This is a
failed proposal.
Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use
the talk page or initiate a thread at
the village pump. |
This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Wikipedia uses the words "vote" and "poll" as quick shorthand for what we are actually doing. It doesn't help that votes and polls actually look similar, so when many people first encounter a poll, they believe they are being asked to vote. This causes many misunderstandings, and is in fact not the case.
Decisions are normally made by consensus: an agreement to a certain course of action by editors. Consensus is not quite the same as unanimity. Especially when working with "rough consensus" (which is necessary to get past minor issues somewhat more expeditiously), the differences are rather marked.
Consensus is normally reached through negotiation. Rarely, but often enough to be noticeable, negotiators might use polls as part of their toolkit.
In the same way that a ruler does not change the length of your finger or make a new finger (it merely measures it), a poll does not change or make consensus.
What a poll can do is give you insight into where people stand on an issue.
Polls are typically used in somewhat more complex situations, where it might be hard to otherwise get an overview:
At one point in time, certain processes were also set up to use poll structured discussions. We still use these processes:
Poll structured discussions may not be an optimal way to handle particular topics, and people are making efforts to slowly deprecate them. Unfortunately they have become somewhat deeply ingrained, so this will take quite some time.
Especially based on current insights on simplification and scaling, we don't recommend designing any new poll structured discussions at this moment in time.
Having the option of settling a dispute by taking a poll, instead of the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of each side's arguments, actually undermines the progress in dispute resolution that Wikipedia has allowed. This is a strength, not a failing, and is one of the most important things that make Wikipedia special, and while taking a poll is very often a lot easier than helping each other find a mutually agreeable position, it's almost never better.
Polling encourages the community to remain divided by avoiding that discourse; participants don't interact with the other voters, but merely choose camps. Establishing consensus requires expressing that opinion in terms other than a choice between discrete options, and expanding the reasoning behind it, addressing the points that others have left, until all come to a mutually agreeable solution. No one can address objections that aren't stated, points that aren't made.
Yes, establishing consensus is a lot harder than taking a poll. So are most things worth doing.
While a straw poll is not a substitute for discussion it can be a tool for probing opinions especially outside of article content discussions, so that one knows who to talk with to obtain a negotiated consensus. Straw polls have been used on Wikipedia for such purposes almost since the beginning of the project. Straw polls typically don't have opening and closing times. Instead, they give editors a chance to chip in with an indication of their opinion, together with a short summary of the reasoning that corresponds to that opinion. It's a good idea to keep a more detailed reasoning in mind given the likelihood that your opinon will be challenged. A call for a straw poll may trigger discussions instead—that's not a failure, it just means that the issue is not clear-cut, which is what the poll set out to determine in the first place.
Sometimes it's useful to take a survey of opinions on some issue, as an aid to achieving consensus and an indication of which options have the most support. Surveys should never be thought of as binding.
Be aware that Wikipedia is not a democracy: A straw poll is not a binding vote, or a way to beat dissenters over the head with the will of the majority. If a large number of people support one option but some don't, this doesn't mean that that's the "outcome". It means some people are disagreeing, and those people's objections need to be addressed!
Editors considering an article-related straw poll must remember that polling should be used with care, and should not invoke straw polls prematurely. Note that straw polling cannot serve as a substitute for debate and consensus; that no straw poll is binding on editors who do not agree; and that polling may aggravate rather than resolve existing disputes.
Straw polls regarding article content are often inconclusive and sometimes highly contentious. In order to have a chance of being productive, editors must appreciate the following:
A number of formal processes, such as WP:AFD rely upon polling and help streamline the functioning of the project. In general issues are almost never resolved with a poll, merely where individuals stand on the issues is clarified.
These guidelines provide a framework that may be followed when creating a new survey. These are not binding in any way.
If you are posting on talk pages, asking experienced editors to give their opinion on an issue, make sure not to use language that may suggest bias.
Note that this is purely a sample of one way to organise such a survey—different circumstances may call for different approaches.
Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, and please add a (hopefully brief and well thought out) comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.
Discussion resulting from the survey would go here. If there were a significant amount, it might be moved to a talk page instead.
This is a sort of semi-sandbox, where points that are yet to be integrated in the main text can be kept
This is a
failed proposal.
Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use
the talk page or initiate a thread at
the village pump. |
This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Wikipedia uses the words "vote" and "poll" as quick shorthand for what we are actually doing. It doesn't help that votes and polls actually look similar, so when many people first encounter a poll, they believe they are being asked to vote. This causes many misunderstandings, and is in fact not the case.
Decisions are normally made by consensus: an agreement to a certain course of action by editors. Consensus is not quite the same as unanimity. Especially when working with "rough consensus" (which is necessary to get past minor issues somewhat more expeditiously), the differences are rather marked.
Consensus is normally reached through negotiation. Rarely, but often enough to be noticeable, negotiators might use polls as part of their toolkit.
In the same way that a ruler does not change the length of your finger or make a new finger (it merely measures it), a poll does not change or make consensus.
What a poll can do is give you insight into where people stand on an issue.
Polls are typically used in somewhat more complex situations, where it might be hard to otherwise get an overview:
At one point in time, certain processes were also set up to use poll structured discussions. We still use these processes:
Poll structured discussions may not be an optimal way to handle particular topics, and people are making efforts to slowly deprecate them. Unfortunately they have become somewhat deeply ingrained, so this will take quite some time.
Especially based on current insights on simplification and scaling, we don't recommend designing any new poll structured discussions at this moment in time.
Having the option of settling a dispute by taking a poll, instead of the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of each side's arguments, actually undermines the progress in dispute resolution that Wikipedia has allowed. This is a strength, not a failing, and is one of the most important things that make Wikipedia special, and while taking a poll is very often a lot easier than helping each other find a mutually agreeable position, it's almost never better.
Polling encourages the community to remain divided by avoiding that discourse; participants don't interact with the other voters, but merely choose camps. Establishing consensus requires expressing that opinion in terms other than a choice between discrete options, and expanding the reasoning behind it, addressing the points that others have left, until all come to a mutually agreeable solution. No one can address objections that aren't stated, points that aren't made.
Yes, establishing consensus is a lot harder than taking a poll. So are most things worth doing.
While a straw poll is not a substitute for discussion it can be a tool for probing opinions especially outside of article content discussions, so that one knows who to talk with to obtain a negotiated consensus. Straw polls have been used on Wikipedia for such purposes almost since the beginning of the project. Straw polls typically don't have opening and closing times. Instead, they give editors a chance to chip in with an indication of their opinion, together with a short summary of the reasoning that corresponds to that opinion. It's a good idea to keep a more detailed reasoning in mind given the likelihood that your opinon will be challenged. A call for a straw poll may trigger discussions instead—that's not a failure, it just means that the issue is not clear-cut, which is what the poll set out to determine in the first place.
Sometimes it's useful to take a survey of opinions on some issue, as an aid to achieving consensus and an indication of which options have the most support. Surveys should never be thought of as binding.
Be aware that Wikipedia is not a democracy: A straw poll is not a binding vote, or a way to beat dissenters over the head with the will of the majority. If a large number of people support one option but some don't, this doesn't mean that that's the "outcome". It means some people are disagreeing, and those people's objections need to be addressed!
Editors considering an article-related straw poll must remember that polling should be used with care, and should not invoke straw polls prematurely. Note that straw polling cannot serve as a substitute for debate and consensus; that no straw poll is binding on editors who do not agree; and that polling may aggravate rather than resolve existing disputes.
Straw polls regarding article content are often inconclusive and sometimes highly contentious. In order to have a chance of being productive, editors must appreciate the following:
A number of formal processes, such as WP:AFD rely upon polling and help streamline the functioning of the project. In general issues are almost never resolved with a poll, merely where individuals stand on the issues is clarified.
These guidelines provide a framework that may be followed when creating a new survey. These are not binding in any way.
If you are posting on talk pages, asking experienced editors to give their opinion on an issue, make sure not to use language that may suggest bias.
Note that this is purely a sample of one way to organise such a survey—different circumstances may call for different approaches.
Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, and please add a (hopefully brief and well thought out) comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.
Discussion resulting from the survey would go here. If there were a significant amount, it might be moved to a talk page instead.
This is a sort of semi-sandbox, where points that are yet to be integrated in the main text can be kept