Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Consensus/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Image:Consensus_new_and_old.svg (Chart 1)

[1] Is it just my screen, or does the text spill out of the two boxes at the top of the chart? Other than that, there seems more useful information in this (older) version of the chart. --Newbyguesses (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the text spills out of the boxes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe Chart 5 would work without the "Discuss first" box? Take out that decisionbox, and then make the line coming out of the top of the Discuss box on the right go straight up, or else across to the line joining Previous to Make an edit. That Discuss box could have a little informative text, maybe: Discuss reasonable changes with other editors. --Newbyguesses (talk) 06:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not a "discuss first box" it is a "should we discuss first box". Let me see if I can follow your sugggestion on the reformatting of 5. 1 is really flawed in too many ways. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I removed the discuss decision box as the starting point. I think this change does not truly reflect the process, but it seems to be a major sticking point to getting a better chart, for other purposes. The remaining issue is whether the bottom of the chart is accurate. I believe that it truly reflects the process which has three possible outcomes after an edit is made (1) accept (2) modify or (3) reject. The first 2 lead to a new consensus and the third returns to the previous consensus. How is that wrong? To deny that things are reverted is prescriptive rather than descriptive. Yes? No? Alternative thoughts? --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
No one wants to deny that reverts happen. I just think that giving revert one or more boxes and loops for itself is to excessively legitimize lazy reverting. “Revert” can be mentioned as a special case of a modification. I’m not impressed with the prescriptive/descriptive rhetoric. The chart is a teaching tool. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

CCC Flowchart 5e.jpg

It's not rhetoric, but dogma. I guess that I've had it thrown at me so often, that I'm just spitting it back. After I wrote that this morning, I rethought my position and I think that you might be right. --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Just for now, I will say that there is a place for reverts, and that could go in the chart. Or, not. Keeping revert in as a step in the process fleshes out an inter-personal interaction (being reverted by some editor) which has happened on every page that I have ever edited. And I think the chart would be over-simplified without a revert step. Thinks, and thinks again? --Newbyguesses (talk) 08:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:CCC Flowchart 5d.jpg

Chart 5d? Is that the one currently up? Almost works. The infinite loop at discuss->is the edit accepted>->discuss is the only flaw. Easily fixed though. Quickest test to see if an edit is accepted is to just make it and see who reverts, right? So you can throw out that decision box entirely and it'll work <cross fingers>. (Descriptive not prescriptive? Yes of course, but do be descriptive of something that works. If you have to describe stuff that doesn't work, don't forget to mention it doesn't work :-P ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I’ve seen enough to have a feel for when consensus building works and doesn’t. It usually works on articles. It has more trouble in wikipedia space. It works when editors talk about the article, and doesn’t when editors talk about each other. Groupthink is not prevalent. Wearing down the opposition happens. We are not putting that stuff in the chart, are we? Reversion don’t assist in building consensus. When the article reverts back to previous version, there is no gradual evolution. Second order variants don’t get tested. To simply revert is to deny that there is even a problem to work on. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think Chart 5d can work, with modifications. (The best to date?) KB is correct, we can lose one more decisionbox. (I can't edit these darn things myself, sorry.) Now the line "Yes" coming out of the Discuss box is wrong, it should be unlabelled? and go straight up or at least nearly back to "previous consensus". KM is correct, after a revert we actually go back to previous consensus, and we can show that, but I am willing to fudge that if necessary (for simplicity's sake), bearing in mind that it is something which quickly becomes obvious in practice. I think some more words could be useful, in the Discuss box, as suggested above, the box looks a bit blank otherwise. Damn, let me look again, there is something bugging me, not sure what. Well, I know I suggested losing the revert box, but in this simpler chart it is probably better kept in, though I can still see what SmokeyJoe is saying, and either way could work. Kevin, I think the bottom of the chart is OK, thanks for going forward with this. says me, without a flowchart to my name. --Newbyguesses (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
NB, you can mark up a chart or pencil something to what you think it should be and FAX it to me at 925-279-1191, and I'll do the graphics to execute your thoughts. --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Kevin, I hope to fax something through in the next couple or so hours! (Is the International code-prefix included there?) In the meantime, is KB going to come up with something? hehe--Newbyguesses (talk) 03:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Anyone is welcome to submit their ideas. I'm not familiar with the international code, but it I'm in USA California -- 925 is our "area code". --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Typical American :>. Your international code is +1. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Dratts! My apologies, Kevin I wont be able to send that fax until tomorrow. The dog ate my fax-machine. --Newbyguesses (talk) 08:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Mark up a screengrab of it in MS Paint and email it.--Father Goose (talk) 09:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, yeah I did try that. After a while, it looked like a fly had done a random walk on the screen. I concluded there might be a bug, in the system, at the User-interface end.. --Newbyguesses (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Alrite! FAX has been sent to Kevin. I will know it has reached the correct destination when I hear his exasperated sigh - not my fault I am left-handed, and everything I write looks so untidy. Best of luck deciphering that! Please, do not make fun of the fossil! I was really enjoying the Cretaceous Era. --Newbyguesses (talk) 06:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Notwithstanding FG's objection to 20th century technology, I've modified the chart based on NBG's FAX:

Image:CCC Flowchart 5f.jpg

I prefer the prior version acknowledging a decision after discussion, and still object to removing the initial decision box indicating the possibility to discuss as the first step, but I would not oppose this chart if it puts the issue to bed. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No bugs! That's decent! :-) The only thing I can think of that's still really missing is the ability to further edit a good faith edit when disagreeing with it. As that is one of the core parts of the wiki-model, it might help to still include that option. :-)
(If your edit was modified, and the modifier made a spelling error, this chart says you can't simply fix the error. Oops! )
Other than that, it's great! :-)
--Kim Bruning (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, this was handled in the previous versions with the "should you discuss" decision diamond. Maybe we need to return it, but take it out of the first step? --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
"Should you discuss" is a complex decision. You can discover if you should have discussed by ... making an edit, and see if you are reverted... so a direct line from "do you accept the result" (#2) direct to make an edit will auto-resolve it for you. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the "think of a reasonable change that might integrate your ideas with theirs" box was the most valuable one in the old version; that pathway documents the wiki process when it's working at its best.--Father Goose (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
5f is fine! I do like the text in the discuss box. Thanks, Kevin. (Of course, we still have options). Kim, you are correct, if the "modifier" makes a spelling mistake, the path to the next edit notionally goes through the Discuss Box [to New consensus, momentarily, then the fix-typo is the next Make an edit! (consensus can change)]. (But there is never a strict one-to-one mapping from edits to talk-page posts). Or, Kevin's latest idea could work. Chart 5f is fine, no bugs, I am happy, or happy to discuss any further modifications. For instance, "think of a reasonable change that might integrate your ideas with theirs" or something like it goes in that discuss box? (We could get to 5z by next month lol, I don’t think so.) --Newbyguesses (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
5f would be fine, but it only covers contentious situations. It accidentally bans normal wiki-editing. (oops) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

<-- No, KimB, if you see this correction [2] I think that your point is covered, on fixing typo's and on "normal wiki editing". My understanding, when we reach [New consensus], it is provisional, that is we can provisionally accept that the new piece, even with it's typo's in an improvement. And from [New consensus] we loop straight back to [Make an edit!] because we provisionally re-cast the [New consensus] to be the starting point [Previous Consensus]. (Reaaly thought I could express that more simply, no doubt you will have objections.) --Newbyguesses (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice job

I really liked the use of the "Asking the other parent" metaphor as a section title. Keep up the good work, editors! The Piano Man (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:CCC Flowchart 5f.jpg

[3] (ironed out (one more) of the buggss in the chart -- update as necessary) --Newbyguesses (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I still like Chart 1 better, but Chart 5f is the least flawed of the replacement charts suggested so far, and rather than have to keep fighting over this issue, I'm giving up.--Father Goose (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't give up please. The plan is to get people to take all the logical steps needed, and then they'll see what chart they end up with. O:-) I could keep hammering and hammering on what I think the best practice is, but the only way to get people to believe it is if they actually think it through themselves. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
A chart that everyone can love!

Here is another suggested chart, in case it is time for one. Cheers--Newbyguesses (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I am thinking we could spruce up the text at Consensus can change (in the current chart) with some links maybe, bold, italics. Hmm. Chart 5g.
Annd lose the asterisk * there!
Even an &mdash ; — might work. --Newbyguesses (talk) 02:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, these charts are still misnamed btw, as they still have nothing to do with CCC... (just noticed) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
(LATE--) The charts are wrongly named. (See discussion below) They do not illustrate CCC. The title of the chart ought to be "Consensus in Editing" or something like that. The title of the jpg ought to be A consensus flowchart1a.jpg or something or else like that. --Newbyguesses (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Could this work, in the text box at the bottom of the chart?

Consensus can change. Each consensus is a new starting point. Think of a reasonable change that might integrate your ideas with those of other users, and make an edit, or else discuss these improvements first.

Maybe needs some work on that? --Newbyguesses (talk) 03:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It does mention CCC in the footnote, you're right. I'm not sure about the wording you suggest... not sure how to alter --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
If the Chart needs to be labelled, then we can give it a Title! "Consensus can change" perhaps, or "The Consensus Process". --Newbyguesses (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The chart describes the consensus process wrt wiki-editing, or at least chart 1 does. CCC is part of that process. The process is not part of CCC. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not convinced "start over at new consensus" is the right way to represent a volley of edits (which is common). If someone makes an edit and I think, "hmm, I agree with that but it could be improved", a) I have not agreed with the result and b) there has not been a new consensus. It's after the back-and-forth stabilizes that one can claim a new consensus has formed.--Father Goose (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This is how I think about it—If someone makes an edit and I think, "hmm, I agree with that but it could be improved", a) I have not agreed with the result and b) there has not been a new consensus. A) It is there, I might have posted it myself, with typo's yes, sometimes; I agree that the edit is an improvement over the previous revision. B) I think a New Consensus has formed, though that is not confirmed until other editors weigh in, or action is performed. --
Also I'm not convinced "start over at new consensus" is right. The wording I suggested was only rough. I reckon now we drop the words "Consensus can change" altogether from the chart, that can be explained elsewhere (in the text on the page). Still thinking, what are your suggestions? (welcome back!)--Newbyguesses (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I should have phrased that more carefully. If you disagree with a change, the change doesn't have consensus -- but you might see a way to change the change that makes it work. This might go back and forth a few times before an actual consensus emerges. This is a process of discussing with your hands, and not your fists (reverting), or your mouth (talk pages). Our chart documenting the process of achieving consensus should document it explicitly.--Father Goose (talk) 00:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks - [Editing] is a process of discussing with your hands, and not your fists (reverting), or your mouth (talk pages). - That's really good. I still have no problem though with imagining the process going straight from the bottom box back to the top one even if there isn't a path marked on the Chart.
But, why not mark it in that way? Put in a path/A loop going directly from [New Consensus] out to the left and up and returning to [Previous Consensus] (maybe re-named). That is the Process, as I envisage it, whether the chart is modified or not. If the Chart is "right" or "acceptable" maybe it could be renamed "The Editing Process", it is not meant to represent the totality of Consensus. Thinks. Thinks again, do you really think we can explain consensus in a chart, having no regard for the accompanying text. I am re-thinking - If the chart doesn't have enough in it about consensus, and thinking of an idea to integrate your work with others, then it becomes merely a How to edit this page guide, or does it? (aside- can we safely archive much of this page, pretty please) --Newbyguesses (talk) 01:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
A Flowchart is a special way to write down a process. It is often easier to document a process as a flowchart first, and then to write down the plain english description. If the chart is well designed, it will contain no contradictions, and the plain-English description will be easy to formulate. If the chart does not show the totality of consensus, then expand it until it does. Or consider creating sub-charts. A flowchart is either correct, complete and accurate, or it is not. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Kim this is true for electronic processors, but not for humans. The human process at WP includes infinite loops, can jump from place to place, and can start, finish, or stall at any point. We are only trying to document a segment of what is possible and likely. A perfect chart is not attainable, and it would be too complicated if we try to demonstrate all permutations. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with that, but consensus through iterative editing is a really core pathway that I hate to see omitted from the chart.--Father Goose (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I have been thinking about the same matter; one thing — a "volley of good edits", with no discussion in beween, looks very similar to "a volley of bad edits" with no discussion in beween, i.e. an "edit war"! The only way to tell is to examine the final revision of the page and subjectively decide if it is improved over the starting revision. --Newbyguesses (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that's not the only way. You could try asking each of the editors, or wait for further edits from new editors, or even check the noticeboards, ANI and such to see if the changes to the POLPAGE was causing difficulties, or smoothing out solutions, or was the subject of discussion on talkpages. And, actually, even by examining the Final DIFF, there may have been an intervening one which was better; again, this is judged subjectively. --Newbyguesses (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

CCC Flowchart 5g.jpg

There might be something in that idea, Kevin. But the chart 5g now might have "buggs" in it - some of the arrows point the wrong way, I think, and I think we have an extra box again. I will look at it again. I was trying to understand the chart differently, so I am not sure. --Newbyguesses (talk) 04:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
That takes things in an interesting direction. Though it should be based on 5f, not derived from the "beer" chart, which jumps from "discuss" to "is the edit accepted". At any rate, placing the box in that part of the process ends up documenting both iterative editing and revert-warring. Now the question is, do we want to counsel against revert-warring in the chart in some way?
It also makes separate boxes for "was it reverted" or "was it modified" seem even more redundant, with the exception that "reverted" flows back to "previous consensus". As I've argued before, even if a page remains unchanged, it is possible to regard such a trip through the chart as a new consensus (made up of different participants) in favor of the old result.--Father Goose (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the page for, what is the Chart for?

The project page describes (should describe) the consensus process in en.wikipedia. The editing process depends on consensus. (The chart should illustrate that.) Consensus in Wikipedia also consists of the consensus process for decision-making, the consensus process for documentation, and for "polling". So, these are not described by the chart. I think the chart is a useful "metaphor" for these processes as well, but that may be fanciful.

Even if the illustrative chart is in some way slightly less than pristine perfection, we may still use it to amplify the information on the Editing Process if it is over-all being helpful. I think Chart 1 was very helpful, and could be if it were re-added to the project page. I think Chart 5f is helpful, and it can still be improved. I think Chart 5f is superior to Chart 1, and my reasons are given on this page. I am having a few disturbing reflections (concerning the whole purpose of this policy page) that are too fuzzy to explain now -dash-

I think we can keep working on this chart, and make further progress. To my understanding, the TEXT of the project page supplies information I (and presumably other Wikipedians) can follow. The chart is an illustration of the editing process, or of consensus applying in the editing process, and that is only part of the page's job. The TEXT is paramount, to my way of thinking, (not the text-box in the Chart), the TEXT on the Project Page. That's the way it works for me. Having a think, --Newbyguesses (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

the consensus process wrt wiki-editing

A) The Chart whichever one is used, needs a title. CCC process is wrong. (See discussion above.) Can we do better than Editing process, or this section header? --

B) The text in the text-box(es) of the chart needs serious tweaking, (see discussion above) in fact we need to decide exactly what we are trying to describe in the chart, then find suitable words. Any suggestions here. --Newbyguesses (talk) 05:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheers and YES. Once we determine the flow, we can tweak the boxes. At some point I'd like to fine tune the graphics, but I'd be happy to share that task with those more qualified. --Kevin Murray (talk) 04:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The words "Consensus can change" in the blurb for the chart(s) are confusing, and ought to be removed since the illustrative charts do not explain CCC as a whole, no chart or image could do that. The svg chart never did, that image is about the editing aspect only, as are the jpeg images currently in use. --NewbyG (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Which chart (image), at this time

I'm not a big fan of TIMTOWTDI.

Further, if you intend to replace chart 1, it needs to meet the same requirements as chart 1.

  • Definitive
  • Clear
  • descriptive of a process in use
  • must actually work.
  • must be a valid flowchart
  • must not lead to contradictions, infinite loops or other logical flaws.
  • must be in simplest possible form (barring additional boxes for clarity where they can be explained)
  • Must not contradict any policy or guideline, including the 5 pillars or foundation issues.

If you are not confident enough that your chart meets these requirements, please don't substitute a weaker chart, and don't weasel-word your way out of it. None of this "one of" , "only an illustration" crap. Stand for what you write, and be prepared to defend it vigorously! :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC) and most importantly, have fun :-)

Not sure what to make of that post. Being not a fan of "more than one way to do things" — is that sort of like "not a fan of reality"? puzzled, checks for signs of inter-galactic kitty-litter --NewbyG (talk) 05:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the idea I believe he's embracing, namely, don't suggest something, then apologize for it being not-necessarily-right. Leave the reader with confidence that it's a good suggestion, even if you also point out that it's not the only one.--Father Goose (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
If nearly everybody seems to continue to be in favor of Chart 1 instead of any of the 5 family, why on earth are we leaving Chart 5x on the policy page? It's fine to give experimentation a chance, but not indefinitely, and not on a policy page.
Resolve the objections to Chart 5x before it is put back on the policy page.--Father Goose (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Chart 1 never went through the scrutiny that the Chart 5 series has encountered and could never have met the criteria demanded of the replacement. It was a good starting point but not a superior visual aid. --Kevin Murray (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Chart 1 has received scrutiny concurrent with the 5 series: each of them have been scrutinized against Chart 1, and it seems to me Chart 1 is still holding up to scrutiny better. I continue to support Chart 1 not because it's the status quo, but because I think it's better -- specifically, more helpful and instructive -- than any of the 5 series. You are pushing, pushing, pushing to replace Chart 1, and most of us are not agreeing, agreeing, agreeing.--Father Goose (talk) 10:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter if you're a fan of TIMTOWTDI or not, Kim, because the fact is that there is more than one way to do it. -- Ned Scott 05:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, true to an extent. I'm still putting off that page on wikiediting, that I really should write :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh I see... there's some edits in page history. ...Well, none of those ways are documented. If those ways are documented, I have no objection to either showing all of them, or linking to them from here. No objection whatsoever. But such documentation is not written AFAIK. Ned Scott: can you show such documentation, or are you willing to write some? I'd really appreciate it! --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Father Goose: please don't set a bad example, kay? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Join me, and together we can rule the galaxy!--Darth Goose (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It might be wiser to evolve the charts elsewhere, and keep chart 1 up for now, but I'm going to hold off on that for a little longer. I have a feeling I know where the charts are leading to anyway. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take either of "Previous consensus" or "New consensus" as an endpoint as long as it's actual consensus.--Father Goose (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
[4] Chart 5g wasn't any better than 5f at this stage, but the svg chart is not the best option, especially until we know what the chart is for, whether it illustrates one section or the whole page, for instance. --NewbyG (talk) 05:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Chart 1 is basically supposed to be an executive summary of what is known about consensus at this point in time (as well as some other things besides, perhaps) and I've been using it in lectures, among other things. Where the page does not agree with chart 1, changes might still be needed, in fact. I hope that you see the other charts in the same light! You are responsible for them, so I hope you're proud of your work. :-)
As with all project namespace pages, we need to be doing our best to describe the optimal best practice. If anyone is confused, please say so, else what we're doing is useless. (I guess by now we're run dry on new discoveries with the charts though. We have learned some very important things about how consensus works by playing with them :-) . They're obviously not just pretty pictures, just like a policy page is not just pretty letters :-P ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Placing the flowchart on the page

[5] The illustrative chart is in a new section of its own, with some text incorporated from the old svg image. The title of the section may need tweaking, but it is definitely NOT "Consensus can change". However, it is a case of update as necessary. --NewbyG (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is how Wikipedia:Consensus currently goes about describing the editing 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.
  • Whether the change or addition to the page is reverted, or modified or not, any refinements or objections can be discussed on the discussion page. When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite reasoning and cooperation.
I think that is pretty right, and that Image:CCC Flowchart 5f.jpg illustrates that process; as did Image:Consensus new and old.svg, though not as well, as it has unnecessary boxes. Incorporating the best bits of the svg with Flowchart 5f is possible. --NewbyG (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The flowchart can go in a section of its own, at least till we figure out exactly what it is meant to be describing, or maybe we have. A little higher, or lower on the page? Back at the top? --NewbyG (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

5f fails to document an entire existing subprocess. Small detail there. :-) (flowchart has to document what is there, especially things like foundation issues or built-in wiki-functionality). I know, headache headache. :-P

Which boxes in chart 1 are unnecessary, according to you? Since it's svg, we can actually edit it fairly easily :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, is there a better alternative wording than "Previous Cons.." and "New Conss..", or maybe even delete them as boxes? --NewbyG (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, the boxes are mandatory :-). Every flowchart must have a "Start" and an "End" and they have a special shape. Figuring out what the relevant label is can be tricky. Note that a flowchart is not simply a visual aid. They represent the logic behind a system. Flowcharts that are very strictly designed can even be directly executed by a computer, for instance. (Sure we're being a bit sloppy here, but we're not supposed to get lazy ;-) ). --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

START 0 Previous consensus. 1. Editor A makes an edit! 2. edit a not reverted. 3. edit a not modified. ( 4. New consensus ) end. start ( 0 Previous consensus. ) 1. Editor B makes an edit! 2. edit b modifies edit a. 3. edit b not modified 4. New consensus END.

Now mentally zero out the zero steps (they are notional, not physical). There is the good volley of edits process! --NewbyG (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorporating this wording [6] into the text accompanying the visual aid addresses Kim's fundamental objection, or the volley of good edits process, I think. (Into the volley of good edits.) --NewbyG (talk) 04:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus new and old.svg

Can some clever coder fix the text which spills untidily out of two boxes in the svg image? Extra boxes, count'm; there are three. [Was the article edited further], [Take it to the talk page], [Find a reasonable (if temporary)compromise]; though that last box contains good advice, it clutters up the chart. Those last two boxes duplicate the [Think of a reasonable change that might...] box, which makes mincemeat of any argument that this flowchart is definitive and perfectly clear.

The image, Consensus new and old.svg is useful, but it is not a superior visual aid. That flowchart is neither definitive, nor actually works, correct, nor a valid flowchart, nor in the simplest possible form. Despite these defects, it could still be helpful, or useful as an illustrative chart, or a visual aid, if needed. It is not now nor ever has been a page handed down from a holy book, and shouldn't be regarded as so. I like the svg, but it aint gospel, and it probably aint even kosher, just a good mock-up of a flowchart.

Actually, isn't [Take it to the talk page], Discuss --> [Find a reasonable (if temporary)compromise] just one box? --NewbyG (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
And, for instance, instead of a box there at all, just a path is needed, with an arrow to the Discuss box top right. I think. --NewbyG (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to be a clever coder to fix an SVG image. Just download Inkscape :-)

Consensus new and old was not intended to be a visual aid specifically. It was intended as ... <drumroll> a flowchart </drumroll>. It details which steps must be taken in which logical order. I follow the flowchart strictly for every single edit I make, so I'm pretty sure it works. It is a valid flowchart, It has a start point, an end point, all boxes are valid decisions, all arrows for flow of control are labeled. I'm not sure why you think it isn't valid? There are no infinite loops, and not situations where it can halt unexpectedly. The only quibble you might have is that it's not structured (urgh, computing and systems design has fallen behind. a redlink in 2008? wow! External link then: [7] ), but it's also very short, so structuring it might be overkill. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well if Consensus new and old.svg is considered as a flowchart, then it is certainly not in the simplest form. Two boxes at least are redundant, as I have pointed out. --NewbyG (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Where do facts stand in developing NPOV CON?

Being unfamiliar at these lofty heights and having come here as a result, of this latest post [8] on an ethnic infobox talk page, I have some basic questions concerning simple numbers, (facts), and their standing relative to an existing consensus versus an NPOV consensus. If this question might fit better elsewhere, please say so.

  • Must the consensus include consideration of simple basic facts (populations in this case) concerning their arrangement?
  • If numbers are the technical basis for arrangement, is numerical data of primary or secondary importance in the proper development of a NPOV consensus on arrangement?
  • If numbers are the technical basis for arrangement, may ‘other things’ be allowed to take precedent over a numerically logical arrangement of the facts?
  • If numbers are the technical basis for arrangement, should the numbers be allowed to speak for themselves in such an arrangement?
  • If there are two generally equal and significant numbers, should these be separated artificially to make one look more important or central than another?

I had expected some discussion of facts, and how they fit into building consensus in Wikipedia; this seems very basic for an encyclopedia. The few occurrences of ‘fact’ on the article page, however, are as ‘factoid in an article’, ‘after the fact’ and ‘in fact.’ It would seem, as presently described, that simple facts have little to do with the development of an NPOV consensus. I believe they are a most basic consideration, when these facts are simple numbers. Your elucidation is respectfully requested, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

These are good questions, but difficult to answer. Each editor has to work it out with other editors on each occasion; taking into account that circumstances vary. That is the consensus part of it, I think.
Wikipedia:Consensus has:
Negotiation on talk pages takes place in an attempt to develop and maintain a neutral point of view.
Wikipedia:Consensus#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 to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject.
Wikipedia:Verifiability (on the inclusion of content) has:
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
Is there a reliable source for the information, or to support a particular argument?
Is that any help? Would you like to explain a little further the guidance you think might be needed, you may be on to something important. --NewbyG (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

All wikis use a similar consensus model, as far as I'm aware. Wikipedia happens to use this model to create an encyclopedia, but the same basic model has also been used to create much silliness (uncyclopedia), scientific collaboration environments (OpenWetWare), repositories for Design Patterns and Agile Programming philosophies (the first wiki:), dictionaries, multimedia stores, and many many other things.

Consensus and NPOV are strongly correlated. The outcome of a wiki-based consensus process is thought to lie fairly close to neutrality as it stands, needing only a bit of tweaking. (Hence the suitability of wikis for making a neutral encyclopedia).

This page just describes how the wiki based consensus part of the system works. See WP:NPOV for NPOV. Perhaps we need some kind of document that ties it all together too... hmmm... User:Filll keeps making comments to me to roughly that effect. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC) as to facts themselves, have you asked at the talk page for our verifiability policy ... they seem to adhere to verifiability, not truth , which means that wikipedia just documents what other people write, which is not exactly the same as "facts" or "truth" (though it is close). We're getting into some epistemologicaly tough ground here...

Hmmm, reading the current version, NPOV *is* actually mentioned. Since consensus applies to areas where there is no NPOV requirement (project namespace, etc) ... hmmm... ---Kim Bruning (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, WP:NPOV pretty much applies in all namespaces, I think you will find by perusing the talk page guidelines and other policies and guidelines. I think, though, one needs to look into it to convince oneself it is a workable and sensible approach, and the subtleties of this are such that I urge you to consider the matter for yourself, as I am only expressing an opinion here, and can point to no exact policy statement we could refer to. Thanks --NewbyG (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the input, but it does not quite get to the question I asked in the title. Is this the right place? It might be better to read the whole section, but I will try to set the stage. I arrived there from the bottom up as an outside editor, saw how the facts were presented, and had NPOV objections. As a scientist, I rely on numbers (facts) and in that realm, the numbers speak for themselves; that is NPOV. How someone reads those facts is subject to perspective and POV; that is different. Concerning your comments about CON, how it should be developed, and what I have tried to do.

  • Since I had NPOV concerns and these can quickly get heated, I posted at the lowest level of rhetorical violence that I could conceive to be effective; there are other methods and these were avoided. I posted my concerns with logical, structured arguments based on the presented facts, which I consider basic to NPOV through the CON process.
  • There are no questions of verifiability that I raised, although that may remain a question among others.
  • I believe my basic approach, fact-based arguments, and rebuttals have been reasonable, polite and calm.
  • This, however, has not led to “[n]egotiation on talk pages … to develop and maintain a neutral point of view.” It has led me here, because the existing CON is not open to an NPOV presentation of the facts; they seem to be quite firm in their current representation (re-presentation) of the facts, for some reason.

So I must re-state my original question: Where do facts stand in developing NPOV CON? I believe the answer should be quite simple, but can also see some trepidation and therefore, difficulty. The question is simple; getting there might not be easy, but the two questions are different. I believe it is your responsibility to answer this simple question. I firmly believe that it is basic to Wikipedia’s credibility as an encyclopedic source, therefore I am at this level. It also might indicate some necessary edits to the CON page concerning inclusion of the word ‘fact(s)’.

You may have questions about exactly what these basic facts are. I present them below in what I consider to be a neutral way (let them speak for themselves, unformatted).

  • Country1, 5.30 million people
  • Country2, 5.27 million people
  • Country3, 0.49 million people
  • Country4, 0.37 million people
  • Etc. with continuing smaller numbers

How the current CON re-presents them is shown at the article; I believe the current consensus’s re-presentation of facts is *not* NPOV, and therefore un-Wiki. NPOV is another question to a different page; I just understood, based on what Wiki says, that CON should be near it. This not a mole-hill/mountain thing, but may be a somewhat circular chicken/egg thing. I believe CON must start with facts, plain simple facts, numbers, etc. and build NPOV CON from there. Respectfully,CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is the means by which the policies are enforced. If there is a consensus that an article (or, in this case, template) is neutral, then that is the closest thing to "neutrality" we can achieve. Likewise as to whether or not WP:V is being upheld. There may be concerns about the reliability of a given source, or how to reconcile sources that contradict one another; these concerns can only be resolved through the mechanism of consensus. Occasionally, a "local" consensus (such as a group of owners) will disregard the broader consensus that underlies the policies; in such cases, the issue can be raised elsewhere (such as at WP:3O). There may also be a broad consensus to ignore a policy when it does not apply well to a given situation (nothing wrong with that).--Father Goose (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Editors responding here would do well to be advised of what CasualObserver has been on about for a couple of weeks now at Template talk:Infobox Jews. He has two objections.
  • First, the Jewish population of Israel is centered while that of other countries has the country name left justified and the population figure right justified.
  • Second, the Jewish population of Israel is followed by the phrase "Other significant populations:"
I am not making this up. This is actually what he thinks is NPOV. A previously small talk page now goes on for thousands of bytes over this nearly non-existent issue. No amount of pointing out that consensus is against him or that the format is very common in other ethnic infoboxes has any effect. If anyone here can find a way to make these simple ideas penetrate, I invite you to take your best shot. Unfortunately no one at the template talk page has had any success. CO is in sole possession of the WP:TRUTH and the template has got to be either changed or tagged because he's right and everyone else is wrong. I wish you all the best in your endeavors. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 11:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, tidied the page a bit

I've gone through from the top down to consensus can change, and shortened, tightened, and tidied the wording some more. I might do some more later. For now... it's back to coding for me :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

--Good work, Kim [9], you shortened it, though I made some changes.[10] Good luck with the coding! --NewbyG (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Your joint work looks good to me.--Father Goose (talk) 10:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Reverting causes the process to slow down"

O RLY? But the chart shows that reverting or editing is equally fast. What's going on here? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

We could continue on from this point of discussion.[11]
No one wants to deny that reverts happen. I just think that giving revert one or more boxes and loops for itself is to excessively legitimize lazy reverting. “Revert” can be mentioned as a special case of a modification. I’m not impressed with the prescriptive/descriptive rhetoric. The chart is a teaching tool. -per--SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
That is, discuss reverting as an addition to the text. Does reverting need to be discussed in conjunction with this or any flowchart? Or just have it in the chart, linking to no discussion in an accompanying section? Dunno? --NewbyG (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Rather than disagreeing by reverting, see if you can improve on other's changes. Trying to "meet in the middle" in this way is an important part of a productive conflict.
That was on the project page as at Revision of 04:45, 17 March 2008. Don't think we need any of that? But maybe expand on it? --NewbyG (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is Global not Local

This policy used to have felicitous wording in the summary:

When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. Even a majority of a limited group of editors will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within policies.

I propose this be restored, since we find that editors with local topical interests tend to coalesce around these subjects to promote an internal bloc - ten presented as "consensus" - that can be fundamentally at odds with wider practice. Eusebeus (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I see this as an important concept. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with this proposal, as global consensus is tends to be stable and will last into the future; my view is that local consensus is fickle, short lived and is probably based on the presumption that popularity is the same as notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't love that wording, but the concept's vitally important. So many of Wikipedia's problems are due to local consensuses being enforced which go against what the community at large would embrace.--Father Goose (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It probably should go somewhere, but that's an entire paragraph! Give it a heading on the page and explain what's up. Have fun!:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Kim, did you remove it? I have the impression that you did and so was hesitant to just reinsert it since I assume you would have had a good reason, as you usually do. Btw, 2 sentences is hardly a full paragraph, even in these illiterate times. Eusebeus (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I have a problem with this. Since policies and guidelines is expected to lag behind consensus the above wording contravenes WP:CCC. It's also important to remember that WP:IAR is part of the "framework of established policy and practices". I would propose;

When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. Consensus among a limited group of editors should not outweigh community consensus on a wider scale. So decisions that contravenes established project wide practice needs to be founded in arguments that can be expected to sway the larger community.

Taemyr (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[12] (last) 19:35, 8 March 2008 (15,791 bytes) (undo)

  • A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined. An editor who thinks there are good reasons to believe a consensual decision is outdated may discuss it on the relevant talk page, through a Request for Comment, or at the Village Pump or Third Opinion to see what points other editors think are important, and to compare and examine the different viewpoints and reasons.

[13] (last) 22:07, 27 March 2008 (12,607 bytes) (undo)

  • 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.

However, if one person or a limited group of people can reasonably demonstrate a change in consensus, then it is reasonable to effect the change at a process page. Boldness is encouraged, but good judgment should be used. Remember that we try to document actual practice, not prescribe rule-sets.

--These previous revisions. --NewbyG (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that Third Opinion is intended for cases where the number of existing opinions is two, ie. it is for specific issues in the backwaters, not for issues where "groups" are involved. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been trimming heavily, and may have removed something from one place, and not replaced it elsewhere by accident. If you think a particular concept is important enough to keep it, please add it back in. --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[14] DIFF --NewbyG (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Copy edited, further discussion

  • I'm not sure I agree with the wording anymore. From my experience on Wikipedia, you tend to have a group of editors who edit say, all the Foo articles, and a different group of editors who edit the policies. Which group is supposed to represent consensus? Until we start some sort of polling on policies, which IMHO is badly needed, we can't really state that policy and guidance does represent global consensus. I challenge anyone to list every policy and guideline we have, without peeking. Bear in mind you have endorsed each and every single one. Also consider this: one may write a guideline with a group of editors, and then go to edit Wikipedia in line with what you have just written. Editors who object to this amend the guidance, and are reverted because they are changing the guidance to weigh in their favour. Isn't that what party one did too? Consensus is defined by practise and convention, and our policies and guidance are supposed to reflect that. Where the community is split down the middle, there is no consensus and therefore no guidance or policies. We need to find a method of deciding what to do when the community is split, because inertia is not a solution. The current state of affairs encourages too much game play to the detriment of the encyclopedia. I recognise this is a radical position, but some form of polling on disputed policy or guidance has to be accepted. Hiding T 14:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's the thing. You don't write a guideline and then edit in line with the guideline (prescriptive). You edit, and then write a policy/guideline/essay in line with how you edit (descriptive). This turns the problem on its head. :-)
Polling (a perennial proposal) doesn't help. A poll still only polls the same set of people, but now it's also only a snapshot in time (and a poll doesn't write documentation either :-P ). Even if a document is no longer in line with how you edit, folks could just go "sorry, the poll closed last week, no changes", even though you just encountered a new good way to do stuff today. In short, (binding) polls are democratic, but not consensus-o-cratic. That's also why there's a rule about there being no binding decisions (aka consensus can change), and why that rule is so important.
But once you turn the problem on its head, you're suddenly just allowed to edit a policy page, even if you're "just an ordinary editor", and you're allowed to make improvements, just as if it were *gasp* a wiki page! Amazing! ;-)
Editing a page doesn't "change the rules", it just describes what people do more or less accurately. Do be sure to remember that we try to describe best practices, not just common practices. If a good method is uncommon, describe it, so more people can learn (that's the definition of good documentation eh?). If a bad method is common, describe why it is bad (so people learn why they shouldn't do it). Some people think they should describe all common practices as good, but that fails the common sense test ("edit warring and vandalism are GOOD!" ... erm... hang on a minute there, mate ;-) ).
Basically you're applying a weaker form of NPOV, verifiability, and reliable sources to writing a "best practices encyclopedia" for wikipedia.
If people have been preventing you from maintaining documentation somewhere, give me a yell. :-)
--Kim Bruning (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC) perhaps we should rename policy/guideline/essay pages to "wikipediapedia", or some such... hmmm!
Kim, I know how it is supposed to work. I also know how it works in reality. Take WP:FICT. Look at the talk page there and the guideline's history. Now go and look at something like Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters. Look at the participants in a project like WP:COMICS. Cross reference editors back with WP:FICT. Work out who is writing guidance and who is creating the methods. Tell me how you decide what is best practise and what isn't? Pick between WP:PAPER and WP:N. Tell me who represents consensus. Those seeking to shape editing patterns, or those already editing? Tell me how you decide which side is right. What do we want? A well written encyclopedia, or a well written encyclopedia which refers only to multiple reliable independent secondary sources? Where's the middle ground? Do we want editors to protect their own positions, or strive to reach a consensus? Meh. Polling isn't just a perennial, we've polled a vast number of times on a large number of policies. Possibly, some of the polls on naming conventions are still running that were set up back in 2003. I haven't checked. At some point, the community has to accept that WP:CONSENSUS is either not being followed since people no longer seek to build one on terms other than their own, or it just doesn't scale. Hiding T 15:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The people already editing determine consensus. What's on the page may or may not be in line with that. Want me to go take a look? We do do polling at times, but that's to find out where consensus lies. Polling is not used to actually determine the outcome. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree quite fundamentally, if respectfully, with Hiding's larger point above. We actually have surprisingly few official policies at Wikipedia and most editors should be able to name them. Moreover, those policies have remained stable. Yes, consensus can change, but at the level of basic policy and the more important guidelines (e.g. WP:N), it doesn't change that often. Talking about "sides" is unhelpful, because that is what consensus is designed to transcend. These policies are vitally important to head off the anarchy of unfettered cross-talk on every issue - conspiracy theories, evolution v. creationism, pseudo-science, fansite-style fiction contributions, BLP additions - that remain and will remain difficult and controversial. It is unreasonable to expect a large diverse community to weigh in at the microscopic level of individual page disputes. It IS reasonable that we express ourselves at a global level and expect these consensus rules and practices to be observed. Consensus is global and should always be observed in the instance. If we follow Hiding's reasoning to its logical conclusion, we revert back to the kinds of flamewar disputes over numerous issues (Roads or Schools anyone?) that provided the impetus for sitewide policies and a consensus of observance in the first place. I am glad to see the wording has been restored and a general endorsement of the principle. Eusebeus (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • We may not be able to get the larger group of editors "out there" to participate in policy/guideline discussions, but we can instruct P/G editors to describe instead of proscribe when writing the P/G's. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    • With respect, Eusebeus, we don't have guidelines with more importance than others. Also, you state we have "few official policies at Wikipedia". Off the top of your head, no peeking, how many? As to talking of sides is unhelpful, I'm sorry, but attempting to sweep such talk under the carpet because Granny's coming for dinner is even more unhelpful. Yes consensus is designed to transcend that, but if you look at occasions when consensus is used in the real world, outside of Wikipedia, there tends to be time constraints on forming a consensus. That sort of means a consensus forms because of the pressure of having to form one. On Wikipedia we have allowed ourselves to accept inertia as an outcome. And you have missed my point exactly. I don't mind if we all discuss once and form a global consensus, that's exactly what I am arguing for. What I am arguing against is one local group calling their version of consensus "global". And this stuff is older than roads or schools. It goes back to things like "spaces after periods between initials" and "AD or CE" or even the old Pokeproposal. But back then we used to get the whole community to interact on the issue, and then we'd have a true global consensus. Consensus won't work if half the community is doing one thing and the other half is doing another. Like I say, people cross reference editors to WP:FICT with active members of WikiProjects on works of fiction and draw their own conclusions. I'm tired of people making claims that aren't evident. If someone wants to declare a consensus global, they need to have evidence to show it is global. It isn't global just because it is in the Wikipedia namespace with a shiny tag on top. Hiding T 09:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
#A thought. A thought. --NewbyG (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
That's fine, but sadly Wikipedia guidance has allowed filibustering and reverting to become entrenched. That's why we need to implement polling. I don't buy that polling would set anything in stone. Not when you have editors vehemently defending policy and guidance "as is" as sacred text that cannot be altered. Hiding T 09:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
We're actually been discussing filibustering and reverting . We're now working hard to start pushing back those practices, and it has started to work. We've managed to stop the practice here, for example. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

A prime example

A poll of 53 editors has now set a global consensus that "Placeholder images should not be used at all on the main page of articles". In short, the wishes of 35 editors now dictate to the many active editors on Wikipedia what is occurring. We are no longer engaging with the wider community. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. We need to better organise and advertise this stuff. Like I say, we need to formalise polling and have watchlist notices of open polls, designated minimum participation for poll results to be actionable, length of polling and regularity of polling on the same issue. If we don't recognise what "global consensus" actually means, we're stuffed. It doesn't mean 35 editors. And this isn't because I disagree with the outcome, this is because 35 editors cannot dictate global consensus, whatever they happen to declare. What will happen now? I'd imagine editors who disagree with the poll result but missed the poll will be upset, edit wars will happen and the 35 editors will point to their poll as somehow being the end of all debate. Yes, I appreciate that's a very bad faith assumption, but I've been around the block too many times. Hiding T 10:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be pretty cool if MediaWiki allowed some easy way to poll people. Imagine taking random samples of editors or even readers and giving them easy to click checkboxes that are automatically summed. Something that scales will require software changes and I imagine it will happen someday. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
There actually is a way to test consensus already. See WP:BRD for more extensive details. But be careful, that method is fairly powerful, and you can burn yourself easily. --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that poll did not set global consensus. That's a local consensus of 35 editors. Feel free to ignore it or discuss further, if you think others will support you. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Though, 35 editors is a rather large number... possibly there is some amount of global support for that position eh? Also it seems like they did apply some amount of reasoning, check the reasoning to see where you actually agree or disagree first. You might want to consider carefully before deciding if/when and where to actually ignore. Based on the information provided, you may find that global consensus actually might be pretty close to what these people found, and you might not be able to gain consensus for anything wildly different.
Actually, I'll just ponder what the point is. I wouldn't want to disrupt anything or be accused of owning the issue or otherwise vandalising or upsetting people. Maybe you could do me the honour of assuming I considered their reasoning. And feel free to explain to me what happens if actually the consensus is that there is no consensus. Typically we have to flip the position to invalidate it. That's what makes a mockery of the whole system. That and filibustering. Hiding T 16:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course you have considered their position, User:Hiding, and no one accuses you of these other faults. I think, if there is no consensus, we make no change, whether that is a "keep" or a "delete" depends upon the process.
Your position is also well-stated and deserves consideration at any proper forum. I dont have any unbeatable answers, for sure, and neither does Kim, but thanks for asking. --NewbyG (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hiding is demonstrating what I see as a huge problem at WP. Guidelines etc. are springing up like weeds with the justification that a "consensus" was formed among the three people who were aware of an obscure proposal. Also policies etc. are in constant flux for the same reason. Keeping this in check is like pushing a rope uphill. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That's because the system is designed to keep policy in flux (I know because I pushed for that), and to make keeping guidelines in check like pushing very large weeds uphill. :-)
As to why the system is designed that way? Hmmm, that might be a fun lecture to give sometime. :-)--Kim Bruning (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
That it is designed this way is not that it is well designed this way. As this project contnues to grow and mature, that which served well in infancy may be a detriment in adulthood. Many of us outgrow suckling in public and deficating at will, is that bad? --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Everything we do around here is like pushing rope up a hill. Things still get done. If there are too many guidelines, simplify them. If there is missing information, assemble it. If policy is in flux, go with the flow, it doesn't stray far, just keep to principles. --NewbyG (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
[...] If there is anything close to harmony, the word consensus is not used; consensus is a euphamism for "majority" or "persuasive" which is dragged-out when the outcome is contested. Otherwise, things are just done and there is no label given to the process (95% of the time). [...] -per --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC) (Wikipedia talk:Consensus/Archive 4)
I knew I had seen this somewhere, I think it is a really good observation. --NewbyG (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

CCC Flowchart 5f.jpg and discussion #How consensus emerges during the editing process

CCC Flowchart 5f.jpg

How consensus emerges during the editing process

Some text accompanies this visual aid, or probably whatever visual aid is used. The 'chart' and the text are now in a section #How consensus emerges during the editing process.

Does reverting need to discussed in that text? See #"Reverting causes the process to slow down" section above.

How is the concept (that consensus can change) tied into the text in this section? Is Consensus can change a suitable title for the chart? What else? --NewbyG (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I am thinking that * Consensus can change works. The text is better without that --NewbyG (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed some wikilinks that were going off to strange places (like to a depreacted page and soforth)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I might undo myself on some of those... --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Tools used to create flowcharts

What tool was made to used to make those pretty flowcharts? I've been trying to spiff up this one. 129.174.110.153 (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been cutting, pasting, and patching in Photoshop, working from and old graphic. But when we are done fussing, I would like to remake it in Excel, which has a very nice flowcharting system allowing easy changes of colors, text, background, etc. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Please make your document in SVG. The program Inkscape can allow you to do that. The original flowchart has been copied in many different languages, because SVG allows easy editing.
If you don't think your work is good enough to conquer the world, feel free not to do that, of course. O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
What about Visio? That's what I used. 129.174.91.119 (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Does Visio support SVG output? --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yup, and a lot of other outputs as well. Strangely, though, Meta isn't letting me upload it. Says it's corrupt or an incorrect extension. It lets you do regular SVG and compressed SVG, which has an .SVGZ extension. Neither will upload (the latter because of the extension). 129.174.91.119 (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey interesting. That might be a bug... does the SVG show ok in firefox? Can you upload a copy someplace else for me to look at? --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

From a guidline to an abstract article

I have not looked at this page for some time but it strikes me that it is moving further and further from a practical guideline into an abstract article that is becoming harder to understand and that has very little in the way of practical guidance for new users who are the ones that need the guidance most. end of 2005, end of 2006, End of 2007 and now (29 April 2008)

For example I think the sections and contents of the 2006 version "Consensus vs. other policies" and "Consensus vs. supermajority" should not have been deleted because both are relevant to the Wikipedia decision making process and how a Wikipedia Consensus fits into that overall system. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you make a good point. I'd like to see where we come out on the discussion of the concepts and the do a major cleanup cutting the bulk by 50% for clarity. It seems that wea re winding down on the disputes over content. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Philip: You and I don't see eye to eye on consensus. I know that you would like to change wikipedia into a (super-)majoritan democracy instead of a consensus system. You also know that I disagree with that most strenuously. Don't pretend that the two systems are the same. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
However, it would be a good idea to mention that we do use polling and supermajorities as a substitute for consensus when the number of participants in a discussion is too large to produce a coherent result otherwise (RfA, Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll, etc.)--Father Goose (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
RFA actually is still the consensus process, but with a time limit, and a tie-breaker... (in many circumstances it gets close to a straight vote, but you can still break out of the format if you want/need to because it's not officially a vote... and that's the only way it's still alive... too many people have promised to kill it if that ever changes :-P ). It's not really a best practice, now is it? But ok, we could document some of how that works too, as long as we explain it's suboptimal (and are we going to get new politic-ing on this page when that happens? Yes we are :-P Can we handle it? Good question!) . The ATT poll was an abortion. How to document that is an interesting problem all on its own. :-) So Hmmmm <scratches head> --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I get the sense that the "abortion" of ATT better represented a consensus outcome than the means by which it was briefly instituted. But like you say, that's a problem all on its own.--Father Goose (talk) 06:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Consensus is built up of calm, informed opinions based on adequate debate in which everyone participates. None of those 3 requirements were really present for ATT, so while the ATT poll went through some of the motions, and looked really spectacular and all, it didn't really do anything useful WRT consensus. Does that make sense? --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:CON

If I for example post on a talk page that I believe the page should be moved and leave it a reasonable amount of time for example a week, if no-one objects or supports the proposal is it fair to save i have formed WP:CON or is support of a other user needed to say WP:CON exists ?Gnevin (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd give it at least 2 weeks (as not everyone checks into Wikipedia regularly). But yes, if there are no objections in the given timeframe, that's considered consensus for a move. If there is an objection, then it becomes necessary to generate a consensus through discussion first. -- Kesh (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I generally leave a week or two before moving a page if there's no reply. Even if someone does see it after the move has been performed, it can always be undone if that's what the resulting consensus decides. For non-controversial moves, you can always just move the page and leave an explanation on the talk page for anyone who has the page on their watchlist. I would suggest though, that that approach only be used for clear-cut cases where you're moving the page to conform with policy and such. Parsecboy (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
In cases such as the one you're trying to drag up again, however, you should take note of when you are reverted and attempt to make sure what the consensus is before continuing. You have been told about this before, Gnevin, and bringing it up again with people unfamiliar with your past actions does not mean you can interpret this guideline however you like. Everyone else, please see User_talk:Gnevin#National_sport for further reference. Hersfold (t/a/c) 14:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I don;'t think User_talk:Gnevin#National_sport has much baring on this question as the Admin used his Admin powers to ignore my wp:con which lead to a foolish on my behalf edit war, however if you wish to discuss it the moving admin was also wrong to ignore my con as per above But yes, if there are no objections in the given timeframe, that's considered consensus for a move. I had consensuses where was the admin's con ? Gnevin (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Ps I object too you use of the word trolling as per WP:NPA and WP:Civil, this was created a week ago , i've given it a week for discussion to develop, and then I decided to inform the admins of the errors of their interpretation of policyGnevin (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This is interesting. The advice here and at this user's talk page is to discuss first prior to action, which indicate the use of an earlier version of the flowchart 5 series which suggested but did not mandate discussion before change. What is the real practice at WP? --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • No. Gnevin posted on the talk page. No one noticed the post. No one replied, either for or against the move. When Gnevin moved the page, (which was fine) people noticed and objected. At this point it became clear the move was contested. After that, Gnevin should have discussed with those who objected. Instead, he edit warred, violating 3RR, and when several admins tried to advise him to discuss the change, he claimed he had "consensus" although no one at all but himself had said anything about the move. One editor does not "consensus" make. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this went too far, but it seems that the advice above was to post a proposed change and leave it for some time before acting. This is at least an invitation to discuss. On the other hand, I see the harm in suggesting discussion first as leading to hair splitting down the road. Cheers and have a great weekend! --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
This has come up again at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(flags)#Suggestion_related_to_sports_players, can I suggest that WP:CON be changed to state that, the lack of objection or approval after a reasonable time is WP:CON Gnevin (talk) 08:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is commonly formed by editing pages on the wiki.

[15] Both charts are functionally the same, so it shouldn't matter which one is used. --NewbyG (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. The more recent chart has gone through many compromises, is less complicated and addresses other specific concerns. Why are we sliding back? --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Both charts have interesting properties, imho. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the CCC title from the text at the bottom of the chart. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Will we be working on more charts? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I prefer some of the earlier iterations of the 5 series charts, but I can live with the current compromise. However, I'm happy to work with folks on new ideas, or are you saying more charts? I'm happy to work on charts with the team. When we come to a final agreement on the current chart, I'd like to redraw it in better resolution. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for any confusion. I do think either chart should work, and I put the older chart up just as a test to see if it looked OK (which it did). But the newer chart CCC 5f seems best, and it is back now, with better wording, so that's fine. Is the chart better at 400px, or leave it at 200 or maybe 250px? We have put in a lot of work on these charts, particularly Kevin. I hope we can stick with the one we have now, (with the .svg as a back-up). No doubt there could be further fine-tuning of the graphic aspect, but I think we can regard the months spent on this as having been worth it. --NewbyG (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
If anyone is interested in working on more charts, then just put the prototypes up on the talk page and we can all have a look at them. Cheers! --NewbyG (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

More flowcharts

Actually, I typically still use the original flowchart for teaching (and it's also the only one that people can easily translate, since it's in SVG format).

I'm ok with having evolving charts up on the main page, but I'm not quite satisfied with what you've gotten up to in series 5 (sowwy :-/ ) If you're no longer intend on working on new charts for now, then they're not evolving, so I'd like to put the original chart back up. When you start making new charts again, feel free to post them upfront, and we'll all take a look again. :-) Is that ok? --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC) even so, this particular flowchart 5 right above/next to my text is interesting for many reasons. I'm going to be using '1', 2, and 5 over time.

Consensus new and old.svg needs some work. The two rectangular boxes bottom left should really be one box.
The other problems with that flowchart, which mean that it is not inherently superior to the 5 series flowchart, have been discussed at length in the previous archive, and this one.
I can live with the svg, but the jpg is a better flowchart.
If the svg format is superior, why is that chart so blurry at under 250px?
Both flowcharts can be improved, if work is going to continue.
The project page does not have to have a flowchart on it; if there is one, it should be one that works, and one that satisfies most of the concerns raised by most editors on the discussion page (or in edit summaries!). There are some problems with both charts, minor ones, but the faults of the svg flowchart have been around for longer, without being fixed. Cheers! --NewbyG (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Some suggestions

Here are some of the problems with the flowchart Consensus new and old.svg, and suggestions for improvement. (For the purposes of this page, not necessarily any lectures or anything outside this page)
If the bottom two boxes of the svg were one box, which read Use the talk page to discuss your ideas with other editors, and find a reasonable compromise, that would be better.
And if the top right box read Think of a reasonable change that might integrate your ideas with theirs, and make an edit, or discuss those ideas with other editors that would be an improvement.
And if the text fit into the boxes. --
CCC Flowchart 5f doesn't have the same problems.NewbyG (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The svg format is so much easier to edit and translate, that almost all other issues pale by comparison. (check out commons for the many variants and translations available for chart 1. Also note how neither of us are editing the non-svg flowcharts.)
  • Hmmm, go ahead, why should the last 2 boxes in chart 1 be merged? (in fact, why not just go ahead and do that? Do you have inkscape installed yet?)
  • Note that the "Think of a reasonable change that might integrate your ideas with theirs, and make an edit, or discuss those ideas with other editors" is actually a merged box (it includes the discuss first concept, but hides it) , and might very well lead to the infamous infinite loop (aka. using old deliberative assembly terminology, it allows unbounded filibuster without any form of cloture). I'm not sure that I've quite convinced you that infinite loop/infinite filibuster is a bad thing. Else why do you keep proposing systems that allow it? :-P
I've already stated my issues with 5f, I think. Perhaps we have different priorities, and hence different issues? --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Well the merged concept is actually something like this : think about a possible edit, discuss it if there seems some good reason to do so, or else go ahead and make the edit. That same merged concept is actually hidden in any of the rectangular boxes in both charts. --
Hey : No chart can cure the world of filibustering! Just because the svg chart has an arrow on it or something aint gonna change one thing in the RW. The svg chart doesn't allow for any discussion except after a revert, and even then there is endless possibility there for filibustering. In fact look it up in the dictionary - Take it to the talk page = opportunity to filibuster. --
Flowchart 5f is a flowchart, not a magic wand it cannot prevent filibustering or something like that happening, but the flowchart does not promote filibustering, any more than new and old.svg does. I do not know what you mean there at all. --
If the svg format is so easy to edit, why not put up a prototype with that extra box removed and maybe the wording tweaked, I haven't seen any variations of the svg image, the only one being edited is the jpg. --
Um, when you are finished discussing, someone is gonna have to make an edit. Does that really need to be said, it seems kinda obvious. --NewbyG (talk) 03:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Different views of consensus

Here's something that hasn't been documented yet:

Consensus on the en.wikipedia is not a single coherent thing, since the wiki keeps people apart, and there's very little centralization (there should be none at all, but that's a story for another day).

So 2 people can end up disagreeing on the state of (global) consensus. Much dispute ensues!

--Kim Bruning (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about this the other day. I'd like to see a statement in the intro that says what consensus is ideally, and then what it is practically on Wikipedia. That way we always have a goal to strive towards, even though we know we will rarely actually reach it.
"Ideally, consensus decision-making means that when there's a disagreement, editors discuss the topic rationally and are swayed by each others arguments until a unanimous agreement is reached. Although we strive for this ideal, "consensus" in practice..." — Omegatron (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
+Ideally, the discussion takes place entirely in the form of edits to the page being discussed. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC) this is the shorter of the two loops on 'chart 1' ... ok, we REALLY need to get our charts act together :-P
I agree wholeheartedly that editing is much smoother and more efficient when people edit the page directly instead of talking about it in endless loops. — Omegatron (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
So 2 people, or maybe 200 people can end up disagreeing on the state of (global) consensus. Much dispute ensues! Maybe --NewbyG (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to my hell life. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that even ideally "the discussion takes place entirely in the form of edits". Many things on Wikipedia are too complicated for that. Best regards Rhanyeia♥♫ 19:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wider vs narrower consensus

Wider consensus is stronger than local consensus. Not because we say so, but because there will always be more people who subscribe to a global consensus. So typically situations will trend towards the global consensus, rather than the local version (though influence does flow both ways). --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC) I'm trying to word this clearly in the example on the page, but someone keeps reverting. I get the idea they think I'm saying that wikiprojects determine consensus or so. That's not right ;-)

Some questions unresolved from /Archive 5

Discuss first sounds like a good idea to some. We're investigating.

  • When does discussion take place?
According to Image:Consensus new and old.svg discussion only takes place if you disagree with a revert, and at no other time. That aint right.
According to Image:CCC Flowchart 5f.jpg, discussion takes place if you disagree with a revert or modification. That aint quite right either.
What happens, that after a modification, the "discussion" may take place in edit summaries. So the text in the box that says "Discuss ideas for improving the page" should be interpreted that way (or adjusted) so as to include making an edit, with an edit summary. --
I am not sure where in consensus new and old.svg that the discussion box should go, at the moment that flowchart has "Discuss" as a label on a path between two boxes that actually represent just one box, and doesn't cover cases where discussion might take place. --NewbyG (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Interesting! Let me think about that. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Discussion should take place whenever there is indications of disagreement. So if you suspect that the edit you are making will be controversial you should discuss before making the edit. On the other end of the spectrum is edits you feel are coming from established you where you only need to discuss if the edits are reverted. Taemyr (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
No, you should make the edit, then see what the other people actually bring to the table, it might be something totally different from what you expect! If you discuss first, you can find yourself never getting around to editing. So assume good faith of other editors, and take a WP:BOLD plunge, you are likely to come out ok. --18:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC) (User:Kim Bruning)
Still unresolved, I would say. --NewbyG (talk) 07:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, it seems the 5 series so far may not have answered the question. Consensus new and old works by avoiding that question. --NewbyG (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Global consensus cycle

First you read how to edit, then you edit, then you learn, then you write down how you edit, then you read how to edit some more, then you edit... etc...

It's a wider feedback cycle by which we all learn how to use the wiki. It is an undeniable fact that we do create project namespace pages, and it is an undeniable fact that these pages reflect consensus. Therefore it is imperative that consensus must be documented. One editor is apparently denying this fact.

Why? --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

--we do create project namespace pages, = project namespace pages are created, you can see them every few minutes or so on Recent Changes. --
--these pages reflect consensus, = these pages reflect consensus every day, every minute, every microsecond, and for all eternity, undeniable fiction. --
--consensus must be documented, = ?? every consensus must be documented ?? every document requires consensus ?? HOW TO REACH consensus must be documented ?? Only how to reach consensus may be documented ?? If no document exists, it didn't happen. ?? --
--What? --NewbyG (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Back to documentation mode

Errr, I can't quite figure out what you're saying there?
Wait, reading back I think I skipped a step in my reasoning too ... <pulls a nice big "oops" smile>
Lemme try again.
The saying goes "if it isn't written down, it never happened". It's an important part of any process to write documentation. That's how other people learn from your actions, and also helps you to remember how to do stuff 6 months down the line.
So if only for that reason, documentation is very important.
But in the case of a consensus system, documentation is extra important. Someone needs to keep track of what everyone is agreeing on, and why they're making those agreements, because otherwise, you get lost. Sure, you can search diffs and so forth, but there are so many diffs every day on wikipedia, that you just can't keep track.
Part of the consensus process is therefore to keep track of a summary of what current consensus is. It would be very tricky to maintain a consensus system on the english wikipedia without documenting global consensus.
Does that make a bit more sense?
--Kim Bruning (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
--Well up to a point, but no not really, and it has nothing to do with this page. It sounds like compiling Hansard or some record of decisions made by parliament, or maybe a newspaper or something. Not the page where the consensus-reaching process on en:wikipedia is explained. --NewbyG (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This is very hard for me to explain, because it's so very obvious to me. Our policies, guidelines and essays document and serve as a common memory of our consensus decisions. Before you decide to do something, (if you're smart), first you read existing policies, guidelines, and essays, then you figure out what to do that's in line with consensus (WP:WIARM) and do it, then when you're done, you write down what you did, thus contributing back to the policy/guideline/essay pool. Next time anyone does something similar, they'll read that information, figure out what to do, and improve on it once again, and write it down again. The time after that... etc. And that's how long term global consensus is built up over time. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
REPLY--Our policies, guidelines and essays document and serve as --[PART OF]-- a common memory of our consensus decisions. Before you decide to do something, (if you're smart), first you read existing policies, guidelines, and essays, then you figure out what to do that's in line with consensus and do it, then when you're done, you write down what you did,
--[for personal use and] thus contributing back to the policy/guideline/essay pool
--[If there is an appropriate policy guideline, essay, or document, or if one should be written].
Next time anyone does something similar, they'll read that information, figure out what to do, and improve on it once again, and write it down again. The time after that... etc. And that's how
--[a set of current and historical pages] [ which document the changing history of "long term global consensus" which is built up over time] builds up over time. --
These ideas seem right-alright, regarding the Documentation section. Kim, do you see there in [...]. where I see these concepts in a slightly different light, as I try to understand it, at this yada-yada point in time? --NewbyG (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Just some ideas. (Global consensus cycle - where is that going to be discussed?) --
Our policy is what we do, before it becomes what we write down.
Our policy is to follow what our policies mean, not necessarily what they say!
If a page is not applied or acted upon, it is not a policy page. (It may be a historical page.)
If a policy page is applied, and is edited, it still has consensus as policy.
If a policy page is applied, but not edited, it still has consensus as policy.
If no-one ever reads a page, that page does not have consensus.
Just some ideas. Does any of that make sense? --NewbyG (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand this:-- Part of the consensus process is therefore to keep track of a summary of what current consensus is.
-- Um. A summary of what current consensus is is the purpose of each individual policy page. Keeping a track of that is the list of policies and guidelines. --
The consensus page could say that "current policy pages reflect current consensus", which doesn't really need to be said. --
Maybe what you are trying to say here is something else, and is something which we ought to think about including in the Documentation section. I think there is something there, but I can't quite grasp it. Cheers! --NewbyG (talk) 23:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
--We do encourage people to maintain documentation on the current consensus, and the documentation is typically fairly well maintained, but do be aware that a wiki can never be 100% reliable, and do check everything you read for yourself, as is true of all other namespaces. --
This was reasonable (17 Jan 2008) up to a point; the accompanying material not promising at all IMO. --NewbyG (talk) 07:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be very tricky

It would be very tricky to maintain a consensus system on the english wikipedia without documenting global consensus. Well, yes, but that is not the purpose of any section of this project page, particularly the section on Exceptions. --NewbyG (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No, but here I'm arguing that we need to document. This might be a good thing to place in a section called, say, "documentation". ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Need to document what? On this page we "describe" how consensus is reached. We add links to other pages which document where consensus was reached, and what consensus was reached in reference to particular topics, for instance, Wikipedia:Editing policy represents the current consensus as to best editing practice, and Wikipedia:Office actions states current policy and gives details of how that policy is applied. --
On this page we explain some of the processes which relate to consensus-reaching, not the actual details of what consensus was reached in every actual case. --NewbyG (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
:-D . This is the page about consensus, so sometimes things can get confusing that way. We need to document the fact that consensus must be documented. I'm going to sleep, I'm sure I can say that more clearly in the morning. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
--We need to document the fact that consensus must be documented. Yes, that's right. Confusing, though, isn't it. (My head hurts) --NewbyG (talk) 03:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Just another edit

[16]. NewbyGuesses (and also Rhanyeia)... it's important to explain *why* things work the way they do. Just removing the explanation won't help at all. Removing things simply because they are too complicated is probably not a great idea either. :-P Can we instead figure out a way to clarify them or make them simpler? --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's some more detail on what I'm trying to explain: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Workshop#Consensus --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[17]If these recent additions should go back up on the page, they should be put up on the discussion page for a look. On the project page, they appeared not to explain or make anything clearer, and I reverted them. --NewbyG (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
That's what I just did, right? I provided a diff. :-P So. Now that we're agreed, what do you mean didn't make anything clearer? I'm trying to explain how consensus moves around with people. See the arbcom case thread where hmmm, I explain in more detail. I'm not sure what to do with that information. Also I saw the other sections could be clarified as to how things worked too... Can you give me any ideas?
  • Declarations by jimmy wales and the board have policy status. Yes, but WHY? And why should we follow them? It's not because they were carved in clay and handed down off the mountain.
It's because "These have policy status because they're there to protect you or help you, it's probably a bad idea to break laws." And why should you listen to developers? Because "it would be a bad idea to lose all your work due to a known bug/feature.", among other things. Isn't this obvious? No, obviously it's not.
  • Office actions act outside the english wikipedia community. Oh wow, so do we have to grin and bear that, if you disagree or want clarification, do you just have to sit on your chair clench your teeth? What do you do if you encounter an office action, and want to DO something? Isn't this supposed to be a consensus system?
Well yes... so "You can talk with the foundation office if you have issues with these.". Is this obvious? Perhaps, perhaps not, but in the context of consensus, it's important
  • Consensus on a small scale is not expected to override consensus on a larger scale very quickly. But why? Is this handed down on clay tablets? No. Was it decreed by the great maker of policies? No! So why is this the case? Did we just make it up someday? No!
Well, it is the case because even if you have a number of people working locally, sooner or later more people from the rest of the wiki will take a look, and consensus will start to resemble the main consensus more and more. Is this obvious? Nope. it was even misexplained in a arbcom case!

All of these things should be explained as best we can. So how do we go about that? <scratches head> --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Details

We need to go into detail somewhere, right? Where do you propose? --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a link provided to Wikipedia:office actions. Any need for details about that item is satisfied best by following that link. That's easy. --NewbyG (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, ok, maybe... how about the other two? --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Practice

I do agree with simplifying the page, but at some point we might end up oversimplifying. We do actually have to explain what to do.

If you notice that a particular policy or guideline page is not in line with current consensus, feel free to update it. If you notice that certain things haven't been written down yet, create a new page in the Wikipedia: namespace and write it down.

Right.. once again we might be oversimplifying. This is how you write policy. Where do we document this instead?

Are you systematically removing all references to policy, or is that accidental? --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Please do not make foolish statements or accusations about other editor's intentions merely as some sort of rhetorical flourish. --NewbyG (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    No no, I mean you've actually been removing a lot of stuff that just happens to have to do with how policy is created atm. That could be coincidental, or accidental, or maybe you were planning to start a new page, or maybe the content was already on some other page that I haven't seen... or etc. Basically, what's up? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
While cutting down on wording is nice, the actual goal is to explain how to form consensus, of course. So I've put this particular section back for now. (some of the other changes took some effort of will to leave untouched, but were ok afaict :-) ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

--Ah, well, yes then. Eureka, we have dug our way out of that one pot-hole, at least.

We do indeed need to document the fact that consensus must be documented (if we can) !!

And, yes, [19] that section (Documentation) is now under way (see, no-one was "denying" anything!) The text is a little "dodgy" at this time, and there is a long way to go, if the section is to really cover everything, which we do not have to do, but it is a worthwhile avenue to go down. --NewbyG (talk) 06:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's the possible new section which was added by Kim Bruning and removed by me:
== Documentation ==
If we find that a particular consensus happens we often document it as a best practice, to save people the time having to discuss the same principles over and over. If you notice that a particular policy or guideline page is not in line with current consensus, feel free to update it, or to join the discussion on the talk page. If you notice that certain things haven't been written down yet, create a new page in the Wikipedia: namespace and write it down.
Documentation is important so that we can learn from history, and the mistakes and smart things others have done. If no documentation is written, everyone must guess at the unwritten rules, and new users will never learn how to be good Wikipedians.
Some problems which I see with adding this section: Wikipedia already has a lot of very long policies and guidelines, so writing more isn't necessarily helping newcomers. It's difficult to become a Wikipedian also because there is so much text to read, and newcomers are probably also spending time reading articles and source material. In order for it to be easier for newcomers to join, simple and concise rules/instructions are better than an almost endless amount of text. This section encourages writing more and more and I think that isn't necessarily good. I also don't see anything in this section which would add something so very important. There's already a section about policies on Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Sources_of_Wikipedia_policy. Best regards Rhanyeia♥♫ 19:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

the need to document best practices

True, but at the same time we need to document best practices, both for new people and for old people, so that we know what we are doing. If we do not document, we cannot learn from our history, and are doomed to repeat it.
The fact that one must document, document, document is ingrained in my psyche (I'm trained as a scientist, and work as a programmer). It is almost impossible for me to understand a world where documentation does not exist.
Certainly I agree that we need short concise information for people starting out, but there are also a lot of finnicky details you don't even WANT to remember, and which we rather write down to look up when needed.
Basically, unless everyone has photographic memory, if we don't document, we get lost.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
While I agree with what Kim is saying, in the context of the discussion, I think that Rhanyeia is not objecting to documentation, but to over documentation. This has been a concern of mine for some time. As our rule sets creep in there complexity and number editors seeking solutions can become mired in the detail and minutia. A good balance shuld be sought. I too thought that Kim's clarifications strayed beyond my ideal, but not enough to oppose the edits. The ideas are sound but the added bulk is a concern. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I think I'm shifting towards the position that we actually need 2 sets of documentation. (Actually, I was sort of shifted towards that position before..).
First there's this simplified documentation (like WP:5P) which just gives you a general overview of how things work, and then you have more specialized documentation that describes all the finicky details.
Both sets are very important. The former to learn by heart to have some basic principles and a bit of a road-map, and the latter to actually use in day to day work. This is sort of similar to what I do when programming, there's usually a very simple language definition and tutorial, where you have to maybe memorise 50-100 words (or less these days even), and then there's this huge phone-book like document that folks don't even bother to print out anymore, that provides details of all kinds of add-on libraries that can handle finicky little details you don't even want to know about (until you actually do ;-) ). On any particular day, you might have a general idea of what to do and what's possible, and then you look up the best way to actually get parts of that done in the big reference book. No one memorizes the big book ever, you don't need to. It typically has a really decent index. :-)
Can we structure our documentation like that too? --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
That is mostly reasonable. The question is (at the moment) not if the process of documentation is important, but rather "how" it is to be explained. The current draft text has been objected to as not doing this well enough, it is unclear. I think maybe the subject is better being explained on another page, not the consensus page.
WP:CON used to have one sentence about documentation. Maybe one sentence does the job better, as far as this page is concerned. Or else a better draft is needed. --NewbyG (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Urk. If anywhere, then here. I'm admittedly having huge difficulties trying to wrap your head around where you might be coming from. To me it's just so integral to the consensus process that I can't see it as separate. You read how to do stuff, you do stuff, then you write down what stuff worked. That's totally a part of what we do. /me shuts up and tries to think of ways to explain why the sky is blue and why apples fall down off trees... --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC) Colours, prisms, gravity, down-ness, light going slow... ARGH!
Kim, the policy pages should be concise and actionable. The why should be discussed in essays etc. The problem is that when the policy pages get cloudy, then actions such as AfD require wiki-lawyers and wiki-judges. You are right - right - right for science, just not for guidance. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing ;-) But I'm thinking about this at the process level as well. There's many ways to do what we want that ostensibly work, but kill the all-important day-to-day, minute-by-minute feedback cycles of the wikipedia decision making process that keep the place running (which is what it's actually all about in the first place :-P ), and there's many ways to improve the decision cycle, but they make the project namespace a bigger mess than it is already, and even less useful to new people. Now how does one think of an elegant system that achieves both aims? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Kim, I'm with you on this, because solving this problem would solve many problems at WP. Simple direction with a complex why documentation. Talk pages wander way too much and make a poor archive for all but the most dedicated researchers. Essays are prone to opinion and we will likely end up with mountains competing explanations. I look forward to helping you to seek the best solution. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

From the nutshell

A --- Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making.
B --- Policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it.
A lead section first two paragraphs.
B lead section last two paragraphs.
A,B Sect 1
A Sect 2
A Sect 3
B Sect 4
A,B Sect 5
B Sect 6
B Sect 7
Some focus. --NewbyG (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

A comparison of two flowcharts

There are only five possible paths through either flowchart. Three of them are the same for both flowcharts, and two of them are different.

Same

  • Edit A --> not modifed --> not reverted --> New consensus (both)
  • Edit A --> modified --> Editor A agrees --> New consensus (both)
  • Edit A --> reverted --> Editor A disagrees --> Talk page (both)

Different

1.

  • Edit A --> reverted --> Editor A agrees --> New consensus (new and old)
  • Edit A --> reverted --> Editor A agrees --> Previous consensus (flowchart 5f)

2.

  • Edit A --> modified --> Editor A disagrees --> Make an edit (new and old)
  • Edit A --> modified --> Editor A disagrees --> Talk page (flowchart 5f)
These are basically the only differences between the charts.
In interpreting the charts, and how the chart applies to the editing process, the wording in the charts, as well as the text in the section concerning the flowchart, also apply.

What do they say?

Basically, (new and old) says edit, and keep on editing until there is a revert. Then go to the talk page.
And (flowchart 5f) basically says edit, and keep editing until there is a disagreement, then go to the talk-page.
But that is nothing like the whole story, which is a bit more complicated than that. --
The flowcharts only tell a part of the story. --

Another way of looking at it

Actually, these particular differences between these particular charts are irrelevant to the way I personally see the editing process, because I always agree with every edit, as soon as I see it, so I always take the "agree" paths. This doesn't work for (new and old), because I like to use the discussion page whenever I want to, so I just IAR that step in (new and old) --
I agree immediately with every edit, and usually wait for some time, maybe a couple of hours to see if it is edited again. Then, if I see a valid edit, I make it, or go to the talk page. That's easy and it works for me, no problemo. --
Using this method, I consider that my best editing is done by leaving completely alone those thousands and thousands of good edits made by other contributors, which, if I find them interesting, I will read and re-read and consider over again. The few edits which I make myself, are pretty easy, and work some of the time, not all of the time. --NewbyG (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Each chart is flawed. We can accurately map the entire decision process, but then people object to a chart which is overly complex. The latest version of Chart 5 became too simplified, thus the objection to having to discuss rather than edit if your edit is opposed. If this is the objection it is easilly fixed since it was addressed in earlier versions of the 5 series charts. Will that resolve the issue? --Kevin Murray (talk) 06:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Possibly, depending on what you do :-). And actually you bring forward an interesting project there *eyes glaze over, thinking of that huge flowchart in shimmering technicolor* --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Since the new format has failed. Why don't we return our discussion to an ammended vewrsion of the original chart. But in the interim I oppose any chart so the old chart doesn't get stuck as erroneous status quo. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
--Flowchart 5f was up on the project page most of April, and editing of wikipedia continued pretty well as normal, didn't it. Consensus new and old works. It has been up on the page without causing problems for a long time, even if there is current discussion about discussion being documented in a flowchart. 5g is a prototype. There doesn't have to be any flowchart on the project page, but I don't have any problems with Consensus new and old going back on the page, in whatever section is appropriate. Then we can workshop prototypes on ths page. --NewbyG (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
5F was a significant compromise between many people, but wore the restictions of too many cooks spoiling the broth. The older chart was not widely discussed and has many flaws in form and logic I'd prefer that we do not repost a chart until there has been a robust discussion. Maybe we should wait until the page is stable again and then chart the final text rather than trying to back into a poorly conceived flowchart. --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I would say that this flowchart represents a very simple process. Two copies of this flowchart hooked up would like quite a bit like consensus new and old. --NewbyG (talk) 04:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I <3 chart 6. I'll now admit to only sort of politely agreeing to some of the other charts, but ... I really really like this one :-D
I still need to scrutinize it carefully and figure how it applies in more detail. But it's certainly very elegant. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, now there's a Gordian knot unbound. Thumbs up on Chart 6.--Father Goose (talk) 05:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
5g reintroduces ye olde indefinite filibuster (aka infinite loop is what I called it earlier I think). I'm pretty sure that Kevin and I don't actually like filibuster, so I'm scratching my head why filibuster keeps coming back? You need some way to break the cycle ("cloture".. very roughly). Traditionally this has been by allowing a BOLD edit. I know rare occasions where people call a poll (which then typically asplode though ;-)), although when used properly, these simply clarify a discussion (as opposed to making a decision). Are there mechanisms known that allow for "cloture", besides those? --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Kim, were you talking about 5G or 5H (below)? What you call a filibuster seems inherent in the WP process unless there is intervention. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
5H, sorry, yes. And no, like I said, nothing stops you from editing during a discussion. The 3RR further prevents a revert war (which you could call a "filibuster by editing"). --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I prefer making flowcharts, and then describing them in text, for many reasons. (not the least because that's how I learned to write texts and build other things besides ). Flowcharts allow you to quickly view and asses the logic and flow of your ideas, and they then form the framework upon which you build your description of a situation or solution. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. In construction a lot of poor ideas are eliminated when you draw the plans in multiple dimensions. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The map is not the territory

Wikipedia:Governance reform

Although this proposed policy seems likely to fail, there are some interesting observations, concerning consensus.

Policy pages are typically maintained by a large and diverse community of editors who visit and help maintain the pages. New editors join in and help out. There are situations where people think it is appropriate to filibuster. Currently these situations are slowly being corrected. This process is thriving, with hundreds of policies, guidelines and essays to provide advice to people on every single subject from how to convince the community to change course to how many spaces should follow a full stop. --

A lot of talk about consensus

WT:BLP A lot of talk lately about consensus, but not much in the way of convincing arguments.

-- consensus alone, not one user presenting some holy grail of information, decides. --

-- consensus is not the majority, nor is it your personal will above everyone else. --

-- Policy pages are intended to reflect consensus, but they are not the policy/consensus themselves ("the map is not the terrain"). --

-- You can't claim that you are the only person able to divine consensus. --

-- Hmmm --NewbyG (talk) 05:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You've been following me around. :-) I'd been warned that BLP was a tricky place to go ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I was wondering why I was getting no replies to my extremely well-considered posts to this page, and then I saw on my watch-list that WT:BLP was hosting a shout-a-thon. I have nothing to say there, but it makes for interesting reading. Very interesting! --NewbyG (talk) 06:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • --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.-- [20] --NewbyG (talk) 09:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, I just pulled out a section that had some large amount of redundancy... I hope I didn't just stomp that phrasing. Hmmm... now what? <scratches head> --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry too much about what you cut out. I think that the lead section is fairly tight. I'd focus on streamlining and condensing some of the sections, and then come back to make sure that the lead is an accurate summary of the main text. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Edits

Could the following edits be explained please, and can we think about these sentences? [21] What do you mean with "foundation issue #3"? [22] Isn't it so that if the consensus was based on good reasons it doesn't necessarily shift, sometimes it happens and sometimes not, I wouldn't think it's possible to predict that it "will tend to" shift. [23] Do you mean that the talk page message is the "edit summary"? It's not understandable from the text, with the earlier version I didn't even know why it said a "long edit summary". Edit summary means what's written in the edit summary box. One could write a talk page message, wait for two days or longer time, and then edit, and say in the edit summary that there's a message on the talk page. And even if you edit immediately after a talk page message you would still use at least some edit summary. Best regards Rhanyeia♥♫ 17:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • m:Foundation Issues, #3. (Originally, wiki's did not have talk pages, so they are clearly not essential. If talk page consensus was the final decider of content, then that would have been what the foundation issue said :-P )
  • In theory, if consensus was perfect, and humans were perfect (and identical), yes it would stay the same. In reality, every human being is unique, and therefore has a slightly different view of the world. The practical upshot is that anytime a new person starts working on a page/joins a conversation/etc... the consensus will always shift in practice.
  • A "long edit summary" is an edit summary you want to make that is too long to fit into the edit summary box. What do you do? Well, first write your summary on the talk page (instead of in the summary box) ... that's one of the reasons we have talk pages you see... then save your edit, with "I've put my summary on the talk page" or some such as your edit summary. If you do things in any other order, or with delays in between, you end up confusing people in a myriad of interesting but frustrating ways... Perhaps this kind of detail could go elsewhere though. <scratches head>

--Kim Bruning (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Urk. Ok, ask me to clarify something specifically... maybe I can word more clearly. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Kim, you answered in double speak. The first answer denied the need for talk pages because we have edit summaries, the third anwser says we need talk pages because edit summaries don't work well. Too much go-juice? --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Not enough go juice, rather :-P
The first denies a need for edit summaries and talk pages at all. Wikis can function without them. Of course nowadays we're totally addicted to our shiny summaries and pretty pages, so we sometimes forget that they're not actually essential. (compare: before the 1980's cell phones didn't exist, nowadays a lot of people think they would die if they didn't have one ;-P )
The third answer doesn't say that anything doesn't work well, it just describes a workaround in case things don't work like you want them to. (some people are so addicted to edit summaries, that they make them too long, and the text spills over onto the talk page :-P).
I think you've mostly just assumed some things which I actually didn't say (thank goodness), and then it was the assumptions that collided. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
It's kinda funny, if there is anyone more "addicted" to talk pages than myself, it just might be KB! --NewbyG (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Your sentence "As more people join the conversation at a later date, consensus will tend to shift" could be left out because there's "processes remain flexible for several reasons including: new people bring fresh ideas" which I think is good and they are quite close to each other, and then we wouldn't need to wonder is it possible to predict the future or not. I'd write it like this:
Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and changes are sometimes reasonable.
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.
This also rewords "It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, ..." a bit, which could also be read as having a predicting element. If you think it's possible to predict, maybe it would still be better if it's not on a policy. I'm going to try this rewording. Best regards Rhanyeia♥♫ 08:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Some thirty edits

Other than the flowchart, which is still at an experimental phase, there is a lot of good tightening and streamlining here. (34 intermediate revisions not shown.) (12,462 bytes) --> (9,848 bytes) a more presentable policy page, no policy bloops?
Any comments? --NewbyG (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Later Diff. (29 intermediate revisions not shown.) --NewbyG (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Later Diff. (8,262 bytes) (64 intermediate revisions not shown.) --NewbyG (talk) 03:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus within the framework of ... is circular

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.

This confounds some matters, and some of the matters so confounded are circular.

  • When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'consensus within the framework of established policy and practice'
    Big problem. Consensus informs policy, then policy informs consensus? That's circular. One informs the other. So either wikipedia is run by policy (but then there is no mechanism to form it), or it is run by consensus (in which case consensus is the mechanism that forms policy too).
  • Consensus among a limited group of editors can not over-ride community consensus on a wider scale.
    Yes it can, if only via WP:IAR. It's just that as more people join in the discussion, the consensus among the limited group will tend to yield for that of the larger group in a natural fashion. group a (10 people) says x , group b (10000 people) says y. Over time, more people from group b join group a, and group a will shift towards x. But this is not always true, and the smaller group might tend to convince everyone who enters. It is not the case that one can walk into say WP:BAG on one's own and demand they change their rules to match the community(and not entirely for lack of trying, let me tell you ;-) )
  • I think the concept here is that global consensus tends to be more important than local consensus. So that's what needs to be stated somehow.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia talk:Consensus/Archive 6#Consensus is Global not Local
Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Sources of Wikipedia policy Documenting actual practices and seeking consensus that the documentation truly reflects practices is the most effective method for policy documentation.
see above.--NewbyG (talk) 01:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, ok, now I saw it at this location and in this context, and whatever the case may be , it's wrong here. When changing process, you first gain consensus, then you update the page describing the process, right?. If consensus must always be within existing documentation of the process (as this suggests), then consensus can never change the process or the documentation. --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I edited the sentence a little to avoid that circle. Best regards Rhanyeia♥♫ 10:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we can merge the talk page stuff into participating in discussions.

As a general comment: One thing to keep in mind is that we do actually need to explain what to do, not just the underlying theory ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Readded section on gaining consensus on talk pages. I have a feeling we're sort of missing the central theme here... "what is consensus" :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sia GRASSETTO

Sia GRASSETTO nella pubblicazione; potete anche usare la pagina di colloquio per discutere i miglioramenti all'articolo ed al consenso della forma riguardo alla pubblicazione della pagina. Nel caso della politica pagina un più alto livello di partecipazione ed il consenso è preveduto. Nei casi in cui il consenso è particolarmente duro da trovare, la partecipazione dei redattori indipendenti o l'aiuto sperimentato nella discussione può essere necessario. Se la pubblicazione della pagina è impedetta vicino pubblichi le guerre, o è interrotto, o il consenso non può essere trovato alla pagina di colloquio con la discussione ordinaria, là è processi di risoluzione di disputa più convenzionale.
This is in Italian, but which section? --
Be Bold in editing; you can also use the talk page to discuss improvements to the article, and to form consensus concerning the editing of the page. In the of policy Standardhigherseiten ein of ordnet Teilnahme and Konsens expectedis. In cases where consensus is particularly hard to find, the involvement of independent editors, or more experienced help in the discussion may be necessary. EditingsEibe of the Seite is impeded by warsedikt, aber is disrupted, aber Konsens Boot Be found man the talk Seite through ordinary Diskussion, there Ar more formal Streit processesentschließung.
Ist Deutsch? --NewbyG (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't really followed this discussion, so my apologies if this has been suggested before, but why not just make a gallery of flowcharts at the bottom of the page? "here's some ways consensus has been formed in the past", etc, "click to expand". -- Ned Scott 03:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, Ned, but to what purpose? (Check the flowcharts in sections above.) --NewbyG (talk) 05:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Most of the flowcharts are purely theoretical, only one or two have actually been used in practice. I was going to make a separate page discussing them, once I have time. --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Too many edits for a policy page

This page describes a Wikipedia policy yet it gets dozens of edits per day. I think people are under-utilizing the discussion page before making changes. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Jason, your comment is ironic, as this is one of the issues which has been heavilly discussed here recently. It is also under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Governance reform. Many of the recent changes are the result of months of discussion, and hopefully we are close to consensus on what consensus means at WP. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
<grin> People were previously over-utilizing the talk page, and no work was getting done. At this rate the page is easily maintained and tends to converge towards consensus. Have fun! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a reasonable point, though it should be taken into account that many minor edits are made, not so many major ones and although the text changes slightly, there is no change to policy as such from these. There has been some excess cut from the page over the last months. Many of the edits made are quite minor, and many edits have been to the flowchart, or its blurb, which is one of the things being worked on.
Diffs have been regularly provided of the page being updated, there is the opportunity to check these, and ensure that nothing useful is deleted, Often, stuff is deleted, then readded slightly changed, which racks up the edits, but usually has a positive effect on the text of the policy page. See section above Some thirty edits for a summary of the changes made to the page since January 2008.
Although the text is changed, and some paragraphs have been chopped, there does not appear to be much change, or any change at all, to policy as such, which can be checked through the Revision history, or diffs. --NewbyG (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Goldfish editing: the reasons for nibble-like changes to policy are soon forgotten, so the policy discussion keeps going around and around
Goldfish editing: the reasons for nibble-like changes to policy are soon forgotten, so the policy discussion keeps going around and around
Wiki editing is self-documenting, thanks to diffs; if the changes in question are improvements, and everyone agrees that they are improvements, discussion only adds a bureaucratic glaze to things. Discussion is necessary to resolve disagreements (or to forge agreements regarding complicated issues). Like others have posted above, we've been having those discussions already over the past several months, and we are reaping the benefits now.--Father Goose (talk) 02:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Jason Quinn, there is too much editing of this policy page: it looks as if it is being treated as a personal sandbox. I think there is some sort of assumption that because these guidelines can be changed, whether a particular change makes sense or not. I call this "goldfish editing" - no one can recall what the last editor did and why, and the policy page is getting nibled all the time.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I like the goldfish nibling analaogy. I call it the Death by a thousand cuts. This should be a stable guideline, but it became very unstable along with many of our core guidelines through subtle tweaking. The recent project has been a bit fractious but productive and I think really represents a broad consensus, but I think that it is time to let it sit for a while. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the argument strictly "too many edits is bad"? What is the reasoning behind that statement? --Kim Bruning (talk) 07:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • In the context of "goldfish editing" is means that everybody's contributions get nibbled away eventually. What is bad about it is that none of the issues that should agreed upon in this discussion page never get resolved to anyone's satisfaction. Too many edits is a sure sign of lack of consensus, and a reluctance to join in healthy discusssion about how to achieve it. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
All of the people I've currently seen working on the page know what they're doing, and I trust them implicitly. Many of our policy pages need a lot of cleaning up at the moment, hence the number of edits needed (So in this case they don't indicate a lack of communication or consensus). I'm not sure if/what issues you would like to see addressed, but feel free to bring them up either on the discussion page or by editing, as you see fit. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC) Actually, when there are bouts of fairly rapid editing with no acrimony, this is an indicator that the normal wiki-consensus process is operational. If you're accustomed to lots of wikidrama, this might spook you to no end :-P.
I too share your trust in the integrity of those who have worked so hard here, but collectively we have created instability on the road to progress. I have adovocated a Policy and Process Project, which would be open to all, so that we could try to forge some overall direction. What is evolving at Wikipedia talk:Governance reform advocates more formality and narrower participation, but has the right general idea. We need some oversight to the governance and procedures, while the mainspace remains free. Ironically, clearer and consistent guidance should make mainspace more free. Less rules, better rules and stable rules. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The ideals of the Governance Reform project are very nice, but all of the approaches they have proposed so far all have the opposite predicted effect to what they are proposing. It would -for instance- become very hard to perform large scale cleanup like we've done here. Interestingly, many people doubt that the governance reform project will actually ever bring up enough steam to actually make such a change, however (because people using the normal wikipedia consensus methods run circles around them) ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Kim, I reverted your substantial edits of today back to 15:03, 20 May 2008 Rhanyeia, which I think best reflects every one working to a consensus point after the major changes of last Thursday and Friday. It seems that everyone had there say and Newbie and Rhanyeia finished the fine tuning and grammar fixes. The flurry today reopens a lot of issues and in the face of a lot of critisism of instability. I suggest that we all stad down for a week or two and let others comment on a "finished prototype". --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Your last revert doesn't make sense in context... I'm not going to edit war with you. I'll e-mail --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Kim - An edit back, you asked what Kevin meant by "stand down for a week or two". It means "take a break from editing and commenting and let the rest of us catch up". A very small handful of editors are making reasoned but very, very long comments and lots of edits and reverts that probably make perfect sense to you two or three but that the rest of us just can't keep up with. The very pace of change and discussion has had the unintended consequense of locking out other editors in the community. There are people trying to follow this page (I count myself among them) who probably have useful points of view but who can't wade through all the text as fast as the few of you keep piling it up. Not wanting to appear like an idiot, I withhold my comments hoping that you all will take a breather and give me a chance to catch up.
I know this is not your intention but the editing pattern displayed on this page creates a de facto barrier to participation by others. Remember that the goal of the consensus-seeking editing pattern on Wikipedia is not merely consensus between two parties who disagree but a wider consensus across the community. That implies a need in the consensus-seeking process to invite wider participation - or at least, to remove as many inhibitors as possible.
To be honest, I had not realized until this example that mere pace of editing could present an implication to the consensus-seeking process. Much like the three-revert rule which implies that slower editing can lead to better decisions (and is required in such extreme cases), I think there might be a useful essay somewhere that talks about the unintended consequences of rapid-fire discussions between two passionate individuals and about the benefits of taking occassional breaks to give others a chance.
That's what I hope he meant anyway. Rossami (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
More like 3 or 4 people I think. We've definitely been producing large quantities of material and discussion of reasonable quality, without an investment of large amounts of effort by folks involved (maybe 10-20 minutes a day total for me. :-) ).
I think that demonstrates that lots of good faith and application of the consensus method can lead to very good results. The goal of consensus seeking (or any other method including enlightened dictatorship or even not-so-enlightened dictatorship) is ultimately to be productive. I categorically reject that there is a problem with being productive :-P
"Hurry up, slowpoke!" :-)
But I understand that some folks might want a breather, and to catch up and figure out what's happening. There's plenty of other pages that need tidying up. We can go look there for a while.
In the mean time anyone who's been working on this page can get you up to speed on what's up here pretty quick. In my case, you can contact me via IRC, instant messenger, skype, send me an email etc. Also, would you like some summaries made on-wiki? Any other options?
In the long run my preference is to get people up to speed ;) How can we help you get up to speed (and keep you up to speed) and make you feel included?
--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
See? I can't even get the count right! ;)
I don't think that you need to do anything special to get me up to speed. Just take a breather once in a while. Remember that not everyone processes information the same way you do. Some of us like a chance to reflect before commenting. When the pace of discussion is too fast, my reflections are already obsolete by the time I'm ready to type. Take a day or two off just to see who else joins the conversation. I'll do my best to catch up on this conversation over the weekend. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
:-) Roger will do. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Watch out with "consensus"

Be careful about referring to consensus, because on this page on wikipedia, you have to treat "consensus" as a word that is not yet defined.

eg: "The purpose of the talk page is to form consensus"

Which is very nice, except that this doesn't quite explain how to go about that. That's what this page is for ;-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Reasonable consensus-building

Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can be reached through discussion, action (editing), 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. --

This seems a reasonable version of an attempt at a possible first step in providing a 'description' of how consensus can be referred to. --NewbyG (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Re

I was asked to clarify why I find the following added sentence unclear: "... we attempt to document the actual consensus which has evolved through practice, rather than form a consensus of what we think it should be." I would understand this sentence maybe: "Wikipedians attempt to document the actual consensus, but they don't attempt to form a consensus or document what they think should be the consensus." Wouldn't the ideal consensus which was based on practice, reason, understanding and agreement, be the same thing than what Wikipedians think "should" be consensus. The sentence also sounds that "forming a consensus" is not good practice, that the consensus already exists before trying to "form" it, but in some cases it may be necessary to discuss about different arguments first. Best regards Rhanyeia♥♫ 07:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

First people work together on the encyclopedia. The combination of their agreements, reasoning, and mutual understanding in practice is what forms the (global) consensus. Then, at some point, someone hopefully actually reads all that through (or remembers, or whatnot), and then actually writes down a reasonable summary so that other people can understand too, and can learn to do the same things in the best possible way. These summaries are our policies/guidelines/essays. Does that make sense so far?
Some people think that they should try to think up ways to tell others what they should do. No matter how hard they try, ultimately what those people do does not constitute (global) consensus (because no one is actually carrying out their ideas).
Does that make sense too?
--Kim Bruning (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC) Yes there are a small number of exceptions, but this is the general rule.
Partly, but I think policies are probably doing a little bit of both. Even though some editors are sometimes uncivil there's still not a policy of "please be uncivil". There's a policy about being civil, because that's how editors should act, whether it's always an actual practice. And no one can read everything what happens on Wikipedia because that would be too much. Best regards Rhanyeia♥♫ 15:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
On what do you base that thought? --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
It was mostly general notions about how things seem when I read pages. Best regards Rhanyeia♥♫ 18:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you be more specific? --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
How do I know which of my thoughts you asked about? :) Best regards Rhanyeia♥♫ 08:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
No idea, you haven't told me. You stated you had "general notions". Can you be just a tad more specific? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Colons, colons, colons phewie. Here is an interesting link (note the very sciency-looking diagram). Does that page need re-naming though? (Question?) --NewbyG (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Possibly I disagree with the page, I think the filibuster is actually the guy who isn't responding to the dude doing the talking. ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Is majority agreement the same as consensus?

Wiktionary defines consensus as follows:

  1. General agreement among the members of a given group or community, each of which exercises some discretion in decision-making and follow-up action.
  2. Average projected value, as in the finance term consensus forecast.
  3. A standard of decision-making where agreement is defined as the lack of active opposition to the proposed course of action.

So my question is this: Is 'consensus' defined as a simple majority view, or is the "lack of active opposition" the key factor in establishing consensus? In my opinion, an edit that everyone finds acceptable is superior to an edit that a mere majority find acceptable. I would be interested in other viewpoints however. --Surturz (talk) 03:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

From the policy page; Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and the logic may outweigh the logic of the majority. So no, consensus is not considered as a synonym for majority view. It's worth noting though that neither is consensus considered as a synonym for unanimity. Taemyr (talk) 10:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
So is the 'lack of active opposition' definition a useful one? I imagine many editors tolerate certain edits they don't like; does this tolerance therefore fall within the scope of 'consensus'? Tolerance does not equal advocacy after all. --Surturz (talk) 10:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I would say 'lack of reasonable opposition'. A few dug in holdouts is not considered to mean that consensus does not exist. Consensus decision making at it's best is about finding good compromises, it's not about finding a solution that everyone agrees with; it's about finding a solution that everyone can accept. Taemyr (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

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. --

This link is from the policy page. --NewbyG (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


Expert consensus?

Dear Sir, I am a new Wikipedia fan. Well, not exactly now. I tried to introduce minor corrections in some texts that belong to my academic expertise, when I realised that number of people jealously want to keep their contributions as they are. I realised that Wikipedia promotes not expert opinion, expert consensus but, what a surprise, the USERS CONCENSUS. The truth is not what is justified by a valid and sound argument, but the truth is what the majority of the “amateurs of knowledge” would accept as truth. For an expert it represents most often an extremely big effort to convince self educated people what is an accepted scientific fact and to develop, for a lay adapted full argumentation for every single issue that he finds false on Wikipedia. And there are too many mistakes, in fact few factual but which then “program” for milliard of failures of interpretation mistakes. Or inversely.

I realised that Wikipedia is knowledge based on the lay democratic argument. The truth is here what a majority of lay persons will accept as such. The Wikipedia is a game.

May I suggest something that I find essential? I suspect that this may violate your philosophy, but I would like to propose that you establish registered experts or groups of expert users who would establish what a consensus is. This may increase value of Wikipedia which, if left as it is – quite useless or quite, quite unreliable as a knowledge source.

The method would be that the registered person would have to justify hers/his expertise for the given subject (the publications list may be sufficient, or the academic degree). Although I think any academic degree higher then PhD or high teaching position at a university may guarantee adherence to a kind of coherent scientific method. Such users do not have to be necessarily very narrowly specialised to be reliable to judge on the application of the scientific method to may be not quite related subjects. This may provide greater number of the experts that would be available to build a consensus.

It may be that you already have that or some similar expert system in use. If you do have I would greatly appreciate if you would indicate to me where to find it on your impressive site and how to use it.

If such or similar expert consensus system would not be available and to decide “what is” and “what is not” would be left to the consensus of those who love knowledge and not to those who have knowledge, the Wikipedia will remain to be just – a game. Sincerely, Draganparis (talk) 09:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"Local" vs. "global" consensus

Hiding brought up an interesting point over at the plot summaries discussion about "local" vs. "global" consensus. Perusing around Wikipedia discussions one often encounters arguments such as: "Local" consensus at an article's talk page can't override the "global" consensus at the relevant project page; "local" consensus at a project page can't override the "global" consensus of a policy or guideline; "local" consensus at a policy or guideline talk page can't override the "global" consensus at AfD; "local" consensus at AfD can't override the "global" consensus among editors who actually edit Wikipedia articles; and we go around in full circle. Often the only distinction between "local" and "global" consensus is the "consensus" of whatever gang of editors you happen to agree with. Our only guidance on this page on this issue is:

"Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to automatically override consensus on a wider scale - 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."

But how do we know that a particular policy or guideline has a "larger consensus" than that formed at an article's or project's talk page? How do we know the policy or guideline is not just the "consensus" of a few strong-willed "policy wonks"? How can we determine whether consensus is represented by the actual practice among a large number of editors, or by what a few people participating in a policy or guideline discussion come up with? How can we determine if the policy, guideline, and apparent actual practice has been determined by an actual consensus of editors, or by a fait accompli decision by a few editors with a lot of time on their hands? I think a section in this article describing this situation and presenting possible solutions would be good, but at this point I'm really not sure how it should be worded. DHowell (talk) 04:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"Back in my day we used diffs" -- Ned Scott 05:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Policy and guideline consensus are frequently made by a few policy wonks, but when you try and change some wording you quickly find there are enough of them to stop your changes. Five policy wonks are equal to several thousand anons, and several hundred less involved editors. I don't think there's anything that can change this except wait and maybe some of the less involved editors become wonks themselves. In a volunteer situation prohibiting stuff is much more useful than mandating it. People who find a page useful frequent it, and generally make it mirror their views. Take trivia as an example. If you think pages should include trivia, then you just add some trivia. If you think pages shouldn't include trivia then you need to create some policies or guidelines to point to when you remove it. A thousand anons may like trivia, but the dedication of one policy wonk can easily overule them. You might think the anons would go to the policy page to voice their opposition, but even if they do they do it is for a short time and not en masse. For the policies and guidelines you like this works perfectly, a few people can herd thousands of editors and articles. If you don't like a policy or guideline, it takes a lot of work to change it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 05:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with most of what you say. Though most of us would not be here unless we cared about the project. Many among the policy wonks are people like myself who are writers who became frustrated by the policy wonks but felt that more change could be implemented by joining in. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Some interesting points here. It seems that it is possible for pages, and policy pages at that, to be from time to time 'hijacked' by editors who try to enforce their own views and take no account of input from other contributors. This possibility cannot be completely avoided, but the best option is just to try to minimize the effectiveness of such a strategy wherever possible. Important policy pages cannot stay 'hijacked' for ever, if enough editors pay attention to the particular page, and comment in the discussion, and make good edits to the page. Attracting input from as many concerned Wikipedians as possible is a vital step in the method by which 'consensus' comes to be known. And, you find out if you have consensus when you try to build on it. --NewbyG (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You find out whether you have consensus when you try to build on it.

[24] -You find out whether you have consensus when you try to build on it. mailing list wikien-l/2005-July

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. --Charles

I think this quote should go back on the page, where it was for quite some time. Any suggestions? --NewbyG (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Go for it :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I will restore that text to 'Consensus can change'; and see if there are further edits or comments then. Perhaps the section below that is more appropriate for the mailing list quote? --NewbyG (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The sentence "You find out whether you have consensus when you try to build on it" is probably quite understandable in its conversational context, but it's less clear if taken out of it and placed on a policy. I would think it isn't a person who "has" consensus, it's an edit/idea/proposal etc which either gets or doesn't get consensus, and the exact meaning of "building on it" is not clear either. Best regards Rhanyeia♥♫ 17:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't get it. The key summary is removed, and the remaining (clarifying) text remains which is now almost meaningless. That and I don't think it's entirely ethical to leave off inconvenient parts of quoted texts ;-). If you shorten a quote like this, you always go the other way. Like this ...
"You have consensus" is shorthand for "no-one disagrees with you sufficiently to reverse your actions." . If this shorthand is not documented here, perhaps we should do so? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
You find out if you have consensus when you try to build on it — what does that mean? A very good question. To me, it suggests that if you make an edit, and someone improves that edit, you are moving toward a new consensus. If however, your edit is reverted, you are not building towards consensus, but reverting to a previous consensus. That's a part of what I think is meant. I don't think that that sentence, or any other of the mailing list quote, are particularly unclear, nor do they contain any untoward implications. I think it is a suitable summary in itself of a concept which is worth explicating on the WP:CON policy page, where it has appeared for quite some time, although it is not of course in any way "indispensible". Providing the link alone on the page achieves much the same effect, if space on the page is an issue. I have removed the summary of the quote entirely for now from thje top of the section 'Participating in community discussions', it was the other bit of the quote which seemed more suitable here, I am unsure why it was removed; I wonder why that quote was found not suitable, though if it is a question of space, that is a reasonable consideration, cheers, --NewbyG (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that the quotation is overly wordy and adds no specific clarity to the page. If there is some kernel of clarity that is otherwise lacking in the text, add it only as there is no need for another long and clumsy paragraph. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Nuther diagram

Image:Venn-diagram-AB.png Edit (Edit or Discuss) Discuss

Another way of visualizing the edit or discuss proposition. Ninety edits to ten talk page posts seems a good ratio for articles. At forum pages, the ratio is 100 to 1 the other way. --NewbyG (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
NG, what is our purpose at WP, to provide the best encyclopedia or provide a forum for expression? Is editing the purpose or a means to an end? It seems that articles as well as WP reach maturation, where encouraging undiscussed edits becomes counter productive. Does a process lead to order or disorder? --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Editing articles, so that they then can become as informative, neutral, and readable as possible. --NewbyG (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Good articles is the objective, editing the text is the primary means. Additional tools are available, but should never be confused with the objective or primary means. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus in practice

I have restored that section as it presents current practices and understanding. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I've removed your restoration because the better parts of that section were incorporated elsewhere and the removal was a result of much collaboration and consensus. If you feel strongly that it should be reincluded, then let's discuss it. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I have restored it again. I do not see where that section content is incorporated elsewhere. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Some of the material here overlaps with the sections 'Participating in community discussions' and 'Using the talk page'. However, re-adding this section is also reasonable, it seems useful information, which may have been abbreviated too much. --NewbyG (talk) 03:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I would have no problem in tightening some of the prose there, and/or moving the materials to other sections. But what is said there is very useful and represents current practice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we could set up a sandbox to develop the section, and then move the result into the article. --Kevin Murray (talk) 05:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure, go ahead. Until then it would be best if the material is kept. There is never a good reason to edit-war. Please restore the material, and start a sandbox as per your suggestion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
[25] The material deleted here, last two paragraphs, seems pretty well covered at Participating in community discussions last two paragraphs. A /Workshop page could be useful though, or if there is anything left out. --NewbyG (talk) 04:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, as the one advocating the addition of material the onus is on you to demonstrate consensus. Bold revert discuss is what is advocated here and what is being followed -- there is no edit warring in following this process. --Kevin Murray (talk) 04:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
No sandboxing , unless you are desperate. Can you find a happy medium through editing? --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we're seeing tension between "short and sweet", "KISS", "Short but not too short", and "explain everything verbosely". We may want to use 2 versions of policy pages... where one version is short and sweet, and another where historic information and details are discussed. <scratches head> --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What is consensus for?

It seems to me the policy needs to state the purpose of its existence, and not just the process. That is, it needs to say when a consensus is required, what should be the motivation behind its requirement being invocated, and what parameters it needs to adopt before the process of consensus building can begin--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What the page says is that consensus is an "inherent product of the wiki-editing process". Thus it is the primary mode of behavior that governs the entire site. We start with consensus, when it breaks down we need to work to re-establish consensus through dialogue. If this isn't clear in the opening paragraph, it should be made clearer. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOS

One thing that I don't see in the discussions here is how it affects the WP:CONSENSUS flowchart and the outcome (if at all) when the material that's been edited has previously been viewed and used by an enormous number of people. Input is welcome at WT:Manual_of_Style#Stability and WP:CONSENSUS. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Can consensus be delayed?

There is currently a proposal for delaying consensus decisions being drawn up at WP:POSTPONE. Underlying the prosposal is that AfD debates can be postponed pending a search for sources. Can a consensus decision at AfD be postponed, or should postponment be itself be the subject of consensus? --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering which should be used. In this case, it's about an anime/manga. While it is more popular to use "Kuran" as the romanization of the name of a character (fansub groups use it, so it sticks), the official romanization on the Japanese website and the English manga uses "Clan". Which one should be used? Why? - plau (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that you want either Wikipedia:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles) or Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles). This page is about the general process of reaching consensus on Wikipedia. It's not really structured to address specific dispute resolution questions. Rossami (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - plau (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

any object to the last clause of this sentence in the lead?

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, should never over-ride community consensus on a wider scale, unless convincing arguments cause the new process to become widely accepted.

What is the "new process" referring to? Ameriquedialectics

The new process that the limited group of is advocating that we should follow. Taemyr (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, you mean like an oligarchy? Is oligarchy a "new process" on WP? In my experience, oligarchies rarely advocate for new processes, as anything "new" would seem a threat to their authority. If consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place in time, can override community consensus at a wider scale, shouldn't we say so plainly rather than make it seem like the oligarches are rebels prone to making convincing arguments for "new processes" against themselves? Ameriquedialectics 17:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
What this sentence says is that consensus amongs a small group of editors does not override wider scale community consensus. But the reasons that consensus form might sway the greater community. Taemyr (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
In which case, the meaning you are refering to would be better expressed as:
  • Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, should never over-ride community consensus on a wider scale, until convincing arguments cause the new process to become widely accepted.
Showing that the consensus would have changed naturally. It could also be changed to:
  • Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, should not over-ride community consensus on a wider scale, with a few exceptions.
With "exceptions" indicating the section designated Exceptions in the body text. Also, change "never" to "not," as exceptions of any sort preclude the term. (Never say never, esp on WP!) The prior sentence references a hypothetical "new process" that hasn't been introduced or discussed elsewhere in the text, and inadvertantly or not makes WP look like an oligarchy. Even if WP were an oligarchy, the oligarches certainly wouldn't be advocating for "new processes," but would be resisting them at every turn, so the last clause doesn't make sense as it is currently. Ameriquedialectics 18:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I support the second suggestion. If the limited group can convince the wider community that their course of action is right, they are not "overriding"; they are in agreement. Additionally, I'd drop the "few exceptions" language:
  • Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, should not over-ride community consensus on a wider scale.
The exceptions listed in the Exceptions section are not exceptions to when local consensus overrides broader consensus -- they are exceptions to the rule of consensus in general, so tacking it onto the local vs. broad explanation just confuses things.--Father Goose (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Sounds ok to me. Support clipping the last clause and switching "never" to "not." Ameriquedialectics 01:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

s/should not/does not/ (whether or not it should is open to debate for me.) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer keeping it "should" as the exceptions listed in the body text creates enough ambiguity for me. Ameriquedialectics 02:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Let me be clear. There's no ambiguity for me. ;-)
The "should" creates an ambiguous loophole for prescriptivists, where they can first write down a policy (that does not have consensus by any definition I subscribe to, but they can claim it has consensus on often dubious grounds), and then try to "enforce" it by claiming that "local consensus should not override my shiny global policy I just made up". Consensus has primacy, and this cannot be stressed enough.
Alternately, you might mislead people into thinking that they can influence people in that way (aka: we'd be lying to them, wikipedia policy pages have this tendency to lie to people more and more often these days) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC) That and "should" is a dirty prescriptivist word in the first place :-P
"Typically does not" is clearer, in that it is descriptive of how things actually operate. We could make the story stronger/clearer though: any idea typically starts with one person, and then they manage to convince other people Cinematic example: 12 angry men. So a small group ends up becoming a big group, and eventually becomes (influences) everyone on the wiki. Telling people that small groups shouldn't try to make friends and influence people is probably not quite right. It misleads people into thinking that consensus on wikipedia must work in some other magical way, not actually related to real world consensus. ;-)
Makes sense? --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
--Kim Bruning (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you know, ultimately, the whole thing is a near duplication of the third bullet under "Exceptions" (which probably phrases it better overall). Any way to consolidate the two?--Father Goose (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"Typically does not" would be fine with me as a replacement for "should" in the second to last clause. The way the last clause is currently phrased, "unless convincing arguments cause the new process to become widely accepted" seems to me to attempt to express the spirit or the intent of that third bullet under Exceptions, but it doesn't. That meaning could be expressed by replacing "unless" with "until," but I agreed with what you suggested earlier, that dropping the last clause entirely would make the overall meaning more clear. (The phrase "typically does not" implies exceptions.) Ameriquedialectics 15:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia "rules" are rife with exceptions ;-). There's just got to be a better way here ... *sigh* --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC) Actually, there is, but it's very hard to get that across in writing somehow, partially because some people seem to be doing politics in the opposite direction. Something along the lines of: "We should all have a voice, and by 'us all' I mean me, and with 'have a voice' I mean everyone else should shut up". Since making those people shut up themselves is against my basic philosophy, I'm kinda stuck ;-P)
Remove the entire piece of text as being redundant with the exceptions section? The convincing arguments causing new things to be accepted is the whole MO when you're trying to gain consensus, right? --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but that's a seperate argument than Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, typically does not over-ride community consensus on a wider scale. Establishing consensus is one thing, the point of the sentence is that a limited, local consensus "typically does not" overide a larger community consensus elsewhere or later. The prior sentence attempted to show "convincing arguments causing new things to be widely accepted" as an exception to or an unususal way of getting consensus. It could work as its own sentence, something like "Convincing arguments typically sway community consensus." Ameriquedialectics 22:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The policy used to have the following felicitous wording:

When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. Even a majority of a limited group of editors will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within policies.

Why was it removed? I propose restoring something along these lines as a longstanding part of WP:CON and a clear iteration of our practices. Eusebeus (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


  • When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice. Is double speak nonsense.
  • Even a majority of a limited group of editors will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within policies. is sound advice, but seems redundant to other text. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a complicated thing. Policies are descriptive, not prescriptive, and this page doubly so, being a policy about policies. In the world outside this page there is always a tension between the decisions of editors on one particular page, and the sense of how related pages, projects, policies and guidelines, and the project as a whole thing. On the one hand pages are edited on a case-by-case basis and change comes through shifts in thinking, not rules and precedent. So editing is necessarily a page by page thing. Often, someone who isn't prevailing on a page will argue that the page has ownership articles, doesn't have the attention of enough experienced editors, is suffering from POV-pushers or other problems, that nobody remembers the history of something decided a while ago, that consensus cannot overrule policy, that other people's arguments are just plain wrong, that consensus should change, that wider consensus differs from local consensus, etc. All of these arguments boil down to "I haven't convinced everyone but my argument is better." Who knows? Often people making that argument are right. Just as often, or more, they're trying to impose a minority view by fiat (or tenacity, wikilawyering, aggressive editing, etc). Well, it's not our place to choose is it? What's the consensus here? As evidenced by how things actually work the outcome can go either way. Sometimes the local consensus prevails; other times the minority successfully hold the line against the majority (keeping in mind that consensus isn't really a majority vote, but strength of argument and editing persistence). Wikidemo (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

  • As a follow-up, a few policy pages are prescriptive, e.g. WP:NONFREE. People there set policy based on Foundation resolutions and "bedrock" policy, WP:5P, etc., and it percolates from there across the hundreds of thousands of affected articles. BLP is like that, and to some extent templates, wikiprojects, and some other institutions are central decision-making places. "Oligarchies" if you want to call it that. So a tension there too. Wikidemo (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Raise your hand if you think the 5 pillars are prescriptive, and handed down from above? ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC) if so, boy do I have a story for you O:-)
  • I'll bite. Of course, 5P is certainly consensus-derived, but Wikidemo's point is I think well-made insofar as that consensus has become entrenched as core foundation policy. And insofar as IAR concedes that Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here 5P is prescriptive since the opt-out nature of IAR, which releases editors from most of our prescriptivist agendas, has an upper limit (e.g. NPOV) that cannot, er ... well that should not, under any circumstances be breached. Eusebeus (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC) Look, here's some stuff in a small font to make fun of Kim :-@
<rant> It gets kind of fun once you realize that Mindspillage and Eloquence actually explicitly told me they wrote the foundation policy on nonfree images based on existing community consensus.
(BTW: Note that the 5 pillars are NOT FOUNDATION POLICY! Many foundation folks probably don't even know them.)
The text "besides the 5 points espoused here" is, well, yet one more way wikipedia policy pages frankly lie to people these days (in this case it both falsely states that IAR wouldn't apply, and also gives the impression that any of the 5 pillars are rules in the first place). Another example of such a lie is that NPOV is "non-negotiable". In practice, if you refuse to negotiate you could well be banninated, even if you're right. A similar story goes for lots of things to do with BLP (have you ever tried using the three revert rule exemption?).
People need mentors just to understand the wikipedia system these days, and the written policy pages are degrading slowly over time, to a point where sometimes I think people don't even care anymore that what the page says is not actually what people are doing in practice - just so long as they can get their political point in (what is this reality thing anyway?).
To some extent, sure, policy pages are a wiki too, and wikis can only be so reliable. But things are getting ridiculous. Partially due to politics, and partially because some people want to assert that policy pages shouldn't be edited like a wiki anymore. (oops) </rant>
--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC) o hai Eusebeus :-P
(ps. WP:5P is essentially the triumph of consensus <deep_booming_tone>over the evil forces of prescriptivism</deep_booming_tone>  ;-) See: Wikipedia:Wikirules_proposal or for more detail: Wikipedia talk:Simplified ruleset#Historic information). It'd be the ultimate irony if people now unthinkingly and unquestioningly worship those same 5 pillars as if handed down on stone tablets ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Kim is right here (in many ways), especially with regard to WP:5P's text being wrong. It mis-matches "Wikipedia does not have firm rules" (which is right) with "beyond the five general principles presented here" (which is wrong since they're not rules, let alone "firm rules"). The five pillars are vital, but being principles, cannot be "applied firmly". They have to be balanced against one another. This means, among other things, that if applying them a certain way or in a certain case would be detrimental overall to the project (that being making an encyclopedia), they should not be applied -- at least not in that way, or in that case. WP:IAR is a moderator. Its role within the five pillars is, "apply these principles with intelligence". The other pillars don't trump it and it doesn't trump them: it moderates them. And ultimately, all the Wikipedia principles moderate each other -- we are meant to stay focused on the best possible outcome for the encyclopedia, satisfying all the principles at all times as well as we can.
5P is okay. It presents the big picture reasonably well. It has flaws. It has misstatements. It has omissions (for instance, it completely skips over the vital "anyone can edit" principle Oops... well, it doesn't focus on it much. The point is, it does omit some things.). But as an introduction to our goals and methods, it's not bad. Nonethless, when you read it, understand that it is an approximation. I can't remember a single case where I've quoted it to someone when I was trying to convince them of something. 5P is great as an overview but should never be read in the same way as you would read a policy page. It is a description of our principles (several important ones, anyway) that goes off the rails the second someone tries to use it in a prescriptive role.--Father Goose (talk) 03:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC) Actually, that's when the policies go off the rails as well.

exchange of viewpoints vs. discussion

Consider that a mere exchange of viewpoints does not constitute a discussion.

I added that sentence to the end of the Participating in community discussions section. It was then reverted. I'd like to bring this to the attention of anyone interested and would be grateful for any input. The rationale, which I thought obvious and didn't add, is that a personal opinion is something that, if stated as such, is impossible to challenge. Often enough, there are people saying that they (or someone else) "has every right to their opinion". Well, they do, but a discussion is categorically different in that it involves mooting everything one has offered. It is therefore that a mere exchange of viewpoints does not constitute a discussion. You could even say that a mere exchange of personal opinions is the opposite of a discussion, and that anyone who presents only a viewpoint without any reasoning attached to it (and goes on to defend it as "his/her right") is actually disruptive in that s/he destroys the true value and contingency of that discussion.

Again, I'm hoping for more input, especially since I can't think of any acute flaw in my above reasoning, but that doesn't mean squat. My preliminary position is that such a clarification would do the policy good and would fit perfectly into that section. user:Everyme 06:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't a revert, but rather an attempt to rephrase what it was I thought you were trying to say. I still don't understand what it was you were trying to say. "A discussion... involves mooting everything one has offered" -- that to me seems the same as as "trying to shoot down every point someone else is making", and I can't see why that's desirable.
Could you give me an example of a bad "exchange of opinions", and what would be preferred in its place?--Father Goose (talk) 07:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe my dictionary is not the best. I meant "putting up for discussion". There's a tendency of some people saying, in discussions, that opinions cannot be questioned. Which, as far as it's true, means that pure opinions are not suitable for a discussion. Or, in other words, that a mere exchange of opinions, without putting one's own opinion up for discussion, analysis, and potential refutation by others, does not constitute a discussion. user:Everyme 08:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
It would really be helpful if you could show me a specific example of where this happened. In the abstract, though, I would think their unwillingness to discuss their ideas would cause them to have less weight. I'll add that to the page. Where polls are concerned, though, people are not obliged to do anything more than add a view including their rationale. If it's a good rationale, people will be convinced by it; if it's a "pronouncement", people will ignore it.--Father Goose (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Any better?--Father Goose (talk) 03:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
It frequently occurs in AfD, and also in RfA. Clearly, it leads to those "!!votes" be assigned less weight, but the problem is that it nevertheless exerts a -sometimes considerable- pressure on the closing admin. Also, other people "pick it up" and start opinion-voting as well, and when there's a big minority, maybe even majority of such votes, it's not easy to close such a discussion against those people, and not as the dreaded "no consensus", which is far too frequently done precisely because true consensus is too hard to evaluate / i.e. it is too difficult for most closers to decidedly overrule any such votes as the meaningless opinions they are. I've seen e.g. many people vote to keep in AfDs just speculating on the existence of sources ("first proof that there are no sources" — it happens!). For such instances it would be very wise to have something clearcut to point to, as it is disruptive to the way we are supposed to find consensus. user:Everyme 08:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
You can't fix AfD with just a few edits to WP:CONS. Given that its outcome is usually either "thumbs up" or "thumbs down", it's one of the least consensus-driven processes on the entire wiki. I happen to think they should result in "no consensus" results far more often; if people disagree about something, that is, by definition, a lack of consensus. All too often, the closing admin casts a "deciding vote", which is not consensual either, and leads to DRVs. It's not the role of admins to disregard views they disagree with, though they are right to ignore ones that have no substance whatsoever (ILIKEITs and IDONTLIKEITs). There are only a handful of cases where "consensus" is really clear in AfDs.--Father Goose (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, your last edit is indeed better imho, but I'd still prefer something closer to my version. Also, I'm not so sure about the link to the humorous essay WP:WORD. The problem with such people as I'm talking about is that they precisely don't understand much of that kind of humour. WP:WORD was written by editors such as myself, for relief from actually dreadful experiences in discussions. user:Everyme 08:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I pondered that for a bit as well. Ultimately I decided that it's just the right essay to mention. It documents all the most useless ways to conduct yourself during a discussion, and the fact that it's presented humorously may actually enhance its instructiveness.--Father Goose (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Look, I'm 100% positive that it doesn't. The most basic problem of it is that it conveys an atmosphere of non-sanctionability. This is a policy, and violating it and especially its spirit is one of the definitions of disruptive behaviour, which should definitely be discouraged with a warnings of possible sanctions. Same goes for ceaselessly overproducing one's arguments and opinions. It's disruptive, not funny, and people who regularly indulge in destroying the collaborative atmosphere of consensus-building must be sanctioned. (The fact that it's also very uncivil to insult fellow editors' intelligence like that notwithstanding.) user:Everyme 12:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
There's the problem, then: being argumentative isn't sanctionable. Even tendentiousness isn't, except in the most disruptive of cases. However, being argumentative still accomplishes nothing and ultimately makes you look like an idiot. This is the exact point WP:LASTWORD conveys, through humor. Do we have a more "official" page that conveys the same message?
Separately, if you're having trouble with really argumentative types, one of the most effective ways of dealing with them is to "just drop it". Starve a fire of oxygen to put it out.--Father Goose (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
People who don't understand and follow the spirit of this policy, even if they're always perfectly civil, need to be recognised, isolated and burned at the stake. Ok, you've got it. Dropped. Making suggestions obviously is never going to work. Next time, I'll just call in my friends some uninvolved editors and simply go about changing the policy the way I see fit. user:Everyme 22:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Erm, I get the idea there might be a bit of a misunderstanding going on here? ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, Kim, could you help us out then? user:Everyme 06:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Consensus/Archive_6&oldid=1136423936"