This is the
talk page of a
redirect that has been
merged and now targets the page: • Consensus decision-making Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Consensus decision-making Merged page edit history is maintained in order to preserve attributions. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I know I'm encouraged to be bold but I would like to consult the opinions of fellow interested readers before I attempt to link consensus to the Delphi method or Delphi effect. I thought this link would be rather interesting as to how a panel of experts collaborate over an nth iteration of rounds, resulting in a converging opinion. This is an interesting phenomenon. -- WikiInquirer 06:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC) talk to me
This is a tricky topic, but before I would venture any edits folks might be interested in
I don't really see how this theory is a model of consensus... the prisoner's dilemma page makes no mention of the word consensus. I'm open to the idea that it might be an example but would like it explained how and why it is...? If that would take too much space, would suggest removing the example of prisoner's dilemma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.34.19 ( talk) 21:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
An interesting thing about the term consensus is that it is so vague, a unicorn of harmony which seems to be neither majority nor unamimity. Like an intuition about an as yet undiscovered process. What seemes most important is the convergance of these new methods which would be impossible to cary out with parchment, fether quil, chamber and desk.
Electronic media can:
with this topology? I see consensus as the ability to create knowledge focusing like with Recomendation systems and to structure decision making to acheive higher internal consistancy. -WS
This:
sounds arbitrary and ad hoc. Does it really belong in n encyclopedia article? I don't see that it adds anything
The paragraph that follows seems much more useful. Are there any political theorists out there who can clarify the issues? It seems to me that this is an issue that Locke, Rousseau, de Toqueville, and others must have debated... SR
On the French Wikipedia, there's a slightly better article and did you know that Consensu means unanimous ?
It may be time to refactor. Suggest as follows:
* consensus as it is, only, more focused on formal and mathematical statements, linking to more formal issues like artificial intelligence. Clear statement to see other articles for specialized issues: * consensus decision making which is how collective intelligence is formed, and which involves questions of non-formal statements, partial commitment, changing of minds, etc. More or less as it is. * consensus democracy, which is, consensus decision making applied to government, detailed discussion of Locke, Rousseau, de Toqueville, and others - relation to grassroots democracy, deliberative democracy, anticipatory democracy, semi-direct democracy and other models. Obviously this must focus on control of law and the military using the consensus methods. * consensus action which is more related to non-violent resistance, anarchism, and "active creation" of truth by taking common action in concert. Many more issues since it does not rely on authority or even rules.
Well, I tend to think that this buddha definition is clearer Angela and perhaps more accurate. Anthère
Consensus is;
Going on these definitions, consensus most certainly was achieved. Angela 18:04, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)
I'll reread all the recent versions and see what is missing from the one I just edited. - BuddhaInside
In reviewing the Encarta definition, I just discovered that when Angela selectively quoted it she left out the part about broad unanimity and all the members of a group.
For those who prefer the "general agreement" definition, I would remind you that the primary definition of "general" is refers to something the involves the whole, not something that merely involves a majority. - BuddhaInside
I have moved the dictionary entries here as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The content of them is summarised in the article. Angela
Pontificating about the Wikipedia's limitations with regards to consensus-building is POV. The only fact is the first sentence. -- Stevietheman 22:07, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Every sentence is equally factual (and Wikipedia was never mentioned). How can a restricted wiki be an infrastructure for reaching consensus? If the statement you've removed is POV, that means someone seriously disputes it. Who disputes it? In any case, I've removed the whole paragraph, as it is original research. anthony (see warning)
What is wrong with the extra text? How can a restricted wiki be an infrastructure for reaching consensus? Perhaps you can reword it an a way which is NPOV. I don't understand your objection, so I can't do it. As for the original research charge, where is the primary source if it is not original research? anthony (see warning)
You have not addressed any of my questions at all. anthony (see warning)
In following rough consensus from WP:RM (and the likes of WP:RFD), I find a redirect to Consensus that doesn't have anything on what a "rough" consensus is. I think the redirect needs to be dropped and expanded as an article to describe what a rough consensus is in terms of votes for these things. Thoughts? Cburnett 22:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page ought to have a history section. Who started using consensus and why? Does it predate the Quakers? I don't know these answers, but would greatly appreciate them being added in by someone.
