Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Consensus: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Uniplex (talk | contribs)
937 edits
→Break 2 (process diagram): r. to WAID; rm Consensus B diagram, now for discussion in following section
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader|WT:CON}}
{{policy talk}}
{{policy talk}}
{{FAQ}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{atnhead}}
|archiveheader = {{atnhead}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 11
|counter = 24
|algo = old(30d)
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Wikipedia talk:Consensus/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Wikipedia talk:Consensus/Archive %(counter)d
|minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 2
}}<!--
}}<!--

-->{{AutoArchivingNotice
|small=yes
|age=30
|index=./Archive index
|bot=MiszaBot II
}}
<!--


-->{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
-->{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
Line 24: Line 19:
}}
}}


{{archive box|auto=long|search=yes}}

''"Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal."'' -- [[User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles|Jimmy Wales]]

__TOC__

==Process diagram==
About the diagram in the process section, though - it seems to me to be a gross over-simplification, and would belong better in some sort of essay than in a policy.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 09:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
:The diagram was the focus of long discussion some time ago. The view that I put, which seems to have prevailed, was that the diagram should be simple and immediately understandable for newcomers, that "policy" pages primarily exist to serve as an introduction for the newcomers. What policy pages should avoid is the becoming of forums for high-level oblique philosophical discussions between highly experienced Wikipedians. A number of diagrams were produced. Kim came close to collecting them all together, in an essay, I think. A more detailed version of the diagram that was there for some time previously can be found, half shaded, at WP:BRD. Kotniski, "gross" would seem to imply that you think the simplification is too great, to the point of taking it into error. What exactly is wrong with the diagram, or what is missing that is essential? --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 12:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
::Well, all right, if it were labelled as a "simplified diagram of the process" or something, I guess I wouldn't object to it. But when we make things simple for newcomers, we do them no favours if we make them think that it really is that simple. (If there's an error, then I guess it's the reference to "compromise", which - as noted above - is not necessarily the right solution.)--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 14:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Here are some observations on the current diagram:
*You don't have to edited a page to disagree with a change made by someone else, but the diagram seems to suggest otherwise.
*The time to wait to see if the article is edited further is unspecified (might not seem significant but I've seen arguments based on the length of time between changes)
*Evaluation of the arguments for and against the change (e.g. checking more sources) should be given greater prominence—compromise may not be necessary.
[[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 15:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
::Yes, those are all good points - particularly the first one, as we seem to be encouraging people to edit-war by telling them that their disagreement doesn't count if they don't physically revert.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 15:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
:::Here's a [http://i44.tinypic.com/nx2845.png new diagram] aimed at covering most of the usual cases: [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 13:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
::::Uniplex: that's not bad at a glance, but there are a couple of obvious revisions that need to be made
::::*you need to move the 'make an edit' box up, so that it's clear that that is the effective starting point of the diagram - otherwise there's no clera entry point, visually speaking
::::* say 'make an edit or propose a revision', to cover both cases
::::* 'outcome clear' and 'change needed' are ambiguous - they need clearer referents
::::let me think about it a bit more, beyond that. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 14:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::It is probably not accurate to believe that the policy is examined primarily by newcomers. Another major use occurs when disputes arise and editors look for a way to resolve it. This double use accounts for easy case/hard case problem. For newcomers we want to show how the practice works in most cases (the easy ones), but when there is disagreement the same page is supposed to provide a way out of hard cases. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 16:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::Here's an [http://i41.tinypic.com/2m5mlc5.png updated diagram] with some additional notes to hopefully address and clarify some of the points made. Ludwigs, one thing that the diagram is trying to show is that the process needn't start with an edit: it can also start with someone reading a page (and agreeing with what they see, or taking to talk if they don't). Ring, I think the hard cases are covered by spending a lot of time in box #1: the two eventual options are to give up, or to somehow find a clear way to proceed (which might for involve, for example, compromise or ArbCom) and allow box #3 to be done. [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 18:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::<s>Box #3 should probably read "make ''the'' change" (that was clearly decided upon at box #1). [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 18:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)</s> Updated so that it does. [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 19:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::::Again, the more that is specified, the more that seems to need to be specified. The diagram works better when the categories are vague. Let the editors figure out how it works, because they are smarter than us and have real problems to solve. 2. I'm not sure which box is supposed to be number one, but in any case the presumption that editors are reasonably open to changing their views is not what I observe at all. This is an easy case solution applied to a hard case reality. Elsewhere in this discussion I read the view that compromise is overrated and editors should just figure out who has the better argument; in fact, that is not how it goes on the hard cases. The only way to break a deadlock of determined editors without recourse to authoritarian or democratic processes is through compromise. At least, I haven't heard or seen another way. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 18:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::(And it bears mentioning that democratic solutions are also authoritarian.) --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 18:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::The proposal is not that compromise should be disallowed or even discouraged, but that it should not be given undue weight (in the diagram) over other debating techniques (such as persuasion, and objective discussion, which are listed ahead of compromise in the policy text). [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 20:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


RE Uniplex’s three points
Here are some observations on the current diagram:
::*<small>''You don't have to edited a page to disagree with a change made by someone else, but the diagram seems to suggest otherwise.''</small>
::The diagram is not about rights to disagree. It is about productive methods for moving forward. It is not productive to merely disagree. To be productive, you need to have a solution. This is where the starting edit comes in. If you disagree, then it is likely that only you know what you disagree with, and only you have read the archives specifically reading into the point of disagreement. You are then ideally suited to make the edit that fixes what you consider to be the problem.
::If you can’t make you edit? Is it because you don’t have a solution? Then this is idle hand wringing.
::The great advantage of making the edit is that it provides a focus for subsequent discussion, if there is disagreement.
::*<small>''The time to wait to see if the article is edited further is unspecified (might not seem significant but I've seen arguments based on the length of time between changes)''</small>
::Good point. Why don’t you suggest some lengths of time. I suggest you do it in the caption, not in the figure. For me, an edit is ratified after other regular edits further edit the page. I think “time to wait” is better measured in “edits by others” than in units of time.
::*<small>''Evaluation of the arguments for and against the change (e.g. checking more sources) should be given greater prominence—compromise may not be necessary.''</small>
::I think this sounds like a call for a new guideline on logical evaluation of arguments. Ring Cinema has a good point about rejecting weaker arguments in favour of stronger arguments. Where differing opinions are mutually exclusive, it does not make sense to “compromise”. However, it can be helpful to refocus on what is important and to sidestep the point of disagreement. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 00:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Uniplex, I must object to you making discussion here that references an offsite hosted image. One problem is that for me it is today inaccessible. Another problem is that the use of offsite images does not sit well with the copyright licensing for this discussion. Please upload your images onto Wikipedia, with free licensing, before referencing them. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 00:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
:If it's faster and easier to upload them elsewhere, then I don't mind discussing them while hosted offsite. The final image would need to be uploaded to be useful to us, but the drafts seem unimportant to me. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
::Having images integral to the discussion offsite is crossing the line with respect to conducting offsite discussions. I therefore object to this discussion progressing with the image(s) not being available on and from this site.

::Personally, I object, because for whatever reason, the site hosting the image(s) is blacklisted to me. I should not have to deal with issues of access to other sites in order to participate here. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 01:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

[[File:Uniplex concensus method flowchart Nx2845.png|thumb|left|[[User:Uniplex]]'s 1st image referred by him above, reasonably assumed that he licenses it the same as he does his text that discusses it.]][[File:Uniplex concensus method flowchart 2m5mlc5.png|thumb|right|[[User:Uniplex]]'s modified image referred by him above, reasonably assumed that he licenses it the same as he does his text that discusses it.]]

OK, I got access to Uniplex’s images (easily uploaded and placed left and right). I must strongly object that these diagrams are a model for consensus building. His flowcharts introduce endless cycles with don’t involve edits to the page. Endless cycles of discussion and evaluation before an edit is allowed leads to discussions loosing focus, with tangential lines and debate scoring taking a life of its own, and newcomers to the debate being unable to decipher the point of the discussion. The point of any discussion should be the improvement of the page. The asserted improvements are evidenced in the actual edits to the page. With further discussion, especially where reverting occurs, the so called improvements are modified, and without modified edits being made to the page, it becomes increasingly unclear what edit is subject to the current debate. If in any cycle, an edit to the page is not even attempted, then the process is failing.

Contrary to some of Uniplex’s legend, “Every change to a page should be the results of following the blue/green path”, the ideal situation of wiki editing involves purely direct editing to the page. Discussion is only needed if there is disagreement, or the edits are too fast/complex for the edit summaries to suffice. Indeed, a huge number of decent mainspace pages don’t even have activity on their discussion pages. Uniplex’s model places committee work ahead of actual progress, and this is directly contrary to the wiki-method.

Edit warring and talk page filibuster are two extremes of failure to work productively. One is an extreme lack of discussion. The other is an extreme lack of editing. If there is any conflict, both discussion (to allow for a verbose description of perspectives) and direct edits (to focus the discussion) is needed in every cycle. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 02:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
<br><p><p>
: SmokeyJoe, One of us is misunderstanding the process depicted in the diagram. Per the diagram on the right, here's how I see a normal edit progressing:


:1. Editor ''"evaluate[s] existing text per sources, policy and guidelines; consider[s] further change"''
:*''Is it clear [to our editor] how to proceed?''
:*'''Yes''' → ''[Based on that evaluation], was a change decided upon [by our editor]?''
:3. '''Yes''' → ''[Our editor] make[s] the change''

:In other words, (1) and the two questions loosely represent the mental processes all editors should go through when editing. Step (2), which is about involving others, is only entered when it is unclear how to proceed. Ideally the editor realizes when this is, but sometimes it takes BRD to find out... <p>I think this is a good description of the flow that actually occurs, though of course in reality many edits are not always preceded with as much evaluation of existing text against sources and policy as might be ideal. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born]]2[[User talk:Born2cycle|cycle]] 04:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Born2cycle, yes, we made different interpretations. Your interpretation is to me a stretch of interpretation in matching the diagram to good practice. However, even your interpretation as stated above places a high hurdle before the editor who has a first edit to make. It is clearly contrary to WP:IAR, and contrary to the message “you can edit this page right now”.

Regarding [[:File:Consensus Flowchart.svg]] (the current diagram), I take it as granted that at the “Edit” step, the editor will have thought first. However, little more than that. It should not be necessary, even recommended, that an editor evaluate policy, guidelines or past discussions. (Evaluate sources, yes, no argument there).

RE: “Involving others, is only entered when it is unclear how to proceed.” By making the edit, the editor defines the focus of discussion that is too follow. If the editor is unsure and needs to ask a question, fine, do so, but asking questions first is not wiki-editing. It is good, to be encouraged, but is not wiki-editing and should not be mandated.

My interpretation of the suggested diagram is that it calls for pre-agreement before editing. This amounts to requiring edit-request notices to be placed and for positive response(s?) before editing occurs. This would kill the vitality of the project. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 05:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
:: (ec) Thanks, SmokeyJoe, for uploading the diagram (I didn't do it myself as I could find a suitable sandbox for images but I guess it makes no odds). The diagram tries to capture the overall process of making an edit to Wikipedia and to cover the vast majority of cases. If it only helps level our understanding here at talk, then it's been a useful exercise; if it can be rolled out further, all well and good, but of course, it must be 100% clear in what it is saying before this could happen. The trickiest part of the process to explain or advise upon is the details of box#1 as this amounts to "how do you make a decision?", and "how do you win a debate?"—whole books have been written on those subjects, so I don't think we should try do this in the diagram; we can use the text for this aspect. Box#1 is most often a mental process: someone reads the page or just a recently changed portion and compares the presented information with their own knowledge (for which sources may well be available); whether they realise it or not, they often evaluate against guideline and policy (perhaps thinking "that sentence is too long to read easily", or "why should I believe that: it's not cited", or "that's true, but it's only half the story"). If they don't think any of these things then the blue/red path applies and the consensus status has been reinforced a little. I'll see if I can update the text on the diagram to make the mental aspect clearer. [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 07:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

:Well, I'm quite confident that Uniplex did not intend to convey that pre-agreement is required before editing. But since you interpreted it that way, it's likely others will too. That needs to be rectified. How about just changing the text in box #1 to say:
::1. Evaluate existing text as needed per sources, policy and guidelines to determine if change is warranted
:Is adding the "as needed" sufficient to address your objections? If not, do you have any suggestions? --[[User:Born2cycle|Born]]2[[User talk:Born2cycle|cycle]] 06:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Okay, the proposed diagram does not reflect WP practices. The first thing that happens when an editor sees something in an article that should be changed is simple: the editor makes the edit. That's not what the proposed diagram says. Is this an attempt to smuggle in a change in the policy? As things stand today, there is not a crisis in consensus. We don't need to change anything. The best way to have a well-functioning editorial process is to let experienced editors do their editing in a context of stable, predictable policies. But a change in the policy is not called for and this diagram would definitely undermine the current practices of Wikipedia. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 06:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
::::No, there's no nothing underhand going on; it's simply a good faith attempt to better understand and promote best practice. [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 07:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

::Born2cycle, I’m not seeing anything close to an improvement over the current diagram. It is clear on the two essential points: (1) If you disagree with a previous edit, then you must discuss; (2) The point of the discussion is the next edit.
::If there is any problem with the current diagram, the only one I can see is the point made by Ring Cinema. Sometimes, the discussion leads to the conclusion that someone’s argument for change is rejected. In this case, the word “compromise” doesn’t fit, and there is no subsequent edit. However, the rejection of an edit, and discussion that answers a challenge, is not, per se, consensus building. It is mere maintenance of the existing consensus. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 07:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
::::W.r.t. your (1), it doesn't have to be a previous edit (per se) that you disagree with: you may just read a page and find something that you think is wrong. [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 08:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
:::Very confusing. The arrow points from 2 to 1??? What does that mean? Start at 1, obviously proceed to 2, then, no wait, follow the arrow, but then what makes it 2? Okay leave out 2 but it is second so it must be important. So then maybe start with 3. Yes, that is clear. Read the notes outside the boxes, ignore the labels, follow the path, try to get to 1.
:::What is the problem with consensus that this confusing diagram addresses? We already have the policy operating with all kinds of good results. If the diagram is different from the written policy, which should be followed? If there is no difference, why is it there? It's not clear on any point that I can see and it doesn't have the practices correct. Believe it or not, most editors know how to manage without our help. Let's not get in their way. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 07:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

::::You find the diagram confusing? You start at the top at Provisional Consensus and then follow the blue arrow to box #1 where you evaluate the text, and from there to the bottom decision diamond. Making that decision will take you ''either'' to box #2 (black/no arrow) to consult with others or to the decision diamond in the center (blue/yes arrow). From the center diamond you either go to make the edit (box #3) or, because you've decided there is nothing to change, you go back to the top and off to evaluating more existing text. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born]]2[[User talk:Born2cycle|cycle]] 07:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

::{{ec}}The problem with the current diagram that the proposed diagram addresses is that the current diagram implies that edits are made without consideration for anything. The edit-with-consensus process does not start with ''making an edit''; it starts with ''evaluating the existing text''. I mean, the current diagram applies to vandalism edits that aren't noticed the same as it applies to consensus edits... there is no distinction.<p>So I don't understand the objection to the proposed diagram, especially with my suggested "as needed" change to the wording in Box #1. It addresses the problem with the current diagram I just described, and accurately describes how edits are normally done (as I outlined above). --[[User:Born2cycle|Born]]2[[User talk:Born2cycle|cycle]] 07:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
:::Latest update incorporating suggestions above: [[File:UniplexConsensusProcessDraft3.png|thumb|right]] [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 07:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
::::Ring, I added the numbers primarily to facilitate discussion; they should probably be removed in a final draft. Further simplifications are possible: the two notes on the left, though useful, are not essential, so could go to the text. The note asscociated with box 2 could be incorporated into the text of box 2. [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 08:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

=== Break (process diagram) ===
Just my impression on coming back into the discussion - I'm not seeing anything useful in the (latest version of the) diagram that's been proposed. I can't imagine how anyone would understand anything better on looking at this diagram than they would by reading text describing the processes. I would rather do without a diagram altogether - to be honest, the activity we're talking about doesn't follow any set process or algorithm, and it's misleading to imply that it does.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 09:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
:I'd be quite happy to lose the current diagram: it purports to be general but it's scope seems very limited; it's purpose is unclear (we've had suggestions that is both for and not-for newcomers). [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 10:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
::The diagram proved so successful that the problem it addressed has largely gone away. The problem was that many otherwise intelligent editors couldn't seem to rationalise direct wiki editing with a consensus building process. There was in some places a lot of Bold editing turning into edit warring, and in other places endless discussion that didn't move anywhere. Many diagrams were suggested. Some had more detail than others, but they coalesced around one core feature – the editing cycle during conflict includes both discussion and editing. The purpose of the diagram is to provide a very simple picture to communicate a proven method for consensus building through wiki-editing. The diagram is applicable for all editors, whether newcomer or old timer.
::Today’s unease with the diagram I find difficult to understand. What, in theory or practice, is wrong with it? There was a problem with “compromise”, which Kotniski has just recently largely attended to, but no suggested problem of structure. Uniplex’s diagram suffers a very severe flaw – it includes cycles that don’t involve any editing. Experience, experience from before the rise of popularity of WP:BRD, was that endless discussion disconnected from actual editing would lead to tangential meandering, off-topic arguments, impenetrable talk page threads for newcomers, and exhaustion.
::The advent of the consensus diagram would seem to be here: [[Wikipedia_talk:Consensus/Archive_3#What.3F_You_still_don.27t_get_it.3F_Do_you_want_me_to_draw_a_picture_or_something.3F.21]]. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 12:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
:::I think the question of what's wrong with it has largely already been answered, by Uniplex near the start of this thread - for one thing, it implies there must be an edit and a revert (or further edit) before any discussion can start, and that the only initial way of expressing your non-acceptance of an edit is to fight it.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 12:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::The implication is right. There is little point in starting a discussion in the absence of an edit and a revert (or further edit). Maybe a point is for editor education, but it is a discussion not directed at improving the page. Some people seem to like discussion for the sake of discussion, but it is not so productive. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 13:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I've seen many people start discussions questioning existing text or proposing an addition, without any recent edit having been made—these are all part of the consensus-forming process. [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 14:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, I can't agree that Joe's interpretation is either current practice or good practice. Often discussion is started ''before'' making a change (if you know it's going to be controversial, or you have doubts about it yourself, or...); and often discussion of others' edits is started without reverting or editing further. I think such behaviour would even be regarded as more admirable in many cases, as it avoids edit-warring and maintains a more respectful atmosphere.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 14:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Perhaps you two are only thinking about high traffic pages? I've just gone through several random articles. Many of them don't even have talk page content! Of course if something is controversial, then discuss. But how do you know it is controversial. If you think you can improve it, and there is no history of related edits or discussion, you should make the edit. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 01:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::Yes, this is the point - sometimes one approach is right, sometimes the other, but the diagram would have people believe that there's only one route to follow.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 08:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
:::Oh, and another problem I'm seeing, looking at it again, is that the "implementation" of a "compromise" is treated the same as a bold edit, not as the establishment of a new consensus. If we are to assume the compromise really was accepted by (almost) everyone in thorough discussion, then this is wrong - it would imply that any one editor who doesn't accept the consensus and wants to be a pain about it can effectively keep the discussion going (or returning to the prior status quo) indefinitely.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 13:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::Again, I don’t see the problem. Implementation of the compromise may yield unforseen issues. An implementation of compromise should not be quickly assumed to be a new consensus. The change may attract new participants. It is quite right that this may go on for some several, even many cycles. If there is a disagreement, it is not normal for a consensus to appear after a single cycle. Eventually, if the process is followed, if most of the edits are not reverts, the process finds a consensus. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 13:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Depends what you mean by a "cycle". It seems you're considering a process where consensus is reached chiefly by editing, and it may be that this is the process that the author of the diagram mainly had in mind. However an important part of the process in practice is the bit where editing alone fails, and agreement is reached through discussion. In this case, I think we have to say that the agreement reached (provided certain conditions are met, such as sufficient publicity and correct closure) does represent a new consensus, and indeed an even stronger one than the implicit one we say exists when something hasn't been disputed for some amount of time. If explicit consensus decisions are not to be respected as consensus decisions, then we go back to the situation where nothing can be done without unanimity except by resorting to edit-warring.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 14:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, the author of the diagram (who was not me), is a strong advocate of “consensus is reached chiefly by editing”. I was a convert.

::::::::RE: What “represent a new consensus”. Do you not accept the definition: “Consensus is achieved when there are no further changes made”? You seem to be creating an artificial definition with too many caveats for it to be workable. Your notion of a “consensus decision” I submit is elusive in practice.

::::::::RE: “where nothing can be done without unanimity”. This goes to the question of how the group decides to reject the weaker argument. It’s a good question. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 01:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::No, I don't accept the definition that "consensus is achieved when there are no further changes made", whatever that would mean in practice (presumably that consensus is achieved when Wikipedia is switched permanently into read-only mode). Consensus on Wikipedia means that, when valid arguments are considered, most people agree (or something like that). It does not mean that ''everyone'' agrees, or that ''everyone who's prepared to edit-war over the matter'' agrees. --[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 08:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::Maybe a longer version? Would you accept the definition that "consensus is achieved when there are no further changes made (directly relating to the point in question) after the same editors make other accepted edits nearby, and there are no unanswered objections on the talk page. " (obviously page protection, or editors departing exacerbated is not evidence of consensus). The problem I have with your definition lies in the pragmatics. Who decides when valid arguments have been considered? Who decides who and how many can be excluded from the “most people agree” camp? --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 22:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::An uninvolved admin (or other uninvolved editor of good standing). Obviously that then raises further questions, but thankfully we don't have disputes over such matters ''too'' often. But I don't think we can have a definition that makes consensus (ultimately) dependent on "no changes being made" - that would effectively entitle any single belligerent-minded editor to prevent a matter being settled in a way he/she doesn't like. --[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 10:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::My objections are that the proposal diagram doesn't reflect current practice, it can't be edited, and it doesn't self-destruct when an editor realizes that it misrepresents the contents of the article. Again, if the diagram says something different from the article, I assume that the diagram should be ignored. Where does it say that? And if that is the case, what is the purpose of the change? --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 13:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::Ring Cinema, I don’t get what you are saying. What is “it”? Are you saying that the current diagram is in conflict with the policy text? If so, can you explain more precisely? --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 13:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::When you say 'current' do you mean the diagram now in the article or the draft change proposal above? --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 13:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::By 'current', I mean [[:File:Consensus Flowchart.svg]], the diagram currently on the policy page. Note that policy pages are not articles. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 14:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::<small>For the curious, the wikijargon for all pages in the WP: namespace is "project page". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)</small>

:::::::::I think Ring's point is that whilst policy pages should be edited only with care, it should still be possible for anyone to edit them, including diagrams. This may be a fundamental problem with WP, that it doesn't provide a diagram editor. [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 14:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::I have to apologize for a confusion. I misread or misspoke "current diagram" in some places above as the current proposal. So, to be clear, the current diagram (as found now on the page) is not a problem with me. It states less than the policy so it's fine. The proposal diagram on this page is a problem. It's not an accurate statement of the practice. Again, my apologies. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 14:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::Ring, you said "if the diagram says something different from the article, I assume that the diagram should be ignored"—the current diagram does say different to the policy. Cherry-picking is not fine: it's misleading; were similar to occur in an article it would be called POV. [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 14:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::My point is that if the diagram is different from the policy, a mistake was made in the creation of the diagram. For that reason, the current diagram -- simplified and therefore clearly not a full statement of the policy -- is useful but the muddled proposal on this page is bad (i.e. confused, unclear, contradictory). There's no question of cherry-picking with the current diagram because it's a stripped-down representation that can't be mistaken for the full policy and probably does help a newcomer. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 15:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Most newcomers have their edits/arguments rejected because they don't "get" V. When they start to get V, they then fall foul of RS, and their next hurdle is often DUE. Suggesting to compromise doesn't help them along this road of understanding at all. I'm not proposing that the diagram that I drafted should necessarily replace the existing one (in fact, it seems that there are valid arguments for having no diagram); at this stage it's primarily a vehicle for discussion and invites helpful suggestion for improvements to get it to a state where it might be useful for further dissemination. [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 16:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

: {{ec}} I have to say, this section itself is a perfect example of typical work through consensus, and it is not represented by the current diagram on the policy page, but is represented by the proposed diagram. It is not represented in the current diagram because the current diagram ''starts'' with someone editing the article (or, in this case, the policy page). Yet no one has done that here. A proposal has been made, it was not "clear how to proceed", so it went to "seek more opinions". Now we're all in box 1 together talking about whether change is warranted. This is very typical for how edits are often done.<p>The other way edits are often done is also represented in the proposed program - where the box 1 deliberation is done within the mind of a sole editor, who decides it ''is'' clear how to proceed, and he goes ahead and edits. Now, some comments about what was said above:
:*Kotniski, first you said, ''" I'm not seeing anything useful in the (latest version of the) diagram that's been proposed."'', then you said, ''"Often discussion is started before making a change, ..."''. Well, what's useful in the proposed diagram is that it clearly depicts that discussion is often started without making a change", while the current diagram on the policy page does not. Do you not see that, or am I missing something?<p>Then a bit later you said, ''"another problem I'm seeing, looking at it again, is that the "implementation" of a "compromise" is treated the same as a bold edit,"'', so now you ''are'' seeing not only one problem, but two? Is that with the proposed diagram, or the current diagram? Or maybe you're saying the problems you see in the current diagram are not resolved by the proposed diagram? Well, this particular problem is addressed by the proposed diagram, I think, by intentionally conflating both kinds of consensus (bold and compromise) into what he calls "provisional consensus". But is that not accurate? I mean a bold edit is often likely to be accepted by consensus, and "compromise" consensus edits often aren't. Do we really prefer compromise consensus to bold consensus? I mean, sure, when you ''know'' a particular change is against consensus, that's to be discouraged, but that's going beyond bold editing, isn't it? So, like Ring, I don't see a problem with conflating compromise and bold consensus. The "provisional consensus" notion is actually quite brilliant, if you ask me.
:* Ring, you say ''"My point is that if the diagram is different from the policy, a mistake was made in the creation of the diagram."'' How is the proposed diagram different from the policy? I mean, I think everyone understands that a diagram can only be a high level overview, and that you have to look at the text to get the details of what exactly each box means, but do you see anything depicted in the proposed diagram that is ''incorrect'' or misrepresentative of policy? I don't, but I do see misrepresentation in the current diagram on the policy page (it implies everything starts with edits, which ignores situations like this very one).
:*SmokeyJoe, you said, ''"There is little point in starting a discussion in the absence of an edit and a revert (or further edit)"''. I just noted above how this entire section is an example of exactly that - starting a discussion in the absence of an edit and a revert. I find this to be very familiar and typical. Do you not? --[[User:Born2cycle|Born]]2[[User talk:Born2cycle|cycle]] 16:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
:::Yes, I find this familiar and typical, but not in a good way. There is an implied edit here – the removal of the figure. This conversation would likely be clearer had someone actually removed the figure. At the moment, this conversation confuses the removal of the figure entirely and the discussion of new versions. This confusion hinders progress. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 01:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
::::How can something be so clear and obvious to one (me) and so confusing and muddled to another (you)? Specific issues with the current diagram have been identified by multiple people. There is a proposed version which is evolving in the obvious hopes to replace the current one. Some people have suggested removing the original one and not replacing, but no one wants that enough to actually have done that, apparently. So the discussion is mostly about ''replacing'' the current diagram with the proposed diagram (or a revision of it). --[[User:Born2cycle|Born]]2[[User talk:Born2cycle|cycle]] 02:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::How can something be so clear and obvious to one and so confusing and muddled to another? Easy. You can have a lengthy meandering discussion that is decoupled from editing. This is my point about what is good about the current diagram, directly contrary to others’ positions. This thread “Process diagram” begins with a post suggesting removal of the diagram. If this thread is no longer advocating removal of the diagram, then how is it a reasonable discussion, especially to someone newly arriving? “Specific issues with the current diagram have been identified by multiple people”. They mixed through the discussion, and not the focus of it, and I disagree that their issues read as specific. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 21:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Most everything starts with edits. It's a distortion to imply that garden variety editing involves anything other than edits as a starting point. Then there's discussion in search of a compromise. So for a newcomer -- who doesn't contribute to policy pages anyway -- the current diagram is a useful streamlined summary. It's not complete but it doesn't pretend it is. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 17:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
: Sorry, maybe it's lack of coffee, but I just cannot understand your objection. One of the most common acts I see newbies do is post on talk pages making suggestions for the article, obviously because they're not sure if it's appropriate to add or whatever. And the difference between an experienced editor and such a newbie is that the experienced editor can do a better job in box 1 in his own mind, so he can answer the first question affirmatively, and proceed with the edit. But this is also true for newbies when it comes to relatively minor changes about which they are confident. All of this is covered in the proposed diagram, and yet you say it's a "streamlined summary" and "not complete". Of course it's an overview, but that does not mean it's ''incomplete''. What, ''exactly'', do you think is ''missing''? And, even if something is missing, how is the proposed diagram still not better than the current diagram which is blatantly incorrect by implying everything does start with an edit, when it ''never'' does (unless it is vandalism or poorly conceived edit, it always starts with evaluation of the text, and consideration of other factors like UNDUE, as depicted in the proposed diagram). --[[User:Born2cycle|Born]]2[[User talk:Born2cycle|cycle]] 17:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

To clarify my objections in a few words: my objection to the ''present'' diagram is that it's simplified to such a degree as to make it wrong about certain things; and my objection to the ''proposed'' diagram is that it looks so complicated that it's not going to help anyone understand (or want to understand) what we're trying to get across. Until someone can come up with a magic solution that is both reasonably simple-looking ''and'' reasonably accurate, I think we do best to dispense with any diagram and just use ordinary text like we do for almost everything else in our policies.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 18:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
::::The diagram is appropriately simple. There is nothing in it that is wrong. There is no case to remove the simple diagram, it works well and faultlessly. I suggest a more detailed diagram can be added after the simple one. Please review the several in the archives. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 02:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::With respect, I think the reason you don't see anything wrong with the diagram is that you yourself are wrong (or out of sync with the community's views) about certain things. You seem to think that consensus is purely an editing process (when people stop editing, we have consensus), which is commendable up to a point (I agree that discussion is generally overrated, and constructive co-editing underrated, as a means of producing better content), but it can't be ''only'' that - discussion and explicit consensus-forming/decision-making inevitably play an important part too, and the diagram doesn't properly reflect that. In fact I don't think any diagram can, as the two processes are often concurrent and interact in too many ways for us to be able to predict.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 08:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::I don’t think I am “wrong” or “out-of-sync”, I think the problem is that you want more from the diagram than it gives. I certainly don’t pretend that the diagram alone covers everything. It is necessarily a simplification of the text that it supports. I personally support including additional diagrams with more detail. We attempted that years ago, and I think the effort is worth continuing. However, the current diagram is not wrong in what it does contain. It represents a very good method for finding consensus through coupled editing and discussion. It is obviously more complicated that WhatamIdoing’s very simplest and most common case below, which occurs when there is no opposition. And it does not cover situations of entrenched oppositions, where calls for further opinion are needed, or dispute resolution, etc.
::::::I am sure that the proposed diagram is faulty because it doesn’t tightly couple the discussion to the focus of the discussion.
::::::I do think that consensus is best achieved through editing. Discussion provides an abstraction of what people want. Editing demonstrates what people want.
::::::When people stop editing, we have consensus, yes, except of course unless editors have been bullied or bored out of the process.
::::::RE: “explicit consensus-forming/decision-making”. What is this? I don’t see it in the proposed diagram. It would be great it you could formulate a recipe or diagram for doing it, and I will be impressed if you can. If you can, it would have obvious application in the guidelines on how to close an RFC.
::::::Can you clarify for me: Do you want to remove the current diagram? Do you want to work on a more comprehensive diagram? Do you think that the current diagram is worse than no diagram? --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 21:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I would happily remove the current diagram (though I could live with it as long as it's explained that it's a simplification, and preferably in what ways it's a simplification). I don't want to work on a more comprehensive diagram, since I don't believe this is an issue that can be conveniently represented diagrammatically (though someone may prove me wrong). And yes, I believe that the current diagram is worse than no diagram (again, because it misleads people into thinking there's some simple algorithm at work here).--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 10:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Oh, and about “explicit consensus-forming/decision-making” - I mean the taking of decisions as a result of talk-page discussion (either through the discussion being formally closed, or through the result being clear to everyone). Of course I don't have an algorithm or a "recipe" for doing this, but it's an inevitable and important part of the process. (Personally I wouldn't say that this kind of decision-making is necessarily based on "consensus", but the word is so much part of wiki-religion that people have come to use it as jargon to describe any kind of decision that originates from editors rather than The Powers.)--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 11:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

::The current diagram has six shapes connected by lines: so does the proposed diagram; however the proposed diagram describes about 99.9% of cases whereas the existing diagram covers a much smaller number. The notes could move to the text (if they're not already there) to yield a) a simpler looking diagram and b) text that can easily be revised. As long as WP keeps its collaborative editing model, the geometry/topology of the proposed diagram is unlikely to ever change. Certainly, we shouldn't show a diagram that's misleading, but if the diagram is clearly presented (and we're still waiting to hear what exactly is not clear) then those readers for whom a picture paints a thousand words can focus on the diagram; those who prefer text can focus on that. [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 00:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

:I think we could all agree on the very simplest and most common case, which looks something like this:
:(Make a [[WP:BOLD]] edit) → (Everybody [perhaps silently] agrees) → (Voilà, consensus!)
:But I'm not sure that this is useful enough to bother diagramming. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
::No. That's the point of the proposed diagram. Even the simplest case that involves action only from one editor is this:
:::(consensus) → (Evaluate text; change needed?) → (determine change is needed) → (make the change) → (consensus)
::In cases where collaboration is needed
:::(consensus) → {{green|(Evaluate text; change needed?) → (not sure how to proceed, seek opinions)}} → (determine change is needed) → (make the change) → (consensus)
::The green part can loop, as shown in the proposed diagram. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born]]2[[User talk:Born2cycle|cycle]] 00:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

:::No, you're thinking about the ''editing'' process. The ''consensus'' process begins with someone's desire to change something. Until a change is wanted, then there's no point behind trying to decide whether everyone accepts the change. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 02:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

::::The current diagram has the virtue of being so simple that it will not be mistaken for the actual policy. It is clearly a representation of something more complicated with the details left out. Since that is clear, that will be seen as its purpose. It is true that different editors go for consensus in different ways, and we are better off letting them do that. Much as I admire the intensity of this group's respect for WP, we must humbly accept that we are self-appointed experts who likely lack the magic wand of consensus. I think it is possible to take issue with the current diagram because it smuggles discussion in under "compromise"; it's a reasonable summary. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 16:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::RC, no one, including you, has identified how the proposed diagram is an inaccurate or misleading summary of what policy is. I say it is accurate. <p>We agree the current diagram is over-simplified. You say "so simple it will not be mistaken for the actual policy"; I say, "so simple it does not reflect policy at all". --[[User:Born2cycle|''born'']]2[[User talk:Born2cycle|<span style="color:black">'''c'''</span><span style="color:green"><span style="position: relative; bottom: {{#if:Ycl|0.1em|0.6em}};">Ycl</span></span><span style="color:black">'''e'''</span>]] 16:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
::::WAID, I'm definitely not thinking about the "editing process". AFAIK, the "editing process" is: "click on edit; edit; save".<p>I wouldn't word how the consensus process begins as "with someone's desire to change something", but I essentially agree. An editor decides an improvement could, or might, be made, with a change. If the decision is it could be made and it's clear what to do, he does it. If it's unclear it would be an improvement, or it's unclear exactly how to proceed, he consults with others. All of this is depicted in the proposed diagram.<p>Look, I had nothing to do with coming up with this proposed diagram. I just came along and recognized how amazingly accurate, and yet simple, it is. It's amazing in that it has as many shapes as the current diagram, and yet is ''comprehensive''. I agree the presentation/layout could be clearer, but the flow depicted is ''spot on'' as far as I can tell. So far everyone who has objected to it cannot identify something wrong or inaccurate with it. It applies to every situation I've ever been or, or can imagine anyone being in, from the most trivial copy edit task to a months-long debate involving dozens of editors, countless proposed revisions, and multiple straw polls, etc. The linchpin of the diagram is box #1, which ingeniously represents the mental processes of individuals as well as points and reasoning shared in discussion which are key to maintaining and finding consensus. I think Uniplex deserves a barnstar for this stroke of genius. --[[User:Born2cycle|''born'']]2[[User talk:Born2cycle|<span style="color:black">'''c'''</span><span style="color:green"><span style="position: relative; bottom: {{#if:Ycl|0.1em|0.6em}};">Ycl</span></span><span style="color:black">'''e'''</span>]] 16:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::The proposed diagram leaves out the most common editing process. According to the proposal, an editor who is clear about how to proceed makes an edit and arrives at consensus immediately. Another editor reverts that edit and we're not on the diagram any more. So according to the proposal the two editors are in different places -- one says it's clear how to proceed and the other is probably over in box 2. This is what I meant above when I said it lacks a point of view. The current diagram is from the perspective of the person reading the diagram; they don't have to read anyone else into it to figure out how it applies to them right now. So in that way it's a summary that works for newcomers: it answers the question, "What do I do now?" --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 18:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::<s>Huh, you say they are in different places but don't identify where each is.</s> No. That's not my interpretation at all. You're looking at it at different times. The first one is at "clear how to proceed" before he edits. After he edits they're both at provisional consensus. Then the second editor goes through loop, and reverts. The the fist editor either accepts the revert, or they both end up in #2/#1... What I see in the proposed diagram:
::::::#an editor who ''after evaluating text per box #1'' is clear about how to proceed and so makes an edit and arrives at ''provisional'' consensus immediately.
::::::#a second editor who ''after evaluated text including 1st editor's change per box #1'' is also clear about how to proceed and makes another edit (a revert, hopefully with a thoughtful/helpful edit summary), and also arrives at ''provisional'' consensus immediately.
::::::#now the first editor either accepts the revert, or goes through the process again, but this time via box #2 to bring in others, at least Editor #2, together with him into box #1 which ''which ingeniously represents the mental processes of individuals as well as points and reasoning shared in discussion which are key to maintaining and finding consensus''.
::::::They're both in the diagram and at the same place... right back where they started with the same text... at the top in provisional consensus. The difference is that presumably this time in box #1 the first editor will take into account the 2nd editor's input, or, if necessary, will "seek more opinions" per box #2 before proceeding. <p>The proposed diagram also answers "what do I do now?". The difference with the current diagram is that the proposed diagram gives a correct answer. --[[User:Born2cycle|''born'']]2[[User talk:Born2cycle|<span style="color:black">'''c'''</span><span style="color:green"><span style="position: relative; bottom: {{#if:Ycl|0.1em|0.6em}};">Ycl</span></span><span style="color:black">'''e'''</span>]] 18:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC) Revise --[[User:Born2cycle|''born'']]2[[User talk:Born2cycle|<span style="color:black">'''c'''</span><span style="color:green"><span style="position: relative; bottom: {{#if:Ycl|0.1em|0.6em}};">Ycl</span></span><span style="color:black">'''e'''</span>]] 19:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::::Your description doesn't seem to match the diagram. The first editor goes straight to consensus (blue blue blue green green). Every consensus is provisional, no? In the current diagram, he waits to see what happens to his edit ("Wait"). So the proposal seems wrong and over-specifies the policy. Secondly, the second editor is in another part of the diagram (2, I think) saying things like, "Hey I have a different opinion." But the proposal says that the consensus is already done. Of course, I know what you mean and how you want me to read it because I know the practices of WP. But that's not the point, right? Tendentious or creative misreadings will happen if they are allowed. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 20:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::How long should he "Wait"—a week, a month, a year? In reality, he need not wait at all; he can do anything he likes. "the proposal says that the consensus is already done": no, the proposal says that consensus is provisional. [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 21:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Also, the box "Is it clear how to proceed?" seems superfluous. I see an identity between knowing how to proceed and agreeing to a change, unless there will be no change, in which case the diagram seems to strand us in the middle forever. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 20:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

{{od}}I am baffled by what you're apparently seeing and saying. I with you up to where you ask if every consensus is provisional. ''Yes''. Then you say that in the current diagram it shows the editor waiting after making his edit (true, that's what it depicts), and that that somehow makes the proposal diagram wrong and an over-specification of policy. I don't see how that second part follows the first part at all. The wait in the proposed diagram is implied, and, accurately, is not necessary. The editor, can, for example, decide to make another edit, or even revert himself. He will not necessarily wait, which the current diagram incorrectly states he will do.<p> Then you say the second editor is in another part of the diagram ("2, I think"). It's unclear if you're talking about the second editor before or after he reverts, but in either case, he never takes the black path through #2. He also goes blue-blue-blue-green-[edit (revert)]-green.<p>The proposal never says "the consensus is done" - it says consensus is always provisional (another brilliant aspect of it). <p>I don't see how the diagram strands us in the middle. To use our own situation as an example, you and I are circling from #1, through the diamond you say is superflous, answering no each time, and reentering #1 via #2 (at the moment only you and I are actively participating, but we're certainly seeking input from others too). Are we stranded here? Perhaps, but that's reality. Until we get to a point where one of us feels it's clear to proceed, there we will stay. Eventually, we will either agree on how to proceed with a change (from #1, blue-blue-green-green), or we will realize we can't agree on a change or will agree no change is needed (blue-blue-red). In either case we will finally answer "yes" to what you say is a superflous question, and then either yes or no at the diamond in the middle.<p>If you're now trying to say the diagram ''could'' be misinterpreted - and giving example of how it could be - okay, we can work with that, by trying to make it more clear. Would you agree to at least try to work towards making this diagram convey more clearly what we want it to say? Because that's very different from an effort to try to show it's unworkable. --[[User:Born2cycle|''born'']]2[[User talk:Born2cycle|<span style="color:black">'''c'''</span><span style="color:green"><span style="position: relative; bottom: {{#if:Ycl|0.1em|0.6em}};">Ycl</span></span><span style="color:black">'''e'''</span>]] 21:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

:Perhaps I could ask you to re-read my last post with an eye to the fact that I sometimes refer to the proposal and sometimes to the current diagram. Sorry if I do that in a confusing way. That said, I think my objection stands up just fine. If an editor starts at 1 (why is that on the side?) and follows blue-blue-blue-green-green, he can think of an edit change, decide it should be done, do it, and have a new consensus all on his own without coming across any other editors. At that point, according to the diagram, his work is the new consensus. That is what the diagram says. I am not making that up. And that does not seem to be the actual process. Since it is not the way the practice goes here, I think that constitutes a divergence of the diagram from the practice, and that divergence is what I object to. (I'm not sufficiently interested in this to repeat myself on the other objections, although I think they're definite problems.) --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 01:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
::I've gone back and reread your last two posts with particular care to whether you're referring to the proposed or current diagram - my same observations and questions stand as posted. I was not confused about which diagram you referred to when. I ''am'' confused by statements like this:
::{{quotation|In the current diagram, he waits to see what happens to his edit ("Wait"). So the proposal seems wrong and over-specifies the policy. }}
::How does the fact that the current diagram shows a wait after the edit support the conclusion that the proposal diagram is wrong and over-specifies the policy? Does the policy specify a wait? ''No'' (I even searched for the word "wait" in the text at [[WP:CONSENSUS]]... not there). It's the current diagram that over-specifies the policy by indicating that wait.<p>Now in this latest post you write:
::{{quotation|If an editor starts at 1 (why is that on the side?) and follows blue-blue-blue-green-green, he can think of an edit change, decide it should be done, do it, and have a new consensus all on his own without coming across any other editors. At that point, according to the diagram, his work is the new consensus. That is what the diagram says. I am not making that up. And that does not seem to be the actual process. Since it is not the way the practice goes here, ...}}
::Above you were told by both me and Uniplex that the numbers in the boxes are just labels. You always start at the top, at "Provisional consensus". Starting at the top the editor ''can'' follow blue-blue-blue-green-green. But from box #1, it's just blue-blue-green-green (the first blue got him to box #1 from provisional consensus). But that nit aside, yes, tracing that path is the normal path for a ''unilateral edit'' (if you will), and the end result is a ''provisional'' consensus for that updated text, which remains until that text is changed again, which could be a few seconds later, or not for years. You're not making that up. That is what the diagram depicts, and that ''is'' the actual process. Of course. What about this seems like it's not the actual process to you? --[[User:Born2cycle|''born'']]2[[User talk:Born2cycle|<span style="color:black">'''c'''</span><span style="color:green"><span style="position: relative; bottom: {{#if:Ycl|0.1em|0.6em}};">Ycl</span></span><span style="color:black">'''e'''</span>]] 05:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

:::In general, more than one editor is involved in consensus-making. It seems more accurate and less likely to cause problems if it's recognized that consensus depends on some kind of acceptance, especially since it's implied that consensus is always provisional. There is a difference between a change that's worked over thoroughly and one that's just put up, even though both are revisable. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 10:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
::::Of course there is a difference. But every change ever made, whether it lasted forever (so far), or just a few minutes, was 5 seconds old 5 seconds after the editor who made it clicked save. And if it was never changed again then the consensus support it had at 5 seconds was no different than the consensus support it had at 3 years. Time does not ''determine'' consensus for a change, but it helps ''confirm'' whether there is consensus, but even then it's always provisional. There is no bright line, and I fail to see how waiting is a factor in the consensus process we're trying to depict in the diagram. If you find something in an article that is problematic, it doesn't matter whether it was there 5 minutes or 5 years - you will, presumably, challenge it just the same. <p>Anyway, the current diagram implies that there is some unspecified "wait" period after an edit is made that determines whether there is consensus. But this is plainly wrong. First, even if the edit is reverted during the unspecified waiting period, that doesn't mean there was no consensus (in the extreme, it might have been a vandal that reverted, more realistically, it might be the one person who is against consensus that reverted). Second, even if the edit is not reverted, or not changed further, during the unspecified waiting period, that does not mean there is consensus. It could mean no one noticed. WP is riddled with unnoticed edits made by vandals that fall into this category. --[[User:Born2cycle|''born'']]2[[User talk:Born2cycle|<span style="color:black">'''c'''</span><span style="color:green"><span style="position: relative; bottom: {{#if:Ycl|0.1em|0.6em}};">Ycl</span></span><span style="color:black">'''e'''</span>]] 18:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::I think that waiting to see how others react to an edit is part of what good editors do. It's certainly a better description of the process than the proposal diagram, which allows the erroneous interpretation that a new edit is consensus upon its adoption by a single editor. And your counterexamples seem to require bad faith edits to undermine the utility of the current diagram. This page is about consensus. I have other problems with the proposal as well, primarily based on its over-specifications. For example, the box labelled 1 seems to limit the valid reasons for an edit and I know from experience that if good edits have to be for specified reasons according to policy, then edits made for other reasons will be reverted for illicit reasoning. Sometimes that is good and sometimes it is bad, but this is not the place to take that up. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 19:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::''"than the proposal diagram, which allows the erroneous interpretation that a new edit is consensus upon its adoption by a single editor"''. No. The proposed diagram correctly presents that a new edit is ''provisional'' consensus regardless of whether it has been adopted by just one, or dozens, of editors, and that it achieves ''and retains'' this status as long as it is not changed again, or challenged, which could be five seconds, or five years or more. <p>You say that good editors wait, and that waiting is part of what they do. Wait for what? Wait before they do what? <p>Some editors edit and move on, and don't even know if their change is reverted or challenged. Others may watch the page to see what happens, but in the mean time they do others things too. I don't get the "wait" thing at all. To wait means to delay some other action. What are they delaying? I don't see how "wait" accurately describes what editