Dealing with minority views

This page in a nutshell: This essay concerns the treatment of a minority group proposing an addition to a Main page that is not favored by the majority of editors contributing to the article. Ground rules are proposed for Talk pages that limit interaction between opposing groups to a formal, defused exchange of ideas, rather than an impetuous mêlée.

Minority opinion can be correct, of course, although the majority may not think so. Also, the minority of editors on a page in some cases may actually represent the majority opinion of the world at large (whether or not that opinion is correct).

Whether they are right or wrong, it sometimes occurs that the insistence of the minority on a page ultimately so exasperates the majority that both sides resort to extreme measures, such as violation of WP:NPA, WP:Civil, claims of WP:Disrupt and appeals to WP:AN/I and so forth. The result is a mêlée like the Jerry Springer Show or The McLaughlin Group. This unfortunate behavior is cautioned against by WP:Battle, and this essay is an effort to prescribe an antidote. It proposes actions that can mitigate such behavior, especially if implemented before matters escalate and the temperature gets too high.

It is typical of human nature under some conditions to interpret opposition as attack, leading to opposite camps. The ensuing engagement may lead to a shift in which side is the majority, or not. ^[1] On a WP talk page opposition can be productive if it leads to a stronger article, perhaps by clearer language, stronger sourcing, or a more nuanced view of the topic. To elect this behavior rather than a mêlée, the majority needs to be conciliatory and the minority needs to be constructive. A paradigm is suggested below with the aim of a productive engagement.

A limited and reflective interaction

In overview, the proposed approach is to structure the Talk page to include minority threads where the minority can assemble their thoughts and prepare a proposal for majority consideration with minimal majority participation. When ready, a formal solicitation for majority comment is made. Should rejection ensue, the minority is invited to revise in response and the process is repeated. The basic idea is to keep opposing parties separated and limit engagement to formal processes: proposal, critique, revised submission. Formal engagement will focus more objectively upon the issues, and lead to considered actions, rather than impetuous responses that often prove counterproductive. Further discussion follows.

Majority role

The majority should understand that they can always prevail, so they can afford to be calm. They have two tools at their disposal for use when attempted persuasion of the minority appears insufficient:

1. They can use the WP:3RR rule. The minority cannot prevail in an edit war, but the majority really doesn't want to reach that point. To avoid an edit war, to keep everyone calm, reversion should always be accompanied by a careful Talk page explanation of the reasoning involved. That explanation does not consist of dangling about WP:OR, WP:POV, WP:RS and other guideline acronyms as though they are self-explanatory. Any such guideline violations are to be explained in detail, referring carefully to exactly the wording or sources that are considered violations. The reason for such care is threefold: it promotes a civil discussion, it involves a thought process that may actually persuade the majority that there is some truth to the minority viewpoint, or vice versa, and it avoids using paraphrases or summaries of position that may not capture the real meaning of the parties.
2. If the majority so desires, they can set up rules to apply to Main page additions. For example, they could require a poll be taken and require a majority of yes-votes before changes to the Main page are made. If such a motion restricting changes on the Main page is agreed to, then Main page edits violating this agreement can be taken to WP:AN/I for arbitration, and the minority will become subject to sanctions based upon WP:Disrupt.

These two processes place the majority in a position to suppress any minority voice from appearing upon the Main page. That being so, the majority can adopt a generous stance to a minority opinion, and even entertain openness of mind. They can keep paramount the goals of clear exposition, strong sourcing and balance of views. In particular,

1. The majority should allow the minority to discuss among themselves in their own threads how to present their view to the majority.
2. The majority should participate in these threads minimally, only to assist the minority in meeting the majority objections. The majority definitely should refrain from interruption of minority deliberations with catcalls, snowballing, bandwagonning, sneers, diversionary red herrings intended to distract discussion, and other disruptions. These are violations of WP:Civil.
3. The majority should refrain from claims of violations of WP:Disrupt, WP:Soapbox, WP:Fringe, WP:Weight, WP:POV, WP:OR, and so forth within minority threads. They are better confined to arguments for rejection when a Main page contribution is proposed.

Minority proposals

As is apparent from the above, a minority view has a hard sell to reach the Main page. It is suggested that when the majority has spoken against a proposed inclusion, the minority undertake a discussion thread devoted to preparation of a possible insertion in the Main article.

1. When a proposal for submission is agreed upon, the minority should open a new thread Proposal for Main page inclusion, which is devoted to inviting majority comment upon the minority proposal. Obviously, the minority should avoid inflammatory remarks about the majority view: the minority depends upon persuading the majority. This proposal thread should be kept brief, as the majority is liable to have short attention span.
2. The majority should author a thread to crique the proposal. If possible, modification of the proposal should be suggested, rather than rejection. Reasons why this proposal still does not meet earlier objections should be clear. Testy, short rebuffs should be avoided. Claims of guideline violations should be supported, not just claimed.
3. If rejection occurs, the majority comment should be constructive: reasons for rejection should be clearly stated; and modifications for an acceptable submission should be presented, if such is possible.
4. Following a rejection, the majority commentary should be used by the minority in a new thread to draft a new proposal, and the procedure repeated.
5. After a few iterations, it is likely that the minority will exhaust all avenues to persuade the majority. Unfortunately for inclusion, the editors involved at this time are beyond persuasion (rightly or wrongly). The minority then has two options:
   1. Make a Request for Comments in hopes of interesting a wider cross-section of editors, or
   2. Desist, usually the best of the two choices.

In summary

Use of these suggestions may help to avoid endless debate and ill will, and although complex, is preferable to ending up in very time-consuming arbitration with the possibility of outcomes neither party welcomes nor anticipates: for example, page locking, banning of individual editors and so forth.

In-line notes and references

General references

• Yvonne Rydin (2003). Conflict, consensus, and rationality in environmental planning: an institutional discourse approach. Oxford University Press. ISBN  0199255199.
• CR Shalizi and AC Thomas (2010). "Homophily and contagion are generically confounded in observational social network studies" (PDF). ArXiv preprint.

See also

• Wikipedia:Consensus

Outside links

• Burgess and Spangler Consensus building
• Process Guides on consensus
• Neil Corcoran Consensus – how to and why