-- ErikStewart 15:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The process of achieving consensus involves serious treatment of every group member's considered opinion, and a collective trust in each member's discretion in follow-up action.
I have a problem in understanding this sentence. What does follow-up mean in context? Actions after the consensus decision has been taken, or something else? / Habj 15:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This question may be simply stupid and follows from my poor knowledge of English, but in the last sentence of "Models of consensus" shouldn't the word "without" be replaced by "with"? If I gather, the peace activist weren't been beard because of the game theory model mastered the politics. 4C 09:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I "boldly" removed the sentence "Some claim Pennsylvania is governed based on consensus decision making, rather than voting," because I could find no evidence of such a claim, which seems prima facie nonsensical. Mark K. Jensen 08:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Could you PLEASE include the plural of the word "consensus" as part of your definition in wikipedia? Thank you.
(UTC)
Yep, it's latin...so why not follow the latin rules? Based on my rubbish latin knowledge censensus in plural should read consensi. I believe this is the second declension, nominative form of the masculin. The plural in Italian still is consensi in plural although singular now is consenso.
I just go by the rules: -um becomes - a, bacterium - bacteria -a becomes -ae, retina - retinae -us becomes -i, locus - loci
That pretty much covers the latin words in english I believe.
Latin declension on wikipedia will go into detail :)
I have added : "each of which exercises some discretion in decision making and follow-up action, since this is what it says in wictionary". wictionary and wikipedi should not contradict each other. DanielDemaret 13:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster lists 3 distinct meanings of "consensus": [1]
I'm particularly concerned with how the term is used in our Scientific consensus article, and in related articles such as Global warming controversy and List of scientists opposing the global warming consensus. I'd like to see our articles give proportions when possible, e.g.., what percentage of climate scientists agree with the UN's climate panel about the causes of global warming? -- Uncle Ed 10:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I think, it is a kind of weasel wording to use the term consensus in a political connotation. It is an urgent need in Democracy Theory to form collective wants and unanimity with the aim to ignore inconvenient minorities in pragmatic styles. The problem is a politcally correct ambiguity in the langguage. Of course, it is liked by democrats to enforce their policies. This connotation shouldn't be used in a scientific or neutral enviroment, but democrats are also on the way in Wikipedia. -- 84.60.196.216 18:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
this seems far below the standard i've seen in other wikipedia articles. i find the mathematical section unnecessarily obscure, and the references to peace movements requiring "consensus" by putting your body on the line doesn't sound like netural point of view.
The below was added as doxa subjective.
Often cited, consensus, has been a point of failure in what has been deemed "herd mentality" decision making, wherein the common masses, who are generally deemed sub-par in capacity for higher thinking, greatly affect the outcome of conclusions and decisions. In the same reasoning is made the ancient motto: "too many cooks spoil the stew". Another model for the many failures of consensus position, is the common addage of "lemmings following each other over the cliff's edge to certain death".
Please sign your posts using --~~~~ at the END of your text NOT in the edit summary. -- Fredrick day 00:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The plural of consensus is CONSENSI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.33.111 ( talk) 20:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
it seems we'll have to add another definition of consensus, based on the heavy work done by ISO during the OOXML fast track process:
83.28.68.68 ( talk) 07:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The concept of ijma in Islam addresses state decision making by consensus, albeit by the ulema (Muslim scholars) rather than the population at large. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.112.178.244 ( talk) 03:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey
I AM LOking For Consent Or To Think Well Of.--
66.131.190.6 (
talk) 16:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that the this article and the consensus decision-making cover roughly the same ground, so I suggest they get merged. maybe add a Wiktionary link for the dictinary definition of consensus? -- Ludwigs2 17:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I have just been doing extensive research on consensus decision making. I think the merge is a great idea. I'd like to give it a shot if Ludwig does not mind. -- TimHartnett 4 October 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimHartnett ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
whoops - I'm pretty sure we meant the merge to go the other way (into consensus, not into CDM). -- Ludwigs2 01:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Consensus decision-making which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 16:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page of a
redirect that has been
merged and now targets the page: • Consensus decision-making Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Consensus decision-making Merged page edit history is maintained in order to preserve attributions. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I know I'm encouraged to be bold but I would like to consult the opinions of fellow interested readers before I attempt to link consensus to the Delphi method or Delphi effect. I thought this link would be rather interesting as to how a panel of experts collaborate over an nth iteration of rounds, resulting in a converging opinion. This is an interesting phenomenon. -- WikiInquirer 06:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC) talk to me
This is a tricky topic, but before I would venture any edits folks might be interested in
I don't really see how this theory is a model of consensus... the prisoner's dilemma page makes no mention of the word consensus. I'm open to the idea that it might be an example but would like it explained how and why it is...? If that would take too much space, would suggest removing the example of prisoner's dilemma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.34.19 ( talk) 21:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
An interesting thing about the term consensus is that it is so vague, a unicorn of harmony which seems to be neither majority nor unamimity. Like an intuition about an as yet undiscovered process. What seemes most important is the convergance of these new methods which would be impossible to cary out with parchment, fether quil, chamber and desk.
Electronic media can:
with this topology? I see consensus as the ability to create knowledge focusing like with Recomendation systems and to structure decision making to acheive higher internal consistancy. -WS
This:
sounds arbitrary and ad hoc. Does it really belong in n encyclopedia article? I don't see that it adds anything
The paragraph that follows seems much more useful. Are there any political theorists out there who can clarify the issues? It seems to me that this is an issue that Locke, Rousseau, de Toqueville, and others must have debated... SR
On the French Wikipedia, there's a slightly better article and did you know that Consensu means unanimous ?
It may be time to refactor. Suggest as follows:
* consensus as it is, only, more focused on formal and mathematical statements, linking to more formal issues like artificial intelligence. Clear statement to see other articles for specialized issues: * consensus decision making which is how collective intelligence is formed, and which involves questions of non-formal statements, partial commitment, changing of minds, etc. More or less as it is. * consensus democracy, which is, consensus decision making applied to government, detailed discussion of Locke, Rousseau, de Toqueville, and others - relation to grassroots democracy, deliberative democracy, anticipatory democracy, semi-direct democracy and other models. Obviously this must focus on control of law and the military using the consensus methods. * consensus action which is more related to non-violent resistance, anarchism, and "active creation" of truth by taking common action in concert. Many more issues since it does not rely on authority or even rules.
Well, I tend to think that this buddha definition is clearer Angela and perhaps more accurate. Anthère
Consensus is;
Going on these definitions, consensus most certainly was achieved. Angela 18:04, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)
I'll reread all the recent versions and see what is missing from the one I just edited. - BuddhaInside
In reviewing the Encarta definition, I just discovered that when Angela selectively quoted it she left out the part about broad unanimity and all the members of a group.
For those who prefer the "general agreement" definition, I would remind you that the primary definition of "general" is refers to something the involves the whole, not something that merely involves a majority. - BuddhaInside
I have moved the dictionary entries here as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The content of them is summarised in the article. Angela
Pontificating about the Wikipedia's limitations with regards to consensus-building is POV. The only fact is the first sentence. -- Stevietheman 22:07, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Every sentence is equally factual (and Wikipedia was never mentioned). How can a restricted wiki be an infrastructure for reaching consensus? If the statement you've removed is POV, that means someone seriously disputes it. Who disputes it? In any case, I've removed the whole paragraph, as it is original research. anthony (see warning)
What is wrong with the extra text? How can a restricted wiki be an infrastructure for reaching consensus? Perhaps you can reword it an a way which is NPOV. I don't understand your objection, so I can't do it. As for the original research charge, where is the primary source if it is not original research? anthony (see warning)
You have not addressed any of my questions at all. anthony (see warning)
In following rough consensus from WP:RM (and the likes of WP:RFD), I find a redirect to Consensus that doesn't have anything on what a "rough" consensus is. I think the redirect needs to be dropped and expanded as an article to describe what a rough consensus is in terms of votes for these things. Thoughts? Cburnett 22:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page ought to have a history section. Who started using consensus and why? Does it predate the Quakers? I don't know these answers, but would greatly appreciate them being added in by someone.
