Kevin Murray (talk | contribs) →How consensus emerges during the editing process: remove flowchart until a clearer example can be developed |
Newbyguesses (talk | contribs) →Using the discussion page: the; remove repitition |
||
(34 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
{{Policylist}} |
{{Policylist}} |
||
Consensus is an inherent part of the [[wiki]] process. Consensus is typically reached as a natural product of the editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. In essence, [[Wikipedia:Silence and consensus|silence implies consent]], if there is adequate exposure to the community |
Consensus is an inherent part of the [[wiki]] process. Consensus is typically reached as a natural product of the editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. In essence, [[Wikipedia:Silence and consensus|silence implies consent]], if there is adequate exposure to the community. In the case of policy pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected. |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
Convincing arguments are needed in order to successfully implement changes to currently established project wide practice or to document changes to established project wide practice. Convincing arguments are those that can be expected to sway the larger community. |
|||
== Reasonable consensus-building == |
== Reasonable consensus-building == |
||
[[Image:CCC Flowchart 6.jpg|thumb|right|300px| A chart illustrating the basic flow toward reaching consensus. New flowcharts are being discussed on the talk page, and a new version shows up here once in a while, as a kind of meta-example of the <strike>consensus</strike> editing process in progress.]] |
|||
⚫ | Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can be reached through discussion, action, or more often, a combination of the two. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|good faith effort]] to work together in a [[Wikipedia:Civility|civil manner]]. Developing consensus requires special attention to [[WP:NPOV|neutrality]] - remaining neutral in our actions in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on. |
||
⚫ | Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can be reached through discussion, action, or more often, a combination of the two. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|good faith effort]] to work together in a [[Wikipedia:Civility|civil manner]]. |
||
<span id="Using the discussion page"/> Developing consensus requires special attention to [[WP:NPOV|neutrality]] - remaining neutral in our actions in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on. |
|||
== How consensus emerges during the editing process == |
== How consensus emerges during the editing process == |
||
''See also:'' [[Wikipedia:Editing policy|Wikipedia:Editing policy]] |
''See also:'' [[Wikipedia:Editing policy|Wikipedia:Editing policy]] |
||
Generally someone edits a page, and then subsequent viewers of the page have three options: accept the edit, change the edit, or revert the edit. |
Generally someone edits a page, and then subsequent viewers of the page have three options: accept the edit, change the edit, or [[Help:Reverting|revert]] the edit. Included in each of the courses is the option to discuss the action before or after the action. Many iterations of the consensus process are required to achieve a [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral]] and readable article. If your ideas are not immediately accepted, think of a reasonable change that might integrate your ideas with others and make an edit, or discuss those ideas. This can be done at the talk page, as an edit summary, or as a note to others at a user talk page or other widely read page such as the Village pump. [[Wikipedia:Edit war|Edit wars]] can lead to [[Wikipedia:Page protection|page protection]] rather than improvements to the article. |
||
== |
== Use of the talk page == |
||
:''See also:'' [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Central points|Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines]] |
:''See also:'' [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Central points|Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines]] |
||
While using the discussion page is not strictly required by the consensus process, the discussion page is often useful and you are encouraged to use it whenever practical. It is also a good idea to check the discussion page before making an edit, because someone may have thought this idea before, or discussed something that sheds more light on the subject. |
|||
Sometimes misunderstandings occur because people see the edit before any rationale is posted on the talk page. If you post a comment immediately ''before'' editing, there's no gap, which can be handy if you |
Sometimes misunderstandings occur because people see the edit before any rationale is posted on the talk page. As a tip: If you post a comment immediately ''before'' editing, there's no gap, which can be handy (if you do use the talk page for this "long edit summary" option, don't forget to actually post your edit immediately afterwards, or people will be quite confused!) . Other people might not have picked up on this practice though, so you may wish to wait a little while to see if they might still have been typing something at the talk page. |
||
Edit summaries are short and can be misinterpreted. The discussion page is a lot more spacious than the edit-summary field and if used correctly that space can go a long way towards attracting consensus for your edit. |
Edit summaries are short and can be misinterpreted. The discussion page is a lot more spacious than the edit-summary field and if used correctly that space can go a long way towards attracting consensus for your edit. |
||
⚫ | In cases where consensus is particularly hard to find, the involvement of independent editors or more experienced help in the discussion may be necessary. If discussion on the talk page is [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disrupted]], or consensus cannot be found there through ordinary discussion, there are more formal [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution processes]]. |
||
==Consensus in practice== |
|||
== Participating in discussions == |
|||
{{policy shortcut|WP:PRACTICAL}} |
{{policy shortcut|WP:PRACTICAL}} |
||
Community discussion takes place on various pages such as noticeboards, Requests for comment, Requests for Adminship and the [[Wikipedia:Village pump |
Community discussion takes place on various pages such as noticeboards, Requests for comment, Requests for Adminship and the [[Wikipedia:Village pump|Village pump]]. These processes require collaborative effort and considered input from the community in order to form a consensus and act appropriately upon the consensus that can be discerned. |
||
In determining consensus carefully consider the strength and quality of the arguments themselves, including the evolution of the final positions, the objection of those who disagree, and in complex situations, existing documentation in the project namespace. [[Minority]] opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and the logic may outweigh the logic of the majority. [[WP:BITE|New users]] who are not yet familiar with consensus should realize that a poll (if one is even held) is often more likely to be the start of a discussion than it is to be the end of one. The outcome may be decided ''during discussion''. This is a good reason for providing a rationale during a poll, not just a simple vote. |
|||
Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome. The following description of consensus, from the [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/026513.html mailing list], argues a difference between consensus and unanimity: |
|||
<blockquote> |
|||
''In fact WP's standard way of operating is a rather good illustration of what it does mean: a mixture across the community of those who are largely agreed, some who disagree but 'agree to disagree' without disaffection, those who don't agree but give low priority to the given issue, those who disagree strongly but concede that there is a community view and respect it on that level, some vocal and unreconciled folk, some who operate 'outside the law'. You find out whether you have consensus, if not unanimity, when you try to build on it''. |
|||
</blockquote> |
|||
In practice, a lot of people look in on an issue and check to see if a (mere) majority exists in favor of their position. However, to find the actual consensus (or what it will end up as), you actually need to carefully consider the ''strength and quality of the arguments themselves'' (including any additional concerns that may have been raised along the way), the basis of objection of those who disagree, and in more complex situations, existing documentation in the project namespace should also be checked. If you are volunteering to carry out an action on the basis of rough consensus, only this thorough approach is acceptable. |
|||
[[Minority]] opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and discussion should continue in an effort to try to negotiate the most favorable compromise that is still practical. In situations with a deadline, a perfect compromise may not have been reached by all participants at the deadline. Nevertheless, a course of action should be chosen that is likely to satisfy the most persons (rather than merely the majority). |
|||
[[WP:BITE|New users]] who are not yet familiar with consensus should realize that a poll (if one is even held) is often more likely to be the start of a discussion than it is to be the end of one! The final course of action is usually decided upon ''during discussion''. This is another reason for providing a rationale during a poll, not just a support. You can then engage in discussion with other contributors and work out an acceptable compromise. This can be very empowering. Provided you do your homework right, at times your opinion alone will be enough to tip the scales, or even decide the issue all on its own! |
|||
== Consensus can change == |
== Consensus can change == |
||
Line 57: | Line 47: | ||
*sometimes we find a better way to do things. |
*sometimes we find a better way to do things. |
||
Sometimes a representative group makes a decision on behalf of the community as a whole, at a point in time. More often, people |
Sometimes a representative group makes a decision on behalf of the community as a whole, at a point in time. More often, people [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Sources of Wikipedia policy|document changes to existing procedures]] at some arbitrary point in time after the fact. |
||
The other reason that consensus changes is because as more people join in a particular conversation over time (perhaps months or years) consensus will tend to shift. |
|||
==Forum shopping== |
|||
== "Asking the other parent" == |
|||
{{policy shortcut|WP:PARENT}} |
|||
''See also:'' [[Wikipedia:Forum shopping|Forum shopping]] |
''See also:'' [[Wikipedia:Forum shopping|Forum shopping]] |
||
It is very easy to create the appearance of a changing consensus simply by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people will discuss the issue. This, however, is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works. Wikipedia's decisions are not based on the number of people who showed up and voted a particular way on a particular day; they are based on a system of good reasons. |
It is very easy to create the appearance of a changing consensus simply by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people will discuss the issue. This, however, is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works. Wikipedia's decisions are not based on the number of people who showed up and voted a particular way on a particular day; they are based on a system of good reasons. A good sign that you have not demonstrated a change in consensus, so much as a change in the people showing up, is if few or none of the people involved in the previous discussion show up for the new one. |
||
A good sign that you have not demonstrated a change in consensus, so much as a change in the people showing up, is if few or none of the people involved in the previous discussion show up for the new one. In this situation you may find that any changes you make to the article are quickly reverted by people outside the new talk page discussion. Do not be tempted to [[Wikipedia:edit war|edit war]] but instead post comments on the talk page encouraging others to participate in the new discussion. |
|||
==Exceptions== |
==Exceptions== |
||
Line 81: | Line 66: | ||
== See also == |
== See also == |
||
* [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle]] |
* [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle]] |
||
* [[Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot]] |
* [[Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot]] |
||
* [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/026513.html WikiEN-l mailing list Jul 2005] |
|||
{{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}} |
{{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}} |
Revision as of 23:23, 16 May 2008
Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process. Consensus is typically reached as a natural product of the editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. In essence, silence implies consent, if there is adequate exposure to the community. In the case of policy pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected.
When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'consensus within the framework of established policy and practice'. Consensus among a limited group of editors can not over-ride community consensus on a wider scale.
Reasonable consensus-building
Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can be reached through discussion, action, or more often, a combination of the two. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality - remaining neutral in our actions in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on.
How consensus emerges during the editing process
See also: Wikipedia:Editing policy
Generally someone edits a page, and then subsequent viewers of the page have three options: accept the edit, change the edit, or revert the edit. Included in each of the courses is the option to discuss the action before or after the action. Many iterations of the consensus process are required to achieve a neutral and readable article. If your ideas are not immediately accepted, think of a reasonable change that might integrate your ideas with others and make an edit, or discuss those ideas. This can be done at the talk page, as an edit summary, or as a note to others at a user talk page or other widely read page such as the Village pump. Edit wars can lead to page protection rather than improvements to the article.
Use of the talk page
- See also: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines
While using the discussion page is not strictly required by the consensus process, the discussion page is often useful and you are encouraged to use it whenever practical. It is also a good idea to check the discussion page before making an edit, because someone may have thought this idea before, or discussed something that sheds more light on the subject.
Sometimes misunderstandings occur because people see the edit before any rationale is posted on the talk page. As a tip: If you post a comment immediately before editing, there's no gap, which can be handy (if you do use the talk page for this "long edit summary" option, don't forget to actually post your edit immediately afterwards, or people will be quite confused!) . Other people might not have picked up on this practice though, so you may wish to wait a little while to see if they might still have been typing something at the talk page.
Edit summaries are short and can be misinterpreted. The discussion page is a lot more spacious than the edit-summary field and if used correctly that space can go a long way towards attracting consensus for your edit.
In cases where consensus is particularly hard to find, the involvement of independent editors or more experienced help in the discussion may be necessary. If discussion on the talk page is disrupted, or consensus cannot be found there through ordinary discussion, there are more formal dispute resolution processes.
Participating in discussions
Community discussion takes place on various pages such as noticeboards, Requests for comment, Requests for Adminship and the Village pump. These processes require collaborative effort and considered input from the community in order to form a consensus and act appropriately upon the consensus that can be discerned.
In determining consensus carefully consider the strength and quality of the arguments themselves, including the evolution of the final positions, the objection of those who disagree, and in complex situations, existing documentation in the project namespace. Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and the logic may outweigh the logic of the majority. New users who are not yet familiar with consensus should realize that a poll (if one is even held) is often more likely to be the start of a discussion than it is to be the end of one. The outcome may be decided during discussion. This is a good reason for providing a rationale during a poll, not just a simple vote.
Consensus can change
Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding.
Wikipedia's processes remain flexible for several reasons including:
- new people bring fresh ideas,
- as we grow we evolve new needs, and
- sometimes we find a better way to do things.
Sometimes a representative group makes a decision on behalf of the community as a whole, at a point in time. More often, people document changes to existing procedures at some arbitrary point in time after the fact.
The other reason that consensus changes is because as more people join in a particular conversation over time (perhaps months or years) consensus will tend to shift.
Forum shopping
See also: Forum shopping
It is very easy to create the appearance of a changing consensus simply by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people will discuss the issue. This, however, is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works. Wikipedia's decisions are not based on the number of people who showed up and voted a particular way on a particular day; they are based on a system of good reasons. A good sign that you have not demonstrated a change in consensus, so much as a change in the people showing up, is if few or none of the people involved in the previous discussion show up for the new one.
Exceptions
There are a few exceptions that supersede consensus decisions on a page.
- Declarations from Jimmy Wales, the Board, or the Developers, particularly for server load or legal issues (copyright, privacy rights, and libel) have policy status (see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Sources of Wikipedia policy).
- Office Actions on a specific article (such as stubbing or protecting it) are outside the policies of the English Wikipedia.
- Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to override consensus on a wider scale very quickly - for instance, a local debate on a WikiProject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline. The WikiProject cannot decide that for the articles within its scope, some policy does not apply, unless they can convince the broader community that doing so is the right course of action.
- Foundation Issues lay out the basic principles for all Wikimedia projects. These represent the largest consensus decisions achievable among all Wikimedia projects. These consensuses are fundamental and affect all other Wikimedia and Wikipedia agreements. This means they evolve very slowly.