Wikipedia talk:Consensus/Archive 2

message: This whole concept is entirely outmoded. Is there a template for policies we used to believe in but have now been trashed? Grace Note 04:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Without examples you're not going to get very far. And I still see consensus is hard at work on FAC. Johnleemk | Talk 13:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now outmoded 

message: In several of the articles touching on biology's Theory of Evolution, a team of contributors has managed to push their own POV (rather than conforming to Wikipedia:NPOV, which is also a violation of the Wikipedia:Consensus guideline:
:At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus.
They told me that it was "consensus" and teamed up to revert any changes I made to articles like Intelligent design, using edit summaries like rv to consensus. They insisted that any changes I made be discussed and get their approval first. 
I mistakenly thought that by undoing their unexplained, undiscussed and anti-NPOV reversions (up to 3 times per day) I might achieve a breakthrough, but this failed for two reasons:
#I'm too sloppy to keep count, and I unwittingly violated 3RR.
#You can't fight fire with fire. 
I'd like to see some discussion on the concept of group ownership of articles (which I think would be bad policy) vs. the idea of requiring neutrality even when a supermajority wants to use an article to make their favored viewpoint look good and keep out any information which disparages that viewpoint or favors another one. --Uncle Ed 13:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CON never trumps WP:NPOV, but the fact is Ed, you were pushing a pro-ID pov there. You failed on talk page each time because your notions could not overcome verifiable facts. FeloniousMonk 15:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: CON doesn't trump NPOV.  The consensus Ed chose to ignore at the ID page is a carefully constructed agreement which takes into account criticisms from both sides of the issue and tried to balance these opinions within the rules of policy.  In a blizzard of edits Ed introduced material that not only took the articles away from NPOV, in many cases they included factually inaccurate information which flatly contradicted information elsewhere on the page.  And as for talk pages - you need to discuss the content of your change, not simply use them to complain about tactics.  Guettarda 15:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, but Ed rarely seems to tell the whole story -- but that's been part of his m.o. at least in the time since I joined Wikipedia.  Also, for someone who used to be an admin, it's odd how he's seems to not comprehend the rules...ah, but "seems" is the key word.  It's all just a charade of course...Ed plays the "nice old uncle", tries to float stuff he knows has no bouyancy, then gets mad when it's reverted.  Now I can understand getting mad when something gets reverted, but rather than sulk, debate the content of the edit, explain why you felt it was a good edit.  Is that what the good uncle does?  Nay, he proceeds to write pitiable faux cris-de-coeur that essentially boil down to, "Poor, poor me, I am the Poor destested uncle".  But then, what do I know, I'm a "reality-based-thinker".  •Jim62sch• 20:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: An apropos classic from 2001 "I try to remove "bias" from Wikipedia articles on controversies dear to me, but I recognize that what I call "bias" may merely be ideas I misunderstand. I may in some cases also fail to distinguish between personal belief and documented fact, whether through wishful thinking or sheer sloppiness. Feel free to set me straight at any time. When I feel I've absorbed the lesson, I'll add it to my /Learning page" •Jim62sch• 21:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased writing, enforced by a majority 

message: I organised a poll on renaming Munich massacre to Munich Olympics massacre which attracted only 4 commenters, basically 2.5-1 in favour of a move.  After the move, another (fifth) editor moved it back claiming "lack of consensus".  I'm not particularly bothered either way about the name, but I put some effort into organising the poll and I'm a bit peeved it was changed back unilaterally.  I was surprised so few people bothered to participate, especially when 2 more supporters of the original name arrived after the vote.  Perhaps this might have been avoided if discussion had been left open for more than the prescribed 5 days, to establish a clearer mandate for change; but the move back did not occur for another 2 weeks.  Or is 2.5-1 too small a mandate for change?  It's my impression that most Wikipedia polls involve very small numbers of participants. jnestorius(talk) 17:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What if you reach a consensus and there's nobody there?

message: Is it just me or does this article seem vague to the point of being un-useful? It doesn't say what "consensus" means for wikipedia guideline except to say that it is similar to a supermajority which also is undefined in the article, but just linked. Shouldn't there at least be some % guideline? --Fandyllic 6:48 AM PDT 12 Aug 2006
: No, consensus is not %. Kim Bruning 15:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Consensus is unhelpful 

message: I see Kim Bruning has deleted an extensive section including:
:At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and claim widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus.
:The preferred way to deal with this problem is to draw the attention of other editors to the issue by one of the methods of dispute resolution, such as consulting a third party, filing a request for comment (on the article in question), and requesting mediation. Enlarging the pool will prevent the railroading of articles by a dedicated few. Those who find that their facts and point of view are being excluded by a large group of editors should at least consider that they may be mistaken.
I have adapted the deleted text slightly.  I still think this is good advice (I admit I wrote some of it). This section does not mention "policy", so I wonder if it is objectionable in itself. Septentrionalis 20:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, well check context and put it back then! Sheesh! :-) Kim Bruning 20:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought this page might as well be edited by consensus. ;-> Septentrionalis 20:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, and this involves ignoring all rules and being bold in editing the page; though not to the point of being a dick, of course. The (3) wiki process will then ensue, with other people editing or reverting, leading to a form of consensus in the medium to long term (days to weeks). Incidentally, do try to be as neutral as possible, as that makes gaining consensus easier. :-) Kim Bruning 09:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good advice?