-- ErikStewart 15:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The process of achieving consensus involves serious treatment of every group member's considered opinion, and a collective trust in each member's discretion in follow-up action.
I have a problem in understanding this sentence. What does follow-up mean in context? Actions after the consensus decision has been taken, or something else? / Habj 15:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This question may be simply stupid and follows from my poor knowledge of English, but in the last sentence of "Models of consensus" shouldn't the word "without" be replaced by "with"? If I gather, the peace activist weren't been beard because of the game theory model mastered the politics. 4C 09:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I "boldly" removed the sentence "Some claim Pennsylvania is governed based on consensus decision making, rather than voting," because I could find no evidence of such a claim, which seems prima facie nonsensical. Mark K. Jensen 08:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Could you PLEASE include the plural of the word "consensus" as part of your definition in wikipedia? Thank you.
(UTC)
Yep, it's latin...so why not follow the latin rules? Based on my rubbish latin knowledge censensus in plural should read consensi. I believe this is the second declension, nominative form of the masculin. The plural in Italian still is consensi in plural although singular now is consenso.
I just go by the rules: -um becomes - a, bacterium - bacteria -a becomes -ae, retina - retinae -us becomes -i, locus - loci
That pretty much covers the latin words in english I believe.
Latin declension on wikipedia will go into detail :)
I have added : "each of which exercises some discretion in decision making and follow-up action, since this is what it says in wictionary". wictionary and wikipedi should not contradict each other. DanielDemaret 13:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster lists 3 distinct meanings of "consensus": [1]
I'm particularly concerned with how the term is used in our Scientific consensus article, and in related articles such as Global warming controversy and List of scientists opposing the global warming consensus. I'd like to see our articles give proportions when possible, e.g.., what percentage of climate scientists agree with the UN's climate panel about the causes of global warming? -- Uncle Ed 10:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I think, it is a kind of weasel wording to use the term consensus in a political connotation. It is an urgent need in Democracy Theory to form collective wants and unanimity with the aim to ignore inconvenient minorities in pragmatic styles. The problem is a politcally correct ambiguity in the langguage. Of course, it is liked by democrats to enforce their policies. This connotation shouldn't be used in a scientific or neutral enviroment, but democrats are also on the way in Wikipedia. -- 84.60.196.216 18:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
this seems far below the standard i've seen in other wikipedia articles. i find the mathematical section unnecessarily obscure, and the references to peace movements requiring "consensus" by putting your body on the line doesn't sound like netural point of view.
The below was added as doxa subjective.
Often cited, consensus, has been a point of failure in what has been deemed "herd mentality" decision making, wherein the common masses, who are generally deemed sub-par in capacity for higher thinking, greatly affect the outcome of conclusions and decisions. In the same reasoning is made the ancient motto: "too many cooks spoil the stew". Another model for the many failures of consensus position, is the common addage of "lemmings following each other over the cliff's edge to certain death".
Please sign your posts using --~~~~ at the END of your text NOT in the edit summary. -- Fredrick day 00:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The plural of consensus is CONSENSI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.33.111 ( talk) 20:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
it seems we'll have to add another definition of consensus, based on the heavy work done by ISO during the OOXML fast track process:
83.28.68.68 ( talk) 07:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The concept of ijma in Islam addresses state decision making by consensus, albeit by the ulema (Muslim scholars) rather than the population at large. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.112.178.244 ( talk) 03:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey
I AM LOking For Consent Or To Think Well Of.--
66.131.190.6 (
talk) 16:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that the this article and the consensus decision-making cover roughly the same ground, so I suggest they get merged. maybe add a Wiktionary link for the dictinary definition of consensus? -- Ludwigs2 17:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I have just been doing extensive research on consensus decision making. I think the merge is a great idea. I'd like to give it a shot if Ludwig does not mind. -- TimHartnett 4 October 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimHartnett ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
whoops - I'm pretty sure we meant the merge to go the other way (into consensus, not into CDM). -- Ludwigs2 01:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Consensus decision-making which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 16:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)