Both are true regardless of whether there has been a formal discussion to be formally closed. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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.). ] (]) 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 ] but not just for deletion), but as long as WP:CLOSE is a mere "information page" I would oppose this. ] (]) 03:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
::@], 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. ] (]) 05:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
::Extraordinary Writ, thanks for a good observation. I oppose making WP:NOCON a non-policy. ] (]) 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:
:::# 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".
:::# BLP is a policy. {{pixiedust|A policy}}, but BLP is definitely, absolutely, indisputably a policy. It's even one of our ].
:::# 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 @] and @]: 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. ] (]) 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. -- ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 12:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::@], 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? ] (]) 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). ] (]) 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). ] (]) 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. ] (]) 18:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::And this to me would be an inconsistency and an overall issue that requires guidance. Concur with Selfstudier.{{pb}}No consensus to ''keep'' is also no consensus to ''remove''. If something is:
::::::::::::#Verifiable
::::::::::::#Has been in place a reasonable amount of time
::::::::::::#Within an article with a reasonable amount of traffic
::::::::::::#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. -- ] (]) 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?"
:::::::::::::@], the ] takes a default position of retaining information (though it cares about whether Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 {{tq|no consensus to keep}}".{{pb}}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. --] (]) 04:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::They are certainly contrary, and some may just will to see it as consensus version, nonetheless. -- ] (]) 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 ] out of the article during a discussion (which would actually be a violation of the ] essay, which I recommend actually reading, because it's one of those ] 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 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 14:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::I don't know what you mean by {{xt|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"? ] (]) 03:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Is {{tq|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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] that there was never consensus for in the first place. ] (]) 09:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Or we could say that the problem is edit, by a now-indeffed editor, which was not only discussed but actively objected to. The same editor the statement about BLPs and insisted for that . ] (]) 17:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)


=== Moving NOCON to Editing Policy ===
==Precedent for retention after an AfD Keep==
:No, my first belief, and my long term gut feel, and my latest reading, is that NOCON belongs in ]. Nest there, it can be better referred to from ]. - ] (]) 13:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
What is the status of an article that has had an AfD end as a '''Keep'''? Is there any limitation on additional attempts to delete the article and does there have to be any material change in fact to justify initiating a second AfD after a previous AfD established a precedent to Keep the article? The way I read WP:Consensus -- '''"This does not mean that Misplaced Pages ignores precedent; for example, editors should not continuously nominate an article to ] until it reaches their preferred outcome."''' -- there is an implied "protection" for an article that has a demonstrated consensus for retention. The way I interpret this statement, if AfD1 ends in a Keep, then a strong burden is placed on the prospective nominator of AfD2 (on the same article) to demonstrate that '''"... there is new information to discuss."''', as the policy continues, before starting a new AfD. If a '''Keep''' precedent on an initial AfD provides no measure of protection to an article, there is nothing to prevent any other editor from taking a second (or third, fourth or fifth...) stab at deleting the article. And if AfD #37 finally achieves the desired result, there would seem to be nothing in ] forbidding the article from being recreated as is, and the AfD cycle starting all over again. Does AfD precedent have any meaning in terms of the future of an article? ] 16:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
::<s>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"? - ] (]) 15:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)</s>
*Yes, it does. If you repeatedly recreate a deleted article, it gets locked out. If you nominate an article for deletion for the, say, 37th time, it gets speedily closed. Both cases can get you blocked for edit warring against consensus, and/or ]. ] 16:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
:::It's not demoting NOCON to an essay if moved to Editing policy? ] (]) 15:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
**Let's ignore the extreme case. Does the precedent of a '''Keep''' in an AfD offer any "protection" from AfD II happening or does it place any burden on the prospective nominator of AfD II to show why the AfD I consensus should be overturned? ] 16:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Oh, OK, you struck it. ] (]) 15:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
***The protection it offers is that the same good reasoning in AfD I applies to AfD II. The people who comment in AfD II and the closing admin in AfD II will look at the discussion in AfD I and the prevailing reasons there, if they were indeed prevailing ''reasons'' and if they are still relevant to the article, apply just as much to AfD II. It is not, though, ''binding precedent'' in the same sense as precedent is binding in the legal system. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 16:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
::And move the last sentence of ONUS there as well? - ] (]) 15:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
*Posting AfD#2 immediately after a Keep-close AFD#1 usually results in a quick build up of speedy Keeps before a speedily closed. Since consensus changes, the passage of time is enough to offer up the same article for AfD. Sometimes you'll see an AfD#2 for an article that has not change much in the year since AfD#1 and the article winds up being delete. The prospective nominator of AfD II need only show why the article should be deleted, not why the AfD I consensus should be overturned. If the reason for the AfD I consensus remains valid, most people just repeat the valid Keep reason in AfD#2 rather than use AfD#1 as some sort of precedent. I've seen AfD arguments that articles listed on the main page under ] have DYK precedent approval to remain on Misplaced Pages. That precedent argument usually received little to no weight by others. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup></font> 17:05, 1 July 2007 (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: ].{{pb}}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. -- ] (]) 18:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
::::That sounds like a plan. ] (]) 18:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::That plan would require editors to agree to move NOCON out of this page. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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. -- ] (]) 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. ] (]) 05:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::You've weathered a lot of storms in these here parts! ;){{pb}}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 Misplaced Pages's overall user base), NOCON is needed in some form. You were onto something all those years ago. ] (]) 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., ], which is a handy list of all the times policy requires in inline citation, and yet is not on a policy page, and ], which is a bulleted list summarizing the common characteristics of ], 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 17:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
::I '''support''' moving NOCON to EDITING POLICY (being sure to leave a link to NOCON in CONSENSUS). - ] (]) 16:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
*I'm fine ('''support''') with moving to EDITING POLICY. ] (]) 19:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per discussion above.] (]) 08:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)


