![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 24 |
I note that we have recently had a lot of debates about whether various WikiProject specific guidelines conflict with more generalized guidelines (especially the MOS). I also note that in almost all of these debates, sooner or later someone points to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to make the argument that the generalized guideline should trump the WikiProject guideline. The assumption being that the generalized guideline reflects a broader consensus than the "local" WikiProject's consensus.
I don't want to re-argue those specific debate... my question is whether WP:LOCALCONSENSUS really applies to every WikiProject guideline? The problem, of course, is that not all WikiProjects are equal. Some are small - with only a few active editors involved... and for these I completely agree that LOCAL applies. Others, however, are very large - with hundreds of active editors... and I am not so sure that it is appropriate to call a consensus reached by one of these larger WikiProjects "LOCAL". Indeed, it is possible that a consensus at a WikiProject's guideline may actually reflect a broader consensus than one reached at a "generalized" guideline.
I don't have a firm answer to this dilemma ... but I do think we need some discussion about it. The recent debates tell me that we need to reach a clearer consensus on what does and does not qualify as a LOCAL consensus. Blueboar ( talk) 12:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Have a look at User:Andrewa/consensus is consensus for some other thoughts on this. Comments welcome there or here. Andrewa ( talk) 19:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Iterating: Non-negotiable policies which are "ignored" by editors are still policy and can be enforced by any editor at all who actually understands why the policies exist. If we allow any group to make up their own rules contrary to core policy, then the project is Wertlos utterly. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 03:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
One distinction is that if an editor were to ignore BLP repeatedly, he would end up being blocked or banned, but I can't imagine anyone being sanctioned for ignoring the MoS.
To return to Blueboar's point, lots of WikiProjects make their own style decisions, based on the specialist sources or the editors' own preferences. Some of these projects have larger numbers of editors engaged than the MoS does, so to call the former "local" consensus in order to undermine it seems wrong-headed. I agree that we don't want local groups deciding to ignore core policy, but when it comes to guidelines I can't see that anyone has the right to tell a WikiProject what to do. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
A far more productive course of action would be to short-circuit the entire us-vs-them WikiProject system. Move them to something verb-based (WikiWorking Football?, I dunno), so people stop territorially identifying with them, and take other measures to put an end to this factionalism and walled city-state mentality, which has been worsening not improving over time. WikiProject insularity is WP:Esperanza all over again, times 100, with far worse and farther reaching negative effects.
No one cares about a wikiproject essay coming up with a style "rule" that doesn't grossly violate normal English language usage in ways that bring the project into general disrepute among mainstream observers and distract or anger average readers into mentally rebelling against what they're reading, for no net gain. Our readers (who of course may individually be specialists in some area) grossly outnumber any specialists insisting on some parituclar quirk, usually in conflict with some other specialty's demands, and in conflict with our needs, and in conflict with major style guides on English language writing.
When something the more vocal members of a project insist on may trigger concerns like these, the burden is solidly on the their shoulders to convince the community that what they're doing is the option that is most helpful to the encyclopedia and the largest percentage of its readers (note this is not the same as "common in that field's specialist publications"). On style matters, this is best done at WT:MOS, because far too few people watchlist its subpages or the NC pages to gauge actual consensus, and it's quite trivial to quietly engage in WP:GAMING and poll-stacking those backwaters to erect WP:False consensus. All of this "MOS isn't really a guideline and doesn't really have consensus" business is untenable. MOS is one of the most-watchlisted projectpages on the whole system. It is our style guide, and it does reflect site-wide consensus. Consensus does not mean "unanimity" nor does it mean "exactly 70% or higher" or any other "gotcha" loophole anyone would want to exploit. If you remove the {{ Guideline}} from MOS and take it to WP:MFD you'll be laughed at. If someone adds that same tag to some wikiproject essay that conflicts with MOS, and you remove that and take that page to MFD, you may well succeed. Big difference. [Note that some projects studiously keep their "style guide" essays as part of their main project page...] As with any page, someone can push a pet peeve in MOS for a little while ( WP:BOLD is policy, so people can change stuff at any time), but it won't stick if there is no community buy-in over the long haul. It's frankly reckless to suggest undoing this centralization and having wikiprojects make up their own rules in conflict with MOS (or any other major site-side guideline).
There's also a lot of serious failure going on here to understand that policies are not set "against" guidelines; it is not a "my rule is a policy so your stupid guideline rule can go @#$% itself" pissing match (cf. nonsensical attempts to get WP:AT to "override" WP:MOS on style matters people can't get consensus for at MOS). Policies and guidelines both represent the same level of community consensus; they simply differ in what they address and how. [This gives the lie to attempts here to say "policies are non-negotiable" in the same breath as "guidelines cannot require anything".] Policies address concerns of vital importance to the functioning and survival of the project. Guidelines set out norms that allow the community to operate smoothly.
Misperceiving the relationship as a simple hierarchy is a fundamental error, like thinking that one's employer has authority over one's church (or vice versa), when they're entirely different kinds of "authority" in one's life. Nerds may like to think of it as something like the difference between HTML and CSS; they're both standards with equal buy-in, they work together, serious errors in either ruin your site, but their purposes and scope are very dissimilar, and HTML (policies) are required to have a site at all, while CSS rules (guidelines) are not, but the site would be unusable without them. Regardless of analogy, WP essays, including "wikiproject style guides " and "wikiproject naming conventions", are something else entirely. They're opinions (usually of one or a very small number of editors, but some like WP:AADD approach broader guideline status) that set out particular reasoned positions on something, and nothing more. The logic in them may or may not outweigh or even be applicable to other concerns addressed by and balanced in a guideline or policy.
PS: Another obvious flaw with the reasoning that launched this thread is that wikiprojects are not hive minds, and project members often strenuously disagree with pundits in the same project advancing WP:LOCALCONSENSUS "rules" that conflict with site-wide guidelines, because they know it's going to lead to nothing but strife. "WikiProject Foo says...." and "WikiProject Foo wants..." are rank, obvious fallacies, but they underlie this entire suggestion to change how consensus operates with regard to guidelines and project. WP:CONLEVEL is just fine as it is, and correctly recognizes that projects are nothing but pages at which individual editors happen to be collaborating on something. Wikiprojects are inanimate. In an important sense they don't exist. A webpage cannot want, decide, think, feel, demand, expect or prefer anything at all, any more than a stone can. I say all this as the originator of several active projects, BTW.
Finally, the fact that not all LOCALCONSENSUSes are equal is irrelevant. None of them are equal to or better than site-wide guidelines and policies. Any matter of LOCALCONSENSUS that should be a part of policy or real guidelines is something that an application of patience and reason (not system-gaming and tendentiousness) will soon enough see accepted. But most of you are using "local consensus" wrong. {{em|Actually go read WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. A local consensus in WP terms is not valid; it's something you're supposed to avoid, not seek to establish and crow that you have! "Our project has a local consensus to..." means "Me and some editor friends have decided the rules do not apply to us with regard to...". It makes you look like you believe this is a WP:BATTLEFIELD, and seem that you are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but to engage in weird forms of WP:ADVOCACY. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Did we perhaps make a mistake when we used the term "Local". That focuses people on location of the consensus, rather than the size of the consensus. I think we all agree that a consensus reached by a small group of editors should bow to a consensus reached by a larger group of editors... but I would say that is true regardless of what page the two consensuses formed on. I am tempted to propose that LOCAL CONSENSUS should really be renamed SMALL CONSENSUS. Blueboar ( talk) 21:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps we should have levels named by the type of article or consensus they apply to: Thus "Community-wide policy and guideline consensus" (level 1) (having broadest likely participation), "Project wide or policy noticeboard level consensus" (level 2) (participation generally those interested in a broad topic or a specific policy, or in discussions regarding a single noticeboard or Wikipedia discussion board), and "single article consensus" (level 3) (smallest usual participation limited primarily to those interested in that single topic), with each properly ceding precedence to the higher level. Collect ( talk) 22:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the relevant distinction is large group/small group. This strikes me as an incorrect insistence on some kind of hierarchy, since editors working in small groups on an article might make better decisions than a large number of editors. It makes just as much sense to think the larger group -- abstractly writing necessarily more general principles -- will fail to appreciate the requirements of a specific article. However, I think there is some value in distinguishing matters that are entirely conventional from those that are not. "Go on green" is a convention that could be decided the other way as easily, but it's not something to dispute. Conventional matters don't suffer from top down decision making and that might become part of this project in my view. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 14:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The wikipedia system is "fuzzy " in all respects. How policies and guidelines are written, how they interact with each other, how they guide or influence the outcome of things. And so I think that trying to derive a broad specific answer out all of that is like trying to herd cats. But a accepted core part of that fuzziness is that certain metrics determine how strongly a policy or guideline determines the outcome of a discussion. These include:
The bottom line is that when a core policy clearly and categorically weighs in on the topic at hand, that trumps pretty much everything else. Things get fuzzier as the "metrics" get weaker. North8000 ( talk) 13:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Although it is widely misunderstood, wp:iar is also policy, and rightly so. IMO it's main use and applicability to to prevent mis-use of policies (e.g. by wikilawyering) contrary to their intended purpose rather than to override their intended purpose. North8000 ( talk) 22:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps add something along the lines of: "Where two guideline writing projects conflict, and the matter cannot be settled, a sitewide RfC, constructed with the aide of Mediation or Dispute Resolution (by project members and others interested) should occur on its own dedicated page or at VPP." Alanscottwalker ( talk) 13:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Given my concerns (above) about the fact that, sometimes, a consensus reached at a large WikiProject may actually represent a wider consensus than one reached at a relatively obscure guideline page... I am beginning to think it best to simply omit the issue of "WikiProject consensus" vs. "Guideline consensus". So... I would like to discuss the following suggested change:
My suggestion is far from perfect... and I am not proposing it as a finalized product. I'm thinking conceptually at this stage, and not focused on specific language. Please discuss. Blueboar ( talk) 12:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
limited number of articles(your emphasis), and taht adding mention of it to the guideline would be just instruction creep, it can't possibly represent something that
is a solid and wide consensus to invoke WP:IAR(your emphasis again). It can't be a molehill and a mountain simultaneously. BTW, are we talking about bird common name capitalization again, perchance? If so, your perception of a solid and wide consensus for it is a house of cards. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
[End of material copied from WT:MOS].
It's both intentional and crucial that CONLEVEL does not flow both ways. There is no shortage of "consensuses" of "hundreds of editors" to push all kind of WP:POV crap in articles, and it's easy to manufacture more of them simply by canvassing Internet forums to upset the balance in particular articles or even whole topic areas, but much more difficult to change WP policies in this way, because peole from all over the system, all walks of wikilife, watchlist our policy and guideline pages and are resistant to questionable changes being made to them.
SmokeyJoe (
talk ·
contribs) is correct that a big knot of editors in one wikiplace does not constitute a consensus if they're not communicating with another cluster of editors with a contrary view. And I certainly agree with his statement that the obvious solution is to discourage pseudo-policy documentation being hosted on WikiProject pages
. We even have a guideline about this at
WP:PROJPAGE, though clearly very few editors are familiar with it. But that analysis doesn't go quite far enough here, as I'll elaborate in a bit. I also agree that the term "local consensus" isn't helpful; it really is about insularity, about groups in effective isolation making up their own rules (and it's why, for example, MOS supersedes it's style sub-guidelines; few of them are well-watchlisted, and they frequently get POV-forked on various points.) —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
21:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Also (to reply to your later comment and Ring Cinema's, without forking my response to a different indentation level), your characterization of MOS disputes as just some self-appointed experts in conflict with some other self-appointed experts, so it's a toss-up, is missing something obvious: MOS's rotating cadre of grammarians and linguists and professional writers and English teachers and whatnot, with a strong background in language and communication, are experts (self-appointed or not) on style and writing, while topical experts are experts on facts in those topics, not on style and writing [except of course where they individually also coincidentally have expertise in that area]. It's a crucial difference. WP:SSF explains a lot of that difference's contours. Your position on this is directly equivalent to declaring that sci-fi fans trying to rewrite all of the physics articles to agree with what happens in "Start Trek" and "Star Wars" is just some conflict between camps of expert editors and thus a tie/draw. But there is no legitimate conflict in physics between physics experts and sci-fi experts, no matter how much sci-fi experts think they've absorbed all they need to know about physics from their sci-fi reading and writing and thus feel they, too are experts in that topic. They're just not [unless, again, they individually also have a professional or education background that coincidentally also make them real physics experts]. The idea that the average biologist is also a language usage expert is absurd.
Way more important than any of this is that MOS is a centralized guideline everyone can participate in and that a zillion people watchlist. It's hard to change on a whim, and it represenets a wide array of viewpoint. This is never true of any wikiproject talk page (much less WP:PROJPAGE somewhere proposing to be a "guideline". Even if MOS had no language experts on it at all, it would still presently the community-wide consensus on who to handle language issues of a genera style and grammatical and layout nature. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
At present the policy on WP:FORUMSHOP says "Forum shopping, admin shopping, and spin-doctoring. Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards, or to multiple administrators, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus." (Talk page archives show different versions of this line.) I suggest expanding the description to say "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards or talk pages,...." (Suggested addition in italics.) Thoughts? – S. Rich ( talk) 23:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Please critique my essay about "one against many" consensus situations at WP:1AM. Comments should be posted on Talk:1AM. Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 09:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
To address a specific type of a few against many situations, I wrote this essay, intended primarily as advice for RM closers: User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle. -- B2 C 19:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on
Talk:Crowned Crane about four articles related to birds species. The rationale is that there is no reason why bird names should be capitalised while Wikipedia recommends that all animal names should not be written with capitals. Please participate
to the discussion.
Thank you!
Mama meta modal (
talk)
09:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC).
There is now also an ongoing request for comments on the same subject: Talk:Crowned Crane#Request for comments.
Do not hesitate to come and comment on this question. Mama meta modal ( talk) 08:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC).
The discussion was closed (and the pages moved) on 26 March 2014, see Talk:Crowned crane#Requested move for details.
Mama meta modal ( talk) 20:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC).
An important discussion started on Talk:Crowned crane and Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 March#Black crowned crane now moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#A new proposal regarding bird article names.
Mama meta modal ( talk) 20:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC).
Just started a new essay at Wikipedia:Confusing arguments mean nothing. Would appreciate any collaboration.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 21:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#BRD cycle related to WP:EDITCONSENSUS and WP:BRD that may interest some editors who watch this page. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Should we differentiate between an "agreement between two editors" where no formal section seeking consensus is started from this process of actively seeking to accommodate the opinions of all the editors on an article or BLP?
I have run into such a case, and said that such an agreement is not the same as "establishing consensus" but one of my many fans has gone around posting that this is an absurd position for me to take, thus I present it here as a query.
Under what circumstances should an agreement between two editors to be regarded as any sort of consensus, especially where far more than two editors have opposed the consensus by rejecting it in edits on the article? Collect ( talk) 06:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Is consensus really something that is best described in terms of "Levels"? I am wondering if we should shift the language a bit, so we talk about consensus in terms of width and strength of consensus ... a narrow consensus (reached by a small group of editors) is not very strong and is easily challenged... a wider consensus (made by lots of editors) is much stronger and not as easily challenged. The reason why Policy/guideline pages are so difficult to challenge and change is that they represent a very very wide consensus (one that is Wikiwide). Blueboar ( talk) 01:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
The WP:ADMINSHOP section currently says It doesn't help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. Until I saw that it was protected, I was going to expand this to something like If your position has been rejected in one forum, it doesn't help... Another user came to me asking for an administrative action, and I said no, but I also told him to go ask other admins (and said to tell them that I suggested that he ask them) if he thinks that I'm wrong. That's not rejection: that's an admission that I could easily be wrong and that other admins might know better. WP:ADMINSHOP is meant for people who ask the other parent surreptitiously, not people who ask the other parent because the first parent suggested it. With this in mind, would anyone object to my proposed expansion? Nyttend ( talk) 05:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Consensus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
197.29.74.250 ( talk) 14:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Are there editors here who don't know that in the absence of a consensus the page returns to its last consensus? That is our policy. Rationalobserver, I am happy to discuss this matter with you and come to some kind of agreement. I let you make your case above, but when you denied that your proposal is dry, I thought it was a good time to return to the last consensus until we can hash out the basics. Sorry we are not in agreement. Do you have another proposal? I'm trying to think of a something we can both agree to. (BTW, BWDIKnow's objection was not about my content. His edit summary asked me to make my best proposal. I don't think that's good advice, but it's not an objection to my content, and it's erroneous to revert me for that reason.) -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 18:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Current text: "Consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions, and editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions."
I would propose the following: "Editors who ignore talk page discussions and reinsert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions. Returning content to the last consensus until discussion is concluded is a more orderly way to proceed." -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 06:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Alright, so now we've got no consensus as to what consensus is. And there's a bit of edit warring about it. If you take a step back it's sort of funny. If you take another step back, it's funny but there's obviously a deeper underlying issue here.
But nevermind that. Let's not get deep before we have to. My point is that that particular wording is not just wrong (I think it is, but I understand that others may think otherwise) but it's just a bad piece of writing. As in "it doesn't make sense". As in it's nonsense. As in it read like it was written by an eight year old. It confuses the reader, the editor who comes here for guidance. If *you* want it to reflect the fact that an edit which is lucky to survive, by hook or by crook, for a month or so automatically becomes "consensus", then write that down. Don't mince words. Just say it.
Like I said, the person who put that wording in there didn't actually mean for it to be permanent (that person got indef banned for other stuff, but nevermind). The relevant edit summary (you can go through the edit history yourself) pretty much says that this is just some imperfect wording that could be very much improved upon. But hey, it never got improved on, it just stayed there, saying silly things.
So remove it or reword it. Volunteer Marek 07:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Start a discussion, folks. Returned to last stable version, so let us work forward on this page instead of on the main page. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 09:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Volunteer Marek: one cannot assume consensus because of silence. Editors can post to a talk page and, if they hear nothing back, can proceed with editing. That does not, however, mean that any sort of "consensus of one" exists. This would simply revert back to the BRD cycle. If a long argument has resulted in one party quitting in frustration we shouldn't construe that withdrawal as a silent assent. In Wikipedia editing, no means no. Chris Troutman ( talk) 21:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. There are actually several problems with that sentence. Here is the sentence:
"This obligation applies to all editors: consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions, and editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions."
The first problem is that it's a run on sentence which conflates two completely different things. Editors who ignore talk page discussion and continue to edit war are in a completely different category than editors who come and make a change after there has been no discussion on a talk page for a long time. Yet, putting both of these into a single sentence makes it seem like they're equally bad. At the very least, the sentence is badly written and confusing.
Second, the beginning of that sentence talks of an obligation. "An obligation is a course of action that someone is required to take, whether legal or moral. " [3]. But then it talks about something that "can be assumed". This is grammatically incorrect and logically absurd. And what is it exactly that an editor is obligated to do? Assume silent consensus? Why? The second part of the sentence does not make sense with the first part of the sentence. The way it is written is simply embarrassing.
And then there's the gist of the matter. Whoever wrote this probably has very little experience in actually editing articles. If you've been around Wikipedia then you know that all kinds of junk makes it into all kinds of articles for all kinds of reasons. If somebody vandalizes and article or inserts a hoax into it, then it stays there for several months, does that mean that this edit has "consensus"? Yes, I know that's a bit of an extreme example, but I think it illustrates the point. Wikipedia is suppose to be an ever evolving and ever improving encyclopedia. There's no tyranny of the status quo. Stuff that's already somehow made it into an article is not privileged.
Of course the way that the problem often manifests itself is that on some medium to low traffic articles, one or two obsessive editors can bully and shout down anyone who disagrees. Most people have better things to do with their time than spending it on pointless arguments with nutzoids. So they leave and talk page discussion goes silent, the tendetious editor does a little dance of joy and boom! Their edits have "consensus" no matter how bad they are. Then someone comes along awhile latter, notices that there's problems with the article but now they face an uphill battle because they are "against consensus". Ridiculous. Volunteer Marek 21:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
In the absence of discussion on the talk page, editors can proceed until a reversion sparks discussion to determine consensus. Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions"? Chris Troutman ( talk) 21:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
This obligation applies to all editors: consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions, and editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions.to
In the absence of discussion on the talk page, editors can proceed until a reversion sparks discussion to determine consensus.It's moving the goalpost to saying that if there's any talk page discussion, not just if you stop responding. And it specifically mentions reverts, which I don't believe is a good way to frame this. Also, I don't believe you can just change guidelines or policies just like that, especially since this affects every single article on the site. Tutelary ( talk) 21:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Editors should continue to be bold until a reversion brings about a discussion.This is one example of good intentions, but would be bad played out. What about 0RR or 1RR where you can't necessarily revert something? What about administrative pages where you absolutely can't contest the changes? I believe it's well intentioned to remove or rephrase the bit for scope, but its wording does well now does itself do justice. We can't worry about what editors aren't doing, only what they are doing. The Varek thing you can see on my talk page. I quoted this specific sentence verbatim and here Varek comes to remove it from the policy. Tutelary ( talk) 22:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The text is appallingly unclear on how to balance WP:AGF and WP:STICKIt doesn't need to. The guideline and the essay don't need to be covered in the policy of consensus. It's appropriately covered in their aforementioned articles. No need to insert some sort of specific clarification on here when it really isn't warranted.
WP:Silence, which is not just and essay, makes it clear that silence is the weakest form of consensus.This is something I really want to comment about, because I reverted you for it. WP:Silence -is- an essay, to which no editor has any obligation to follow, under any circumstances. This makes it pretty much irrelevant for this discussion, since we're discussing the policy of Consensus. Why I reverted is because mentioning WP:SILENCE and trying to say 'it can just be used for WP:SILENCE' when you're removing something from a policy can be entirely destructive, because people are not obligated to follow essays, only policies, and you're effectively changing how editors are supposed to do things, since they look for guidelines and policies for guidance. Also, WP:SILENCE could be representing an extreme fringe group of people, and was not argued, discussed, or at all. I can create an essay saying that anybody who disagrees with me would be wrong. I'd be in essence wrong but I could do it, and I'd be emphasizing how low quality essays are in terms of editor obligation to follow them; none.
