Wikipedia talk:Consensus/Archive 1

message: well i like the way this is starting. I'm quite fond of a good consensus! Erich 05:42, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

message: Consensus should be reached by polite discussion and negotiation, but should never trump policy. I might add that at Wikipedia it should be based on reasons that support our project's goals. A reminder is clearly in order:
Wikipedia's only purpose is to create a free encyclopedia which is accurate, useful and unbiased. NPOV addresses the "unbiased" part of that, although many users are POV pushers and actively disagree with that policy. What is useful has never been pinned down, so there's a lot of trivia; more serious-minded folk simply ignore the trivia, as long as it stays out of the way (which it usually does). Accuracy is fairly well defined: we prefer reference to primary sources, and web links generally suffice for that.
Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy or democracy. It is not a social action movement (like "no nukes"). It has a purpose which is mandated from above. That is, the founders created an unalterable manifesto. (Jimbo controls the board he set up and has consistently refused to budge from his initial vision: accuracy & NPOV combined with civility.)
(Sorry if I'm meandering... this is a first draft.)
As a means to the end of assembling and organizing the articles, the wiki format was chosen. But it quickly became apparent that with more than a few dozen users, AssumeGoodFaith was not enough. A hierarchy of policy-enforcers came about despite the best efforts of anarchy proponents to keep everything level. I won't go into the whole history, but we now have an elected arbitration committee empowered to decide crucial issues (subject only to Jimbo's veto).
Civility is the other neglected value I want to talk about. Many people try to push the bounds, inserting nonsenses (I call it "graffiti") into articles; relentlessly reverting others' changes instead of discussing matters on the talk pages; choosing usernames and placing calculated to irritate others; and so on. All of this incivility is disruptive to the project.
Now as to what consensus is: first let us say what it is not. A quick vote by a dozen or two people in favor of letting someone violate a rule (or bend it) is not consensus. It's merely a poll. Uncle Ed 12:18, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
: I presume Ed is inspired here by this RFC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/Trollderella. The story: Ed, as a bureaucrat, renamed a user named Trollderella. An RfC was already underway to discuss whether the name was inappropriate. At the point of Ed's intervention, a count showed that 11 users thought the name was OK, versus 2 who opposed the username.
: As regards Ed's larger point: polls are an imperfect measure of consensus, but it's surely better than the opinion of a single bureaucrat. 
: In the specific case of Trollderella, the policy invoked by Ed cantains the proviso that sysops should only take action if their judgement is that a "rough consensus" has arisen that the username is inappropriate.. Certainly, no such consensus was evident in this case. — Matt Crypto 12:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus and polling

message: Recently there has been a move to change "Votes for Deletion" to "Articles for deletion" under what seems to be the ideas expressed in meta:Don't vote on everything. Both the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Requested moves have been edited to remove the word vote and encourage consensus. 
In the Westminster system of government, Cabinet decisions are consensual collective and inclusive. If as a member of the government does not agree with a decision (s)he can resign from the government; (as did several British ministers over the invasion of Iraq). This means that in the Westminster system of government the cabinet always collectively decides all decisions and all ministers are responsible for arguing in favour of any decision made by the cabinet. It is a major cornerstone of the Westminster system.
Wikipedia is very different, for all but uncontroversial trivial propositions, it is unusual for decisions on Wikipedia talk pages to operate on a true consensus. Instead they operate on a rough consensus where it is recognised that a minority are in opposition. The question then arises is how large must the majority be to ignore the opinions of a minority? I think that this page has it about right in describing how the community tries to come to a consensus and how it resolves disputes when a true consensus can not be achived. So I hope that the page does not come under attack from those who would like to idealise the process and not describe how conflict between reasonable Wikipedia editors is resolved in practice. To do that would be unfair on people new to Wikipedia (those most likely to read this page) who do not yet know how a Wikipedia rough consensus is arrived at in practice Philip Baird Shearer 11:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rough consensus

message: If a vote has to be held to attempt a consensus, is there a minimum to the number of people that must participate before it becomes reasonable to be taken as consensus? Erath 12:57, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
:4? --James S. 23:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minimum threshold? 

message: The final paragraph has been used to justify non-collegial behavior by several Revert Warriors for Truth. After all, if they're fighting a bad thing, they can ignore all rules. I would like to add something like: 
:The recommended way to deal with this is to draw the attention of more 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 consensus being enforced by a small group of willful editors. 
Is this a valid statement of policy?
Is this the right order?
Is it worth adding?
Septentrionalis 16:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds sane! :-) You could even mention third opinion, article RFCs (which I've been told need fixing) and mediation cabal. Kim Bruning 23:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute resolution

message: This is interesting. Brian0918 is correct about the numbers being added to make a point. That point was to satirize the Bizarro Consensus that too often supplants the real thing around here. I was trolling, and apparently doing it very well: nobody said a thing about it for six months, and now others are arguing, in all seriousness, in favor of a position that I only meant to mock. 
The numbers should stay out. They seem to have opened some eyes to the troubling behavior of operating by majority vote and calling it "consensus", but they've also strengthened the very behavior they were intended to correct. Many people missed the point of A Modest Proposal, but nobody seriously tried to implement it. —Charles P. (Mirv) 06:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "I am going to reverse the changes made since my last reversal" - this isn't how consensus works.  Have you considered allowing other editors to contribute and discuss their changes here? - Tεxτurε 20:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: You make a good point.  But I haven't reverted anything.  Are you speaking to someone else? - Tεxτurε 20:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Section break

message: What recourse is there for a situation where a majority (not even a consensus) is allegedly violating presentation neutrality? Isn't the {npov} template added to an article when there is an in good faith neutrality dispute? What if this majority then claims there isn't even a dispute and removes the tag? zen master T 01:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not (supposed to be) run by majority. If there's a majority trying to harm NPOV, you can especially ask for one of the older users to come in and knock heads together. (I'm a bit worried about some of the less experienced users and admins these days, they seem to think majority is right or something) Kim Bruning 04:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I liked the "knock heads" part :) +MATIA  ☎ 13:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: If you have time, I hope you'll stop by the conspiracy theory talk page. Your input would be welcome. Read the archives, familiarize yourself with the discusssion, and knock heads as you think appropriate. Tom Harrison (talk) 13:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, can some real outside people look at the Conspiracy theory article? I feel like I am being toyed with over there. I believe the {npov} template should be added to the article given the neutrality dispute(s), but your interpretation of the situation is your own.  zen master T 22:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to handle a situation of majority overruling NPOV? 

message: There seems to be a small revert war on this page.  So clearly, there is not a consensus about consensus.  I believe that the page should state that there is costumary numerical percentages, but I think it should be de-emphasized.  To start the article with talk about percentages, misses the important points that need to be stated about consensus.  We can continue to discuss the use of numbers, but I think it would be wrong to state any percentages as being firm guidelines. -- Samuel Wantman 01:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am ok with this, but since I don't like percentages and agree with Brian0918 on this issue, I am not the person who needs to agree. -- Samuel Wantman 02:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's do it here 

message: As requested, I took a stab at starting out Wikipedia:Supermajority.  Please have a look.  It's really short at the moment because I'm trying to not rush, and, I don't really know what else should be in it, except for a threshold for deleting templates.  With all the userbox controversy, that should most certainly be there.  My proposal from the discussion above is copied to Wikipedia talk:Supermajority.
Please help expand it and/or comment on the talk page.
Thanks to all of you who had the patience with my template question here.  I respect your idealism, and am glad that there is a clear consensus that in situations where consensus is unlikely to be achieved, such strict idealism should be set aside and a pragmatic numeric range is used for deletion decision making. --James S. 11:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Supermajority]] created 

message: Wikipedia:Supermajority was created specifically to remove the non-consensus related content from this page, now you want to merge it back? AFD, RFA, etc all use supermajority. Ask any bureaucrat. Why else would you want the numbers in this article so desperately, unless they were being used regularly? — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-16 23:39
*Removed. --James S. 09:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Denial isn't going to help the problem. The things I listed are for the most part decided by supermajority. Arbcom elections could in thoery be decided by striaght majorities under jimbo's rules if you consider the theoretical case where only a few people get 50%.Geni 16:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, was that directed specifically at my comment? I would like to think I'm talking about how things ought to be more than how they are. But I think others gave some counterexamples too. Apologies if I'm misunderstanding you. ++Lar: t/c 17:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Philip: does this mean you'll accept a supermajority, if they ask to remove the numbers?  Kim Bruning 21:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  History doesn't repeat itself, it rhymes. At any point in time you have numbers on the page, I get to hold a supermajority vote to take them back off ;-) Therein lies the technical difficulty of wikinomic (I'm considering ways of ending wikinomic in the wikipedia: namespace, but I'm not sure how yet). Kim Bruning 02:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge??

message: If we're going to use supermajority for AfD, then we have to do it for DRV, as well.  And why not RFA, too?  User:Zoe|(talk) 00:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: It has to work in all areas

message: <this space reserved>
Before we start rewriting wikipedia policy from scratch, let's get some numbers and discover if we need to. I've requested some graphs and statistics from gmaxwell, and I'm waiting until he gets home and can provide them. Kim Bruning 02:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gimme the numbers! 

message: "Rough" consensus means that everyone has the opportunity to be heard, and most everyone can live with the decision.  Clearly rough consensus is something other than super-majority.  For those processes where rough consensus is the goal for which we are striving, a poll is not necessarily the end of the process.  Further discussion may or may not be disruptive, but it should not be considered disruptive merely because a super-majority has expressed its opinion.  I think it is important that the policy make these points clear.  Otherwise, there may be a tendency to believe that polls settle matters, period.  --BostonMA 03:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: m:voting is evil does not appear as a Wikipedia guideline.  That is why a statement ought to be made in the consensus guideline that in cases where rough consensus is the objective, rather than super-majority, then polls do not necessarily end the process. --BostonMA 23:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: As in, a poll does not decide whether to accept or deny something. A poll determines if it's worth it to negotiate further :-) Kim Bruning 11:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, as in, a poll may be appropriate to affirm a statement (which was produced through discussion) as consensual, and to identify a vocal minority as such. A good poll ends the issue, but a good issue generally doesn't end in a poll. Radiant_>|< 11:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polling is not necessarily the end of the process 

message: As far as I know, this has always been a guideline, though I've often seen people claim it is a policy, and accuse others of "violating the policy of consensus". As for Jimbo's quote, it would be a personal attack and an ad hominem to call someone an idiot in a discussion, and I'm sure Jimbo understands that fully. This quote simply shows why consensus is more than just a vote, and why voting doesn't always work. People may have idiotic rationale, so assuming that their rationale are sound (by putting it to a simple vote) would be idiotic, as would attacking the people, rather than their rationale. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-21 22:46
*Policy or guideline is really not all that important a distinction. However, P or G pages do not have quotes on them. That's because quotes are easy to misinterpret, as is this one. Radiant_>|< 23:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Guideline, quote

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: Robert was surely aware of the early evolutionary development of parliamentary procedure in the English House of Lords resulting in a movement from "consensus," in its original sense of unanimous agreement, toward a decision by majority vote as we know it today.  This evolution came about from a recognition that a requirement of unanimity or near unanimity can become a form of tyranny in itself.  In an assembly that tries to make such a requirement the norm, a variety of misguided feelings--reluctance to be seen as opposing the leadership, a notion that causing controversy will be frowned upon, fear of seeming an obstacle to unity--can easily lead to decisions being taken with a psuedoconsensus which in reality implies elements of default, which satisfies no one, and for which no one really assumes responsibility.  
Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 10th edition, pp. xliv-xlv.
For your contemplation. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, Kelly, but the question then is: is pretending that we do things by consensus the best way of resolving that problem? Or is allowing the empowered to make unilateral choices, so long as they are willing to be "responsible" for them better? What form would "responsibility" take? I'm guessing you don't believe your "constituency" should be allowed to disapprove your actions, so how do you see it?Grace Note 00:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A comment on the concept of consensus as a governing principle