Wikipedia:Consensus: Difference between revisions
Wavelength (talk | contribs) →See also: adding 1 internal link: * Wikipedia:No consensus (essay) |
WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) →Consensus as a result of the editing process: expand to ''clearly'' agree with WP:BOLD, warn about edit warring blocks, misusing "consensus" to mean "prior permission" |
||
| Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
{{See also|Wikipedia:Editing policy}} |
{{See also|Wikipedia:Editing policy}} |
||
This is the simplest form of consensus, and it is used in everyday editing on the vast majority of Wikipedia's articles. It begins with an editor [[WP:BOLD|boldly changing]] an article or other page. In response, the viewers of the page have three options: |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
* accepting the change, |
|||
* trying to improve the change, or |
|||
* [[Help:Reverting|reverting]] the change. |
|||
| ⚫ | If your changes have been edited or removed, you may wish to try to improve on them. If other editors do not immediately accept your ideas, think of a reasonable change that might integrate your ideas with other editors' ideas, and make an edit. You can also discuss the changes at the [[WP:TALK|talk page]], in an [[WP:ES|edit summary]], or as a note to others at a user talk page or other widely read pages, such as the [[WP:VP|Village Pump]] or a relevant [[WP:WikiProject|WikiProject]]. |
||
| ⚫ | [[Help:Edit summary|Edit summaries]] are useful, and should contain a summary of the change made to the article by the edit, or an explanation of why the editor made the change. A short summary is better than no summary. If the reason for an edit is not clear, editors are more likely to revert it, especially when someone inserts or deletes material. To give longer explanations, use the |
||
Articles normally go through many iterations of this form of consensus editing to achieve a [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral]] and readable product. |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
If other editors accept your changes, then this silent acceptance is, itself, sufficient proof that your changes have consensus at this time. Consensus does not require either that you get prior "permission" to make changes or that the acceptance of your changes afterwards be formally documented. Edits that are neither changed nor removed are always presumed to have consensus until someone actually challenges them. Consequently, you should not remove a change ''solely'' on the grounds that there is no formal record indicating consensus for it: instead, you should give a [[WP:5P|policy-based or common-sense reason]] for challenging it. |
|||
| ⚫ | [[Help:Edit summary|Edit summaries]] are useful, and should contain a summary of the change made to the article by the edit, or an explanation of why the editor made the change. A short summary is better than no summary. If the reason for an edit is not clear, editors are more likely to revert it, especially when someone inserts or deletes material. To give longer explanations, use the talk page and put in the edit summary "see Talk". |
||
| ⚫ | |||
=== Consensus building in talk pages === |
=== Consensus building in talk pages === |
||
Revision as of 16:57, 24 July 2009
 |
 | This page in a nutshell:
|
Consensus is one of a range of policies regarding how editors work with each other, and part of the fourth pillar of the Wikipedia code of conduct. Editors typically reach a consensus as a natural outcome of wiki-editing. Someone makes a change to a page, then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to leave it as it is, or change it. When two or more editors cannot reach an agreement by editing, consensus is sought on article talk pages.
What consensus is
Purpose
Articles on Wikipedia are created collaboratively by editors who have different perspectives, access to different sources, and different writing and reasoning styles. To achieve a neutral point of view under such conditions, editors must be willing to take discussions about article content seriously, listening to and evaluating a variety of viewpoints and concerns with due deliberation. On Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia Foundation projects) this is the purpose of consensus.
Some content issues – such as copyright violations and certain issues relating to the biographies of living persons – are not normally subject to debate or consensus, primarily because of the risk of lawsuit inherent in them. Beyond that, however, consensus is the rule on Wikipedia. Even policies and guidelines should be thought of as statements that have broad consensus in the community; it is certainly possible to question them, but any such questioning should be a matter of discussion aimed at amending or changing that consensus.
Process
Consensus discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons. When a discussion breaks down to a mere polarized shouting match, there is no possibility of consensus, and the quality of the article will suffer. That said, consensus is not simple agreement; a handful of editors agreeing on something does not constitute a consensus, except in the thinnest sense. Consensus is a broader process where specific points of article content are considered in terms of the article as a whole, and in terms of the article's place in the encyclopedia, in the hope that editors will negotiate a reasonable balance between competing views, as well as with the practical necessities of writing an encyclopedia and legal restrictions.
Level of consensus
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. In the case of policies and guidelines, Wikipedia expects a higher standard of participation and consensus than on other pages. In either case, silence can imply consent only if there is adequate exposure to the community.
Consensus can change
Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for making or reverting an edit, or for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action.
Wikipedia remains flexible because new people may bring fresh ideas, growing may evolve new needs, people may change their minds over time when new things come up, and we may find a better way to do things.
A representative group might make a decision on behalf of the community as a whole. More often, people document changes to existing procedures at some arbitrary time after the fact. But in all these cases, nothing is permanently fixed. The world changes, and the wiki must change with it. It is reasonable and indeed often desirable to make further changes to things at a later date, even if the last change was years ago.
Exceptions
Some exceptions supersede consensus decisions on a page.
- Declarations from Jimmy Wales, the Board, or the Developers, particularly for copyright, legal issues, or server load, have policy status (see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Sources of Wikipedia policy).
- Office actions are outside the policies of the English Wikipedia.
- Consensus decisions in specific cases do not 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 right.
- Community foundation issues lays out the basic principles for all Wikimedia projects. These represent the consensus decisions achievable among all Wikimedia projects, and affect all of them.
Consensus-building
Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can happen through discussion, 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 and verifiability in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on.
Several processes can attract editors to resolve differences:
- Third Opinions involve a neutral third party in a dispute between two editors
- Mediation involves a neutral third party in a dispute among multiple editors
- Requests for Comment invites greater participation
- Village pump invites greater participation
- Wikiquette alerts offer perspective on impolite or other difficult communications
- Resolving disputes offers other options
Try not to attract too many editors at once.
To ensure transparency, consensus cannot be formed except on Wikipedia discussion pages. "Off-wiki" discussions, such as those taking place on other websites, on web forums or on IRC, are not taken into account when determining consensus.
Consensus as a result of the editing process
This is the simplest form of consensus, and it is used in everyday editing on the vast majority of Wikipedia's articles. It begins with an editor boldly changing an article or other page. In response, the viewers of the page have three options:
- accepting the change,
- trying to improve the change, or
- reverting the change.
If your changes have been edited or removed, you may wish to try to improve on them. If other editors do not immediately accept your ideas, think of a reasonable change that might integrate your ideas with other editors' ideas, and make an edit. You can also discuss the changes at the talk page, in an edit summary, or as a note to others at a user talk page or other widely read pages, such as the Village Pump or a relevant WikiProject.
Articles normally go through many iterations of this form of consensus editing to achieve a neutral and readable product.
If other editors accept your changes, then this silent acceptance is, itself, sufficient proof that your changes have consensus at this time. Consensus does not require either that you get prior "permission" to make changes or that the acceptance of your changes afterwards be formally documented. Edits that are neither changed nor removed are always presumed to have consensus until someone actually challenges them. Consequently, you should not remove a change solely on the grounds that there is no formal record indicating consensus for it: instead, you should give a policy-based or common-sense reason for challenging it.
Edit summaries are useful, and should contain a summary of the change made to the article by the edit, or an explanation of why the editor made the change. A short summary is better than no summary. If the reason for an edit is not clear, editors are more likely to revert it, especially when someone inserts or deletes material. To give longer explanations, use the talk page and put in the edit summary "see Talk".
Edit wars, such as repeatedly inserting the same text when other editors are rejecting it, lead to page protection and suspension of your ability to edit rather than improvements to the article.
Consensus building in talk pages
Be bold in editing; you can also use the talk page to discuss improvements to the article, and to form a consensus concerning the editing of the page. This bold, revert, discuss cycle is a common theme in Wikipedia. Wikipedia expects changes to policies and guidelines to achieve more participation and consensus than other pages. In cases where consensus is difficult, independent or more experienced editors may need to join the discussion. If edit wars or disruptive editing impede the editing of a page, or if consensus is impossible, formal dispute resolution is available.
Community discussions
- Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal. —Jimbo Wales
Community discussion takes place on various pages: noticeboards such as at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; or pages such as Requests for comment and Requests for arbitration. These require collaborative effort and considered input from their participants to form a consensus and act appropriately upon the consensus.
In determining consensus, consider the strength and quality of the arguments, including the evolution of final positions, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace if available. Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the "logic" (point of view) of the majority. New users who are not yet familiar with consensus should realize that polls (if held) are often more likely to be the start of a discussion rather than the end of one. Editors decide outcomes during discussion.
Polls are structured discussions, not votes. Opinion has more weight when you provide a rationale during a poll, not just a vote. Convince others of your views, and give them a chance to convince you. Pure argumentativeness rarely convinces others.
Consensus is not in numbers
Editors can easily create the appearance of a changing consensus by "forum shopping": asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people discusses the issue. This is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works. Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons.
At the same time it is normal to invite more people into the discussion, in order to obtain new insights and arguments. However the invitations must be phrased in a neutral way and addressed to a reasonably neutral group of people, e.g., sent to all active editors of the subject or posted at the message boards of the relevant wikiprojects.