My silence to date does not stop me from correcting anything. This sentence in particular unbalances the notions of WP:Silence.It doesn't need to, since WP:SILENCE has not had an RfC to determine content and does not have site wide implications if edited. It doesn't need to affect or employ an essay. Tutelary ( talk) 00:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok. Putting aside the substantial question of whether "status quo=consensus" (which I think is a ridiculous idea, but anyway) can we at least agree that the current wording is just horribly written, and doesn't make sense? It talks about an "obligation" and then fails to specify what the obligation is, and even switches to a "you can if you want to" kind of wording. If you track down the history of how this happened, you'll find that even the person who actually put that wording in wasn't happy with it and it was meant as a temporary wording "place holder" kind of thing, meant to be rewritten. Then that person got busy with other stuff and eventually ended up getting indef banned (lol!), although for, AFAICT, unrelated issues. In a way, the fact that this awful wording persist (for so long) in this page is a perfect example of why "no discussion" does not equal "consensus". And how hard it is to change something - which is blatantly incorrect or faulty - once it has "baked itself" into the text. Volunteer Marek 04:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure why or when this text was added, but it's absurd. That wording suggests that consensus is when you keep replying until you are the last comment, and that is what can decide consensus; it is not. The wording contradicts the spirit if not the actual wording of the rest of WP:CONSENSUS, and has no purpose in the policy page. Was there a previous consensus that determined that it belonged? If not, it needs to stay out until a consensus determined it belongs. - Aoidh ( talk) 06:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Are there editors here who don't know that in the absence of a consensus the page returns to its last consensus? That is the policy. Presumably if you are going to edit here you know the section on No Consensus. If you haven't read it, this would be a good time. No consensus means no change, for obvious reasons. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 06:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Based on your behavior, you don't know about No Consensus. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 14:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I said nothing about a silent consensus on this passage. Please cite the other cases where content on a policy page goes unchanged for four years and in your view isn't the consensus. Thanks. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 06:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Since protection ended on the 18th, nothing has been done here but revert the same change 6 times. On the consensus page, the irony... I have reapplied full protection here for three months (up from the previous one month). I protected the page in the "old" version, I haven't looked at the change and have no interest one way or another. But discuss it here, get a clear consensus, and then make an edit request. No other option seems possible. Really... Fram ( talk) 09:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Appears to me to be in the spirit of encouraging actual compromise about the content of any article. Collect ( talk) 15:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
What about simply saying: Merely outlasting others does not mean one can assert "consensus." (see: WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT). Blueboar ( talk) 13:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I just wasted about two weeks time, and got Jimbo involved because of a certain misunderstanding we had about the meaning of the word "consensus". In the world of professional group-facilitation, and as even defined in our own article on Consensus, it turns out that the word "consensus" has only some similarities with Jimbo's definition of, "partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal." I am wondering if when Jimbo first specified back "centuries ago" that Wikipedia editing would be based on "consensus", if he yet knew the deep and rich history of this word. I'm a Quaker, and we have been using the "professional group-facilitation" understanding of the word for centuries. With Quakers, it's kind of like the Entmoot in Lord of the Rings. We sit around and debate, until finally we all get tired and even those who might still disagree, at least agree to be silent. The discussion process is usually led by a facilitator who is hopefully neutral and who is responsible to try to "synthesize unity" throughout the discussion. This person is also responsible to give all views a fair airing and to try to point out unreasonable behavior. Then what is left is described as "consensus", and acted upon. With Wikipedia as it is now, if Quakers were to try it, it would be like telling everyone in the Quaker Meeting, "go ahead and do whatever you want, then we can all come back and talk about it later, or hack apart whatever anyone person might think any other person did wrong." Obviously if that were the way the Quakers operated, nobody would have ever heard of them!
Yes, I support User:Collect's suggestion, but still even further, I am thinking that it might even be better if, should any editor strongly disagree with another editor's recent edit, then that editor in disagreement should have the right to revert the contested edit, and neither of the two or more editors in disagreement should be allowed to post an edit on that given point until they all reach a "professional-group-facilitation" style consensus on the article's talk page. Perhaps silence by an editor for a week, might be equated to a vote of no-contest, but if argument still persists after a week then an Rfc could be made, requesting a neutral facilitator. Perhaps that would not only act to calm the perpetual edit-wars, but would also result in more stable and well reasoned articles. Scott P. ( talk) This comment first edited at 22:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC), last edited at 06:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
After more closely comparing the ramifications of both wordings, I can now see that, in order to better harmonize the two sections, the first sentence of the italicised wording above should probably read something like: Consensus can be assumed if the objecting editors stop responding for (the specified 'reasonable' time frame), (--added--) but the proposing editor remains, (/--added--) especially at (the last part of the time frame). (--added--) A failure to reach consensus can be assumed if no parties remain at the (end of the specified time frame) (/--added--) At least having some kind of a time-frame would seem to me to be better than the totally open ended system we now have. Scott P. ( talk) 17:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm lost. What was Blueboar's proposal? So far, the only one I support is Ring Cinema's (the one which he repeats in this section at 03:21, 26 October 2014, above). I particularly oppose two concepts/proposals brought forth here: First, the idea that two people cannot form consensus, at least in the way we use the term consensus here; second, the highly regimented proposal by Scott P.
Let's say that there is a strong discussion in which 7 editors come to a clear consensus, fully agreed, but with an 8th editor opposed who does not concede.
What should happen? Answer: Unless a consensus can be obtained for Edit 3, the article should be returned to Edit 2 because that edit was made after the article was in a stable state and no one objected or reverted when Edit 2 was made. Why? Because consensus is a means of resolving discussion and disputes, not a status or shield, because consensus can change, and because the vast majority of edits which are made without objection or reversion are good ones and need to be able to be retained. If Edit 2 is, indeed, a bad one and a good decision was made back at the time of Edit 1 then there should be no real difficulty in forming a new consensus to revert it. (On the other hand, there is a possibility that the prior consensus, though strong, from an objective point of view was awful and wrong and the opponent was the sole voice of reason.) Consensus is not a status or shield, it's a means of resolving discussions and disputes, consensus doesn't create stare decisis because everything in Wikipedia is subject to being changed. The only question is whether the proposed change has consensus, not whether what went before had consensus. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
"Stealth edits" has no real meaning for the purpose of writing the policy. Good advice isn't policy. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 01:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
There was some positive response to my proposal, so I'll offer it again.
Current text: "Consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions, and editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions."
I would propose the following: "Editors who ignore talk page discussions and reinsert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions. Returning content to the last consensus until discussion is concluded is a more orderly way to proceed." -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 04:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking that all the varieties you mention are not going to be covered here. The rest of the policy, I believe, covers the indeterminate part of consensus-forming that concerns you. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 21:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to try to meet Tutelary's and BettyLogan's complaints. During an ongoing talk page discussion, editors should assume there is not a new consensus until it is concluded. Consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions. Editors who ignore talk page discussions and reinsert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing. Returning content to the last consensus until discussion is concluded is a more orderly way to proceed. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 04:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Tutelary doesn't agree with removing the first original sentence and SmokeyJoe doesn't like my new try in the first sentence. I can accept that there is no consensus for these changes, so let me propose this:
Consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions. Editors who ignore talk page discussions and reinsert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing. Returning content to the last consensus until discussion is concluded is a more orderly way to proceed. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 20:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Here is what I think is a very boiled-down and simplified version of the proposal from the previous section:
I know this rule would be a bit more "regimented" than what we now have, but due to its open-endedness, what we have often seems to me to create unnecessary difficulties, and in my experience, from time to time seems to incite disharmony and bad feelings amongst editors, if for no other reason, than simply as a result of its unpredictability and its "openness to loopholes". It is my belief that the proposed policy above incorporates at least something from all of the many excellent suggestions and comments above, and "boils it all down" to a simpler and more coherent form. Thanks to all. Comments? Scott P. ( talk) 03:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely not. This proposal would determine content by voting rather than the strength of arguments. SPA's and fringe theory pushers would salivate. -- NeilN talk to me 12:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Gone for the next 12 hrs. Scott P. ( talk) 12:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I think we may have lost sight of the underlying issues (I know I have). This often happens in lengthy discussions... as participants discuss proposals and counter-proposals, they develop different conceptions of what the problem actually is, and start to talk at cross purposes. And so... I think it might be beneficial to take a break from considering proposals and counter-proposals - to take a step back, and re-state what the problem actually is.
First we need to reach a consensus that it actually is "a problem" ... and then we can discuss how best to resolve that problem.
Blueboar (
talk)
13:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to take up so much space here. Thanks to all who attempted to make constructive contributions to the idea that consensus, or lack thereof, might actually be something that is simple and quite clear to all, and that a clear well defined consensus should be required before edits are generally accepted. Who could ever be so foolish as to imagine that such a concept as a "consensus" might possibly ever be something simple and clear, a thing easily understood and agreed upon by all? Sorry for having been so bold as to have apparently let my imagination get the best of me, bating me with the hope that a consensus might actually be something intelligible, simple and clearcut. So I suppose the misty concept of whatever a consensus really is, and when one can actually act on whatever one is, must remain forever primarily in the realm of the mysterious administrator's mind. It would appear that the nay's now have it. Scott P. ( talk) This comment first posted at 02:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC), last edited at 05:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I find it to be of interest that while I have asked here whether simplicity, ease of understanding by typical editors, transparency of the consensus process, and clearcut results that do not typically require admin intervention, should be aims of this discussion, my voice appears to have fallen mostly on deaf ears, with apparently no mention of these specific aims by most others here, instead apparently preferring to debaqte fine points of language instead. No wonder the consensus process is such a relative mystery to so many. No wonder the editors on the page seem to have so much trouble even coming to a consensus about what a consensus should be. Interesting..... Scott P. ( talk) 22:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 24 |
I note that we have recently had a lot of debates about whether various WikiProject specific guidelines conflict with more generalized guidelines (especially the MOS). I also note that in almost all of these debates, sooner or later someone points to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to make the argument that the generalized guideline should trump the WikiProject guideline. The assumption being that the generalized guideline reflects a broader consensus than the "local" WikiProject's consensus.