message: :"Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal."  -- Jimmy Wales
Consensus can sometimes be hard to achieve in practice, and often harder to measure. Consensus polling is a method of adducing consensus for a given proposal, using a structured polling method which can easily indicate how many people are in support of a proposal, and how many people are not yet in support of a proposal.
A consensus poll is unlike traditional (evil) votes, which produce winners and losers; in a consensus poll there is only one proposal, which can be edited by the participants in the poll. This method aims to help people achieve a high level of consensus, rather than a low level of consensus (such as a mere majority or supermajority). Having only a single proposal aims to ensure that participants do actually work together to achieve a result which pleases as many people as possible, rather than encouraging them to compete against each other in order for their own proposal to succeed.
More information about consensus polling can be found at consensuspolling.org, and at the MeatballWiki. I encourage people who are interested in this method to try it out; the proposal page already contains a full set of instructions for setting up a new poll. I also encourage people to leave their comments at the talk page. --bainer (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus polling 

message: At least by percentage, I think this page actually describes every WP:BEANS opposition to consensus there is, written by opponents, with practically no text from proponents :-) Kim Bruning 10:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is currently anti-consensus

message: It's my opinion that we need some sort of addition to the page, to address those "tyranny of the minority" situations which block constructive action.  For example, I'm dealing with a situation right now in a set of articles, where there are a large group of editors involved, but there are two or three who always seem to consistently disagree with the majority.  They're not crackpots -- they're hard workers, generally good editors, and are civil in discussions.  But they're stubborn and want their way, and this frequently causes problems. An issue will come up, the community as a whole will discuss it, a consensus (or what I regard as a consensus) will emerge among the majority, and then the naysayer minority group digs their heels in and won't go along.  They're polite about it, but they're firm that they disagree, and then we get stuck.  The naysayers say that as long as they disagree, that there is not a "consensus," and so the issue cannot be addressed.  When straw polls are held to show that the majority agree with a certain course of action, sometimes 3:1 or 4:1 in favor, the minority speaks up and says that numbers don't matter, since it still isn't a "consensus" as long as they disagree. These kinds of stalemates can drag on for months, and are frustrating to all involved.  Has anyone dealt with situations like this?  What is recommended?  Sometimes it seems that the only course of action is for the majority to simply ignore the minority and move forward.  
Perhaps it might be useful to follow the lead of AfD discussions? For example, an article is nominated for deletion, the community discusses it, sometimes there are strong opinions on both sides of the issue, and then an uninvolved admin simply has to come in and make a decision, even if that means going against the opinion of a few well-meaning people in the minority.  Is that "consensus"?  Perhaps we may want to add some technique like this to this page?  The idea of bringing in an uninvolved admin to review a discussion, and make a decision, one way or the other? --Elonka 04:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tyranny of the minority

message: An anon made this edit, which may be summarized thus:
:Don't say "I think..." so-and-so; go look up the proper rules: For units, go to BIPM and use SI; for other norms, consult ISO, the Academy of Sciences, and so forth.  
For the record, I think this is wrong. The English language has always done without an Academy; usage is determined by the whole body of speakers, and learned societies are only advisory. Consensus of anglophone Wikipedians is as close as we can get to the actual authority on these subjects - although we should look at and consider the opinions of standard-making bodies. Septentrionalis 20:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For including in an article, you just state facts: "according to SI rules, this unit is expressed as whatever".  For how we use things, you use our WP:Manual of Style, which is decided on consensus, but usually follows standards and generally-accepted rules. — Omegatron 16:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Follow the rules

message: It seems strange to me that an encyclopedia that insists articles must be based on evidence allows a voting system based on prejudice (more predi-juice). At the very least anyone voting should state whether they know anything about the subject or whether e.g. they have checked the internet/books etc.
Even one person saying to keep based on evidence should outweigh any number of people simply expressing their opinion. --Mike 09:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't surprise me if many editors both had those concerns when they begin editing, and still, to some small extent, hold those concerns.  Its practically intuitive to be concerned in that area (I think).  But it does seem to mostly work without too many feathers being ruffled. Terryeo 14:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence based voting and Consensus 

message: This article presents concensus as common and the need for dispute resolution as rare. My experience is the opposite. I have filed dozens of Requests for comments and I will file dozens more. Can we change the guideline accordingly? If not, then please explain me how this guideline is not naive and unrealistic. Andries 20:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true!--Darrendeng 13:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Consensus, like NPOV, is one of the goals we strive for even if we don't always reach it in practice. In my experience, the need for dispute resolution is both frequent (in that it happens many times a week) and rare (in that it happens in a small minority of cases). We do have quite a lot of cases on RFC and RFM, but in contrast with the sheer amount of users and articles on Wikipedia, it's not quite as bad as it seems. (Radiant) 16:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Concensus is rare and the need for dispute resolution is frequent