== Consensus-based (not correctness-based) ==
==Policy in a nutshell, potential wording ==
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 Misplaced Pages, it is not always directly linked to correctness
This may have already come up, but I think this policy should have a nutshell, such as:
{{policy in a nutshell|align=center|All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be built through consensus, representing a most agreeable decision reached through discussion.}}
Please comment on the proposed wording. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup></font> 16:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
*That disregards the fact that most content is written by people who feel like writing something, not people who first ask for consensus to support their wording. In other words it contradicts ]. ] 15:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


I guess that Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages to function effectively even in the face of uncertainty or differing opinions.
I added the following back in February. It only lasted a few hours and I didn't pursue it further:
--] (]) 01:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)


:] triggered my above comments. ] (]) 11:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
{{nutshell2
::We're not the ones to ''correct''. We are the ones to report the sources. ] – ] (]) 13:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
|Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process
::The thing to remember when Galileo is mentioned is the ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
|Disagreements are resolved through the polite discussion, negotiation and compromise of reasonable editors, working together in good faith, looking for common ground
::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. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
|Consensus can change}}
::Very few things are simply objectively correct or incorrect. (]) 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 Misplaced Pages'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. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 14:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
::--]<b>]</b><font color="#CCCCFF">uelWantman</font> 07:07, 5 July 2007 (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. ] (]) 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 ], consensus building shouldn't be a popularity contest. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 09:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::OP has added the following section to an essay: ].
::Anyways, I personally find the argument "Misplaced Pages 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 ] and is about why they think how {{tq|level of support in the community}} is important. ActivelyDisinterested was quick to spot that {{tq|consensus building shouldn't be a popularity contest}}. But hey. There's a reason why OP has ] 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. <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x]</span>→∞ (]) 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:{{tq|"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 {{ tq|"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 ] as I mentioned earlier.
:::In my essays(], ]), I argue that it is more important for Misplaced Pages to reflect the collective agreement of its contributors rather than striving solely for objective truth. This reflects my belief that Misplaced Pages should prioritize representing consensus over absolute truth..
:::In my essays(], ]), I also oppose majority voting and fully support the consensus-building approach. The key idea is as follows: {{tq|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 ] provides a better explanation. ] (]) 14:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
"Truth" is a bad word to use because it has two completely different common meanings:
#Accurate / Accuracy
#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 <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 14:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:35, 23 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Consensus page.
Shortcut
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.
? view · edit Frequently asked questions

Q: When was WP:CONEXCEPT, which says that editors at the English Misplaced Pages do not get to overrule the Wikimedia Foundation on issues like server load, software and legal issues, first added?

A: It was added in January 2007 by User:Circeus, after a brief discussion on the talk page in the context of whether this page should be a policy rather than a guideline. It has been discussed and amended many times since then, e.g., here, here, and here.


“ 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).
Thank you. Kawrno Baba (talk) 07:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Turning to your question, the Misplaced Pages 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)

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)
Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Consensus#No consensus after discussion be moved to Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Editing policy takes a default position of retaining information (though it cares about whether Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages, it is not always directly linked to correctness

I guess that Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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: Misplaced Pages:What is consensus?#Not necessarily equate to or imply correctness.
Anyways, I personally find the argument "Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages to reflect the collective agreement of its contributors rather than striving solely for objective truth. This reflects my belief that Misplaced Pages 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)