I don't want to re-argue those specific debate... my question is whether WP:LOCALCONSENSUS really applies to every WikiProject guideline? The problem, of course, is that not all WikiProjects are equal. Some are small - with only a few active editors involved... and for these I completely agree that LOCAL applies. Others, however, are very large - with hundreds of active editors... and I am not so sure that it is appropriate to call a consensus reached by one of these larger WikiProjects "LOCAL". Indeed, it is possible that a consensus at a WikiProject's guideline may actually reflect a broader consensus than one reached at a "generalized" guideline.
I don't have a firm answer to this dilemma ... but I do think we need some discussion about it. The recent debates tell me that we need to reach a clearer consensus on what does and does not qualify as a LOCAL consensus. Blueboar ( talk) 12:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Have a look at User:Andrewa/consensus is consensus for some other thoughts on this. Comments welcome there or here. Andrewa ( talk) 19:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Iterating: Non-negotiable policies which are "ignored" by editors are still policy and can be enforced by any editor at all who actually understands why the policies exist. If we allow any group to make up their own rules contrary to core policy, then the project is Wertlos utterly. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 03:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
One distinction is that if an editor were to ignore BLP repeatedly, he would end up being blocked or banned, but I can't imagine anyone being sanctioned for ignoring the MoS.
To return to Blueboar's point, lots of WikiProjects make their own style decisions, based on the specialist sources or the editors' own preferences. Some of these projects have larger numbers of editors engaged than the MoS does, so to call the former "local" consensus in order to undermine it seems wrong-headed. I agree that we don't want local groups deciding to ignore core policy, but when it comes to guidelines I can't see that anyone has the right to tell a WikiProject what to do. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
A far more productive course of action would be to short-circuit the entire us-vs-them WikiProject system. Move them to something verb-based (WikiWorking Football?, I dunno), so people stop territorially identifying with them, and take other measures to put an end to this factionalism and walled city-state mentality, which has been worsening not improving over time. WikiProject insularity is WP:Esperanza all over again, times 100, with far worse and farther reaching negative effects.
No one cares about a wikiproject essay coming up with a style "rule" that doesn't grossly violate normal English language usage in ways that bring the project into general disrepute among mainstream observers and distract or anger average readers into mentally rebelling against what they're reading, for no net gain. Our readers (who of course may individually be specialists in some area) grossly outnumber any specialists insisting on some parituclar quirk, usually in conflict with some other specialty's demands, and in conflict with our needs, and in conflict with major style guides on English language writing.
When something the more vocal members of a project insist on may trigger concerns like these, the burden is solidly on the their shoulders to convince the community that what they're doing is the option that is most helpful to the encyclopedia and the largest percentage of its readers (note this is not the same as "common in that field's specialist publications"). On style matters, this is best done at WT:MOS, because far too few people watchlist its subpages or the NC pages to gauge actual consensus, and it's quite trivial to quietly engage in WP:GAMING and poll-stacking those backwaters to erect WP:False consensus. All of this "MOS isn't really a guideline and doesn't really have consensus" business is untenable. MOS is one of the most-watchlisted projectpages on the whole system. It is our style guide, and it does reflect site-wide consensus. Consensus does not mean "unanimity" nor does it mean "exactly 70% or higher" or any other "gotcha" loophole anyone would want to exploit. If you remove the {{ Guideline}} from MOS and take it to WP:MFD you'll be laughed at. If someone adds that same tag to some wikiproject essay that conflicts with MOS, and you remove that and take that page to MFD, you may well succeed. Big difference. [Note that some projects studiously keep their "style guide" essays as part of their main project page...] As with any page, someone can push a pet peeve in MOS for a little while ( WP:BOLD is policy, so people can change stuff at any time), but it won't stick if there is no community buy-in over the long haul. It's frankly reckless to suggest undoing this centralization and having wikiprojects make up their own rules in conflict with MOS (or any other major site-side guideline).
There's also a lot of serious failure going on here to understand that policies are not set "against" guidelines; it is not a "my rule is a policy so your stupid guideline rule can go @#$% itself" pissing match (cf. nonsensical attempts to get WP:AT to "override" WP:MOS on style matters people can't get consensus for at MOS). Policies and guidelines both represent the same level of community consensus; they simply differ in what they address and how. [This gives the lie to attempts here to say "policies are non-negotiable" in the same breath as "guidelines cannot require anything".] Policies address concerns of vital importance to the functioning and survival of the project. Guidelines set out norms that allow the community to operate smoothly.
Misperceiving the relationship as a simple hierarchy is a fundamental error, like thinking that one's employer has authority over one's church (or vice versa), when they're entirely different kinds of "authority" in one's life. Nerds may like to think of it as something like the difference between HTML and CSS; they're both standards with equal buy-in, they work together, serious errors in either ruin your site, but their purposes and scope are very dissimilar, and HTML (policies) are required to have a site at all, while CSS rules (guidelines) are not, but the site would be unusable without them. Regardless of analogy, WP essays, including "wikiproject style guides " and "wikiproject naming conventions", are something else entirely. They're opinions (usually of one or a very small number of editors, but some like WP:AADD approach broader guideline status) that set out particular reasoned positions on something, and nothing more. The logic in them may or may not outweigh or even be applicable to other concerns addressed by and balanced in a guideline or policy.
PS: Another obvious flaw with the reasoning that launched this thread is that wikiprojects are not hive minds, and project members often strenuously disagree with pundits in the same project advancing WP:LOCALCONSENSUS "rules" that conflict with site-wide guidelines, because they know it's going to lead to nothing but strife. "WikiProject Foo says...." and "WikiProject Foo wants..." are rank, obvious fallacies, but they underlie this entire suggestion to change how consensus operates with regard to guidelines and project. WP:CONLEVEL is just fine as it is, and correctly recognizes that projects are nothing but pages at which individual editors happen to be collaborating on something. Wikiprojects are inanimate. In an important sense they don't exist. A webpage cannot want, decide, think, feel, demand, expect or prefer anything at all, any more than a stone can. I say all this as the originator of several active projects, BTW.
Finally, the fact that not all LOCALCONSENSUSes are equal is irrelevant. None of them are equal to or better than site-wide guidelines and policies. Any matter of LOCALCONSENSUS that should be a part of policy or real guidelines is something that an application of patience and reason (not system-gaming and tendentiousness) will soon enough see accepted. But most of you are using "local consensus" wrong. {{em|Actually go read WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. A local consensus in WP terms is not valid; it's something you're supposed to avoid, not seek to establish and crow that you have! "Our project has a local consensus to..." means "Me and some editor friends have decided the rules do not apply to us with regard to...". It makes you look like you believe this is a WP:BATTLEFIELD, and seem that you are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but to engage in weird forms of WP:ADVOCACY. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Did we perhaps make a mistake when we used the term "Local". That focuses people on location of the consensus, rather than the size of the consensus. I think we all agree that a consensus reached by a small group of editors should bow to a consensus reached by a larger group of editors... but I would say that is true regardless of what page the two consensuses formed on. I am tempted to propose that LOCAL CONSENSUS should really be renamed SMALL CONSENSUS. Blueboar ( talk) 21:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps we should have levels named by the type of article or consensus they apply to: Thus "Community-wide policy and guideline consensus" (level 1) (having broadest likely participation), "Project wide or policy noticeboard level consensus" (level 2) (participation generally those interested in a broad topic or a specific policy, or in discussions regarding a single noticeboard or Wikipedia discussion board), and "single article consensus" (level 3) (smallest usual participation limited primarily to those interested in that single topic), with each properly ceding precedence to the higher level. Collect ( talk) 22:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the relevant distinction is large group/small group. This strikes me as an incorrect insistence on some kind of hierarchy, since editors working in small groups on an article might make better decisions than a large number of editors. It makes just as much sense to think the larger group -- abstractly writing necessarily more general principles -- will fail to appreciate the requirements of a specific article. However, I think there is some value in distinguishing matters that are entirely conventional from those that are not. "Go on green" is a convention that could be decided the other way as easily, but it's not something to dispute. Conventional matters don't suffer from top down decision making and that might become part of this project in my view. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 14:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The wikipedia system is "fuzzy " in all respects. How policies and guidelines are written, how they interact with each other, how they guide or influence the outcome of things. And so I think that trying to derive a broad specific answer out all of that is like trying to herd cats. But a accepted core part of that fuzziness is that certain metrics determine how strongly a policy or guideline determines the outcome of a discussion. These include:
The bottom line is that when a core policy clearly and categorically weighs in on the topic at hand, that trumps pretty much everything else. Things get fuzzier as the "metrics" get weaker. North8000 ( talk) 13:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Although it is widely misunderstood, wp:iar is also policy, and rightly so. IMO it's main use and applicability to to prevent mis-use of policies (e.g. by wikilawyering) contrary to their intended purpose rather than to override their intended purpose. North8000 ( talk) 22:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps add something along the lines of: "Where two guideline writing projects conflict, and the matter cannot be settled, a sitewide RfC, constructed with the aide of Mediation or Dispute Resolution (by project members and others interested) should occur on its own dedicated page or at VPP." Alanscottwalker ( talk) 13:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Given my concerns (above) about the fact that, sometimes, a consensus reached at a large WikiProject may actually represent a wider consensus than one reached at a relatively obscure guideline page... I am beginning to think it best to simply omit the issue of "WikiProject consensus" vs. "Guideline consensus". So... I would like to discuss the following suggested change:
My suggestion is far from perfect... and I am not proposing it as a finalized product. I'm thinking conceptually at this stage, and not focused on specific language. Please discuss. Blueboar ( talk) 12:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
limited number of articles(your emphasis), and taht adding mention of it to the guideline would be just instruction creep, it can't possibly represent something that
is a solid and wide consensus to invoke WP:IAR(your emphasis again). It can't be a molehill and a mountain simultaneously. BTW, are we talking about bird common name capitalization again, perchance? If so, your perception of a solid and wide consensus for it is a house of cards. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
[End of material copied from WT:MOS].
It's both intentional and crucial that CONLEVEL does not flow both ways. There is no shortage of "consensuses" of "hundreds of editors" to push all kind of WP:POV crap in articles, and it's easy to manufacture more of them simply by canvassing Internet forums to upset the balance in particular articles or even whole topic areas, but much more difficult to change WP policies in this way, because peole from all over the system, all walks of wikilife, watchlist our policy and guideline pages and are resistant to questionable changes being made to them.
SmokeyJoe (
talk ·
contribs) is correct that a big knot of editors in one wikiplace does not constitute a consensus if they're not communicating with another cluster of editors with a contrary view. And I certainly agree with his statement that the obvious solution is to discourage pseudo-policy documentation being hosted on WikiProject pages
. We even have a guideline about this at
WP:PROJPAGE, though clearly very few editors are familiar with it. But that analysis doesn't go quite far enough here, as I'll elaborate in a bit. I also agree that the term "local consensus" isn't helpful; it really is about insularity, about groups in effective isolation making up their own rules (and it's why, for example, MOS supersedes it's style sub-guidelines; few of them are well-watchlisted, and they frequently get POV-forked on various points.) —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
21:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Also (to reply to your later comment and Ring Cinema's, without forking my response to a different indentation level), your characterization of MOS disputes as just some self-appointed experts in conflict with some other self-appointed experts, so it's a toss-up, is missing something obvious: MOS's rotating cadre of grammarians and linguists and professional writers and English teachers and whatnot, with a strong background in language and communication, are experts (self-appointed or not) on style and writing, while topical experts are experts on facts in those topics, not on style and writing [except of course where they individually also coincidentally have expertise in that area]. It's a crucial difference. WP:SSF explains a lot of that difference's contours. Your position on this is directly equivalent to declaring that sci-fi fans trying to rewrite all of the physics articles to agree with what happens in "Start Trek" and "Star Wars" is just some conflict between camps of expert editors and thus a tie/draw. But there is no legitimate conflict in physics between physics experts and sci-fi experts, no matter how much sci-fi experts think they've absorbed all they need to know about physics from their sci-fi reading and writing and thus feel they, too are experts in that topic. They're just not [unless, again, they individually also have a professional or education background that coincidentally also make them real physics experts]. The idea that the average biologist is also a language usage expert is absurd.
Way more important than any of this is that MOS is a centralized guideline everyone can participate in and that a zillion people watchlist. It's hard to change on a whim, and it represenets a wide array of viewpoint. This is never true of any wikiproject talk page (much less WP:PROJPAGE somewhere proposing to be a "guideline". Even if MOS had no language experts on it at all, it would still presently the community-wide consensus on who to handle language issues of a genera style and grammatical and layout nature. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
At present the policy on WP:FORUMSHOP says "Forum shopping, admin shopping, and spin-doctoring. Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards, or to multiple administrators, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus." (Talk page archives show different versions of this line.) I suggest expanding the description to say "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards or talk pages,...." (Suggested addition in italics.) Thoughts? – S. Rich ( talk) 23:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Please critique my essay about "one against many" consensus situations at WP:1AM. Comments should be posted on Talk:1AM. Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 09:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
To address a specific type of a few against many situations, I wrote this essay, intended primarily as advice for RM closers: User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle. -- B2 C 19:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on
Talk:Crowned Crane about four articles related to birds species. The rationale is that there is no reason why bird names should be capitalised while Wikipedia recommends that all animal names should not be written with capitals. Please participate
to the discussion.
Thank you!
Mama meta modal (
talk)
09:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC).
There is now also an ongoing request for comments on the same subject: Talk:Crowned Crane#Request for comments.
Do not hesitate to come and comment on this question. Mama meta modal ( talk) 08:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC).
The discussion was closed (and the pages moved) on 26 March 2014, see Talk:Crowned crane#Requested move for details.
Mama meta modal ( talk) 20:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC).
An important discussion started on Talk:Crowned crane and Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 March#Black crowned crane now moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#A new proposal regarding bird article names.
Mama meta modal ( talk) 20:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC).
Just started a new essay at Wikipedia:Confusing arguments mean nothing. Would appreciate any collaboration.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 21:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#BRD cycle related to WP:EDITCONSENSUS and WP:BRD that may interest some editors who watch this page. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Should we differentiate between an "agreement between two editors" where no formal section seeking consensus is started from this process of actively seeking to accommodate the opinions of all the editors on an article or BLP?
I have run into such a case, and said that such an agreement is not the same as "establishing consensus" but one of my many fans has gone around posting that this is an absurd position for me to take, thus I present it here as a query.
Under what circumstances should an agreement between two editors to be regarded as any sort of consensus, especially where far more than two editors have opposed the consensus by rejecting it in edits on the article? Collect ( talk) 06:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Is consensus really something that is best described in terms of "Levels"? I am wondering if we should shift the language a bit, so we talk about consensus in terms of width and strength of consensus ... a narrow consensus (reached by a small group of editors) is not very strong and is easily challenged... a wider consensus (made by lots of editors) is much stronger and not as easily challenged. The reason why Policy/guideline pages are so difficult to challenge and change is that they represent a very very wide consensus (one that is Wikiwide). Blueboar ( talk) 01:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
The WP:ADMINSHOP section currently says It doesn't help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. Until I saw that it was protected, I was going to expand this to something like If your position has been rejected in one forum, it doesn't help... Another user came to me asking for an administrative action, and I said no, but I also told him to go ask other admins (and said to tell them that I suggested that he ask them) if he thinks that I'm wrong. That's not rejection: that's an admission that I could easily be wrong and that other admins might know better. WP:ADMINSHOP is meant for people who ask the other parent surreptitiously, not people who ask the other parent because the first parent suggested it. With this in mind, would anyone object to my proposed expansion? Nyttend ( talk) 05:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Consensus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
197.29.74.250 ( talk) 14:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Are there editors here who don't know that in the absence of a consensus the page returns to its last consensus? That is our policy. Rationalobserver, I am happy to discuss this matter with you and come to some kind of agreement. I let you make your case above, but when you denied that your proposal is dry, I thought it was a good time to return to the last consensus until we can hash out the basics. Sorry we are not in agreement. Do you have another proposal? I'm trying to think of a something we can both agree to. (BTW, BWDIKnow's objection was not about my content. His edit summary asked me to make my best proposal. I don't think that's good advice, but it's not an objection to my content, and it's erroneous to revert me for that reason.) -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 18:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Current text: "Consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions, and editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions."
I would propose the following: "Editors who ignore talk page discussions and reinsert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions. Returning content to the last consensus until discussion is concluded is a more orderly way to proceed." -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 06:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Alright, so now we've got no consensus as to what consensus is. And there's a bit of edit warring about it. If you take a step back it's sort of funny. If you take another step back, it's funny but there's obviously a deeper underlying issue here.
But nevermind that. Let's not get deep before we have to. My point is that that particular wording is not just wrong (I think it is, but I understand that others may think otherwise) but it's just a bad piece of writing. As in "it doesn't make sense". As in it's nonsense. As in it read like it was written by an eight year old. It confuses the reader, the editor who comes here for guidance. If *you* want it to reflect the fact that an edit which is lucky to survive, by hook or by crook, for a month or so automatically becomes "consensus", then write that down. Don't mince words. Just say it.
Like I said, the person who put that wording in there didn't actually mean for it to be permanent (that person got indef banned for other stuff, but nevermind). The relevant edit summary (you can go through the edit history yourself) pretty much says that this is just some imperfect wording that could be very much improved upon. But hey, it never got improved on, it just stayed there, saying silly things.
So remove it or reword it. Volunteer Marek 07:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Start a discussion, folks. Returned to last stable version, so let us work forward on this page instead of on the main page. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 09:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Volunteer Marek: one cannot assume consensus because of silence. Editors can post to a talk page and, if they hear nothing back, can proceed with editing. That does not, however, mean that any sort of "consensus of one" exists. This would simply revert back to the BRD cycle. If a long argument has resulted in one party quitting in frustration we shouldn't construe that withdrawal as a silent assent. In Wikipedia editing, no means no. Chris Troutman ( talk) 21:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. There are actually several problems with that sentence. Here is the sentence:
"This obligation applies to all editors: consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions, and editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions."
The first problem is that it's a run on sentence which conflates two completely different things. Editors who ignore talk page discussion and continue to edit war are in a completely different category than editors who come and make a change after there has been no discussion on a talk page for a long time. Yet, putting both of these into a single sentence makes it seem like they're equally bad. At the very least, the sentence is badly written and confusing.
Second, the beginning of that sentence talks of an obligation. "An obligation is a course of action that someone is required to take, whether legal or moral. " [3]. But then it talks about something that "can be assumed". This is grammatically incorrect and logically absurd. And what is it exactly that an editor is obligated to do? Assume silent consensus? Why? The second part of the sentence does not make sense with the first part of the sentence. The way it is written is simply embarrassing.
And then there's the gist of the matter. Whoever wrote this probably has very little experience in actually editing articles. If you've been around Wikipedia then you know that all kinds of junk makes it into all kinds of articles for all kinds of reasons. If somebody vandalizes and article or inserts a hoax into it, then it stays there for several months, does that mean that this edit has "consensus"? Yes, I know that's a bit of an extreme example, but I think it illustrates the point. Wikipedia is suppose to be an ever evolving and ever improving encyclopedia. There's no tyranny of the status quo. Stuff that's already somehow made it into an article is not privileged.
Of course the way that the problem often manifests itself is that on some medium to low traffic articles, one or two obsessive editors can bully and shout down anyone who disagrees. Most people have better things to do with their time than spending it on pointless arguments with nutzoids. So they leave and talk page discussion goes silent, the tendetious editor does a little dance of joy and boom! Their edits have "consensus" no matter how bad they are. Then someone comes along awhile latter, notices that there's problems with the article but now they face an uphill battle because they are "against consensus". Ridiculous. Volunteer Marek 21:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
In the absence of discussion on the talk page, editors can proceed until a reversion sparks discussion to determine consensus. Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions"? Chris Troutman ( talk) 21:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
This obligation applies to all editors: consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions, and editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions.to
In the absence of discussion on the talk page, editors can proceed until a reversion sparks discussion to determine consensus.It's moving the goalpost to saying that if there's any talk page discussion, not just if you stop responding. And it specifically mentions reverts, which I don't believe is a good way to frame this. Also, I don't believe you can just change guidelines or policies just like that, especially since this affects every single article on the site. Tutelary ( talk) 21:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Editors should continue to be bold until a reversion brings about a discussion.This is one example of good intentions, but would be bad played out. What about 0RR or 1RR where you can't necessarily revert something? What about administrative pages where you absolutely can't contest the changes? I believe it's well intentioned to remove or rephrase the bit for scope, but its wording does well now does itself do justice. We can't worry about what editors aren't doing, only what they are doing. The Varek thing you can see on my talk page. I quoted this specific sentence verbatim and here Varek comes to remove it from the policy. Tutelary ( talk) 22:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The text is appallingly unclear on how to balance WP:AGF and WP:STICKIt doesn't need to. The guideline and the essay don't need to be covered in the policy of consensus. It's appropriately covered in their aforementioned articles. No need to insert some sort of specific clarification on here when it really isn't warranted.
WP:Silence, which is not just and essay, makes it clear that silence is the weakest form of consensus.This is something I really want to comment about, because I reverted you for it. WP:Silence -is- an essay, to which no editor has any obligation to follow, under any circumstances. This makes it pretty much irrelevant for this discussion, since we're discussing the policy of Consensus. Why I reverted is because mentioning WP:SILENCE and trying to say 'it can just be used for WP:SILENCE' when you're removing something from a policy can be entirely destructive, because people are not obligated to follow essays, only policies, and you're effectively changing how editors are supposed to do things, since they look for guidelines and policies for guidance. Also, WP:SILENCE could be representing an extreme fringe group of people, and was not argued, discussed, or at all. I can create an essay saying that anybody who disagrees with me would be wrong. I'd be in essence wrong but I could do it, and I'd be emphasizing how low quality essays are in terms of editor obligation to follow them; none.
My silence to date does not stop me from correcting anything. This sentence in particular unbalances the notions of WP:Silence.It doesn't need to, since WP:SILENCE has not had an RfC to determine content and does not have site wide implications if edited. It doesn't need to affect or employ an essay. Tutelary ( talk) 00:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok. Putting aside the substantial question of whether "status quo=consensus" (which I think is a ridiculous idea, but anyway) can we at least agree that the current wording is just horribly written, and doesn't make sense? It talks about an "obligation" and then fails to specify what the obligation is, and even switches to a "you can if you want to" kind of wording. If you track down the history of how this happened, you'll find that even the person who actually put that wording in wasn't happy with it and it was meant as a temporary wording "place holder" kind of thing, meant to be rewritten. Then that person got busy with other stuff and eventually ended up getting indef banned (lol!), although for, AFAICT, unrelated issues. In a way, the fact that this awful wording persist (for so long) in this page is a perfect example of why "no discussion" does not equal "consensus". And how hard it is to change something - which is blatantly incorrect or faulty - once it has "baked itself" into the text. Volunteer Marek 04:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure why or when this text was added, but it's absurd. That wording suggests that consensus is when you keep replying until you are the last comment, and that is what can decide consensus; it is not. The wording contradicts the spirit if not the actual wording of the rest of WP:CONSENSUS, and has no purpose in the policy page. Was there a previous consensus that determined that it belonged? If not, it needs to stay out until a consensus determined it belongs. - Aoidh ( talk) 06:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Are there editors here who don't know that in the absence of a consensus the page returns to its last consensus? That is the policy. Presumably if you are going to edit here you know the section on No Consensus. If you haven't read it, this would be a good time. No consensus means no change, for obvious reasons. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 06:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Based on your behavior, you don't know about No Consensus. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 14:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I said nothing about a silent consensus on this passage. Please cite the other cases where content on a policy page goes unchanged for four years and in your view isn't the consensus. Thanks. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 06:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Since protection ended on the 18th, nothing has been done here but revert the same change 6 times. On the consensus page, the irony... I have reapplied full protection here for three months (up from the previous one month). I protected the page in the "old" version, I haven't looked at the change and have no interest one way or another. But discuss it here, get a clear consensus, and then make an edit request. No other option seems possible. Really... Fram ( talk) 09:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Appears to me to be in the spirit of encouraging actual compromise about the content of any article. Collect ( talk) 15:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
What about simply saying: Merely outlasting others does not mean one can assert "consensus." (see: WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT). Blueboar ( talk) 13:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I just wasted about two weeks time, and got Jimbo involved because of a certain misunderstanding we had about the meaning of the word "consensus". In the world of professional group-facilitation, and as even defined in our own article on Consensus, it turns out that the word "consensus" has only some similarities with Jimbo's definition of, "partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal." I am wondering if when Jimbo first specified back "centuries ago" that Wikipedia editing would be based on "consensus", if he yet knew the deep and rich history of this word. I'm a Quaker, and we have been using the "professional group-facilitation" understanding of the word for centuries. With Quakers, it's kind of like the Entmoot in Lord of the Rings. We sit around and debate, until finally we all get tired and even those who might still disagree, at least agree to be silent. The discussion process is usually led by a facilitator who is hopefully neutral and who is responsible to try to "synthesize unity" throughout the discussion. This person is also responsible to give all views a fair airing and to try to point out unreasonable behavior. Then what is left is described as "consensus", and acted upon. With Wikipedia as it is now, if Quakers were to try it, it would be like telling everyone in the Quaker Meeting, "go ahead and do whatever you want, then we can all come back and talk about it later, or hack apart whatever anyone person might think any other person did wrong." Obviously if that were the way the Quakers operated, nobody would have ever heard of them!
Yes, I support User:Collect's suggestion, but still even further, I am thinking that it might even be better if, should any editor strongly disagree with another editor's recent edit, then that editor in disagreement should have the right to revert the contested edit, and neither of the two or more editors in disagreement should be allowed to post an edit on that given point until they all reach a "professional-group-facilitation" style consensus on the article's talk page. Perhaps silence by an editor for a week, might be equated to a vote of no-contest, but if argument still persists after a week then an Rfc could be made, requesting a neutral facilitator. Perhaps that would not only act to calm the perpetual edit-wars, but would also result in more stable and well reasoned articles. Scott P. ( talk) This comment first edited at 22:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC), last edited at 06:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
After more closely comparing the ramifications of both wordings, I can now see that, in order to better harmonize the two sections, the first sentence of the italicised wording above should probably read something like: Consensus can be assumed if the objecting editors stop responding for (the specified 'reasonable' time frame), (--added--) but the proposing editor remains, (/--added--) especially at (the last part of the time frame). (--added--) A failure to reach consensus can be assumed if no parties remain at the (end of the specified time frame) (/--added--) At least having some kind of a time-frame would seem to me to be better than the totally open ended system we now have. Scott P. ( talk) 17:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm lost. What was Blueboar's proposal? So far, the only one I support is Ring Cinema's (the one which he repeats in this section at 03:21, 26 October 2014, above). I particularly oppose two concepts/proposals brought forth here: First, the idea that two people cannot form consensus, at least in the way we use the term consensus here; second, the highly regimented proposal by Scott P.
Let's say that there is a strong discussion in which 7 editors come to a clear consensus, fully agreed, but with an 8th editor opposed who does not concede.
What should happen? Answer: Unless a consensus can be obtained for Edit 3, the article should be returned to Edit 2 because that edit was made after the article was in a stable state and no one objected or reverted when Edit 2 was made. Why? Because consensus is a means of resolving discussion and disputes, not a status or shield, because consensus can change, and because the vast majority of edits which are made without objection or reversion are good ones and need to be able to be retained. If Edit 2 is, indeed, a bad one and a good decision was made back at the time of Edit 1 then there should be no real difficulty in forming a new consensus to revert it. (On the other hand, there is a possibility that the prior consensus, though strong, from an objective point of view was awful and wrong and the opponent was the sole voice of reason.) Consensus is not a status or shield, it's a means of resolving discussions and disputes, consensus doesn't create stare decisis because everything in Wikipedia is subject to being changed. The only question is whether the proposed change has consensus, not whether what went before had consensus. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
"Stealth edits" has no real meaning for the purpose of writing the policy. Good advice isn't policy. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 01:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
There was some positive response to my proposal, so I'll offer it again.
Current text: "Consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions, and editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions."
I would propose the following: "Editors who ignore talk page discussions and reinsert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions. Returning content to the last consensus until discussion is concluded is a more orderly way to proceed." -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 04:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking that all the varieties you mention are not going to be covered here. The rest of the policy, I believe, covers the indeterminate part of consensus-forming that concerns you. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 21:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to try to meet Tutelary's and BettyLogan's complaints. During an ongoing talk page discussion, editors should assume there is not a new consensus until it is concluded. Consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions. Editors who ignore talk page discussions and reinsert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing. Returning content to the last consensus until discussion is concluded is a more orderly way to proceed. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 04:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Tutelary doesn't agree with removing the first original sentence and SmokeyJoe doesn't like my new try in the first sentence. I can accept that there is no consensus for these changes, so let me propose this:
Consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions. Editors who ignore talk page discussions and reinsert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing. Returning content to the last consensus until discussion is concluded is a more orderly way to proceed. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 20:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Here is what I think is a very boiled-down and simplified version of the proposal from the previous section:
I know this rule would be a bit more "regimented" than what we now have, but due to its open-endedness, what we have often seems to me to create unnecessary difficulties, and in my experience, from time to time seems to incite disharmony and bad feelings amongst editors, if for no other reason, than simply as a result of its unpredictability and its "openness to loopholes". It is my belief that the proposed policy above incorporates at least something from all of the many excellent suggestions and comments above, and "boils it all down" to a simpler and more coherent form. Thanks to all. Comments? Scott P. ( talk) 03:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely not. This proposal would determine content by voting rather than the strength of arguments. SPA's and fringe theory pushers would salivate. -- NeilN talk to me 12:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Gone for the next 12 hrs. Scott P. ( talk) 12:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I think we may have lost sight of the underlying issues (I know I have). This often happens in lengthy discussions... as participants discuss proposals and counter-proposals, they develop different conceptions of what the problem actually is, and start to talk at cross purposes. And so... I think it might be beneficial to take a break from considering proposals and counter-proposals - to take a step back, and re-state what the problem actually is.
First we need to reach a consensus that it actually is "a problem" ... and then we can discuss how best to resolve that problem.
Blueboar (
talk)
13:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to take up so much space here. Thanks to all who attempted to make constructive contributions to the idea that consensus, or lack thereof, might actually be something that is simple and quite clear to all, and that a clear well defined consensus should be required before edits are generally accepted. Who could ever be so foolish as to imagine that such a concept as a "consensus" might possibly ever be something simple and clear, a thing easily understood and agreed upon by all? Sorry for having been so bold as to have apparently let my imagination get the best of me, bating me with the hope that a consensus might actually be something intelligible, simple and clearcut. So I suppose the misty concept of whatever a consensus really is, and when one can actually act on whatever one is, must remain forever primarily in the realm of the mysterious administrator's mind. It would appear that the nay's now have it. Scott P. ( talk) This comment first posted at 02:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC), last edited at 05:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I find it to be of interest that while I have asked here whether simplicity, ease of understanding by typical editors, transparency of the consensus process, and clearcut results that do not typically require admin intervention, should be aims of this discussion, my voice appears to have fallen mostly on deaf ears, with apparently no mention of these specific aims by most others here, instead apparently preferring to debaqte fine points of language instead. No wonder the consensus process is such a relative mystery to so many. No wonder the editors on the page seem to have so much trouble even coming to a consensus about what a consensus should be. Interesting..... Scott P. ( talk) 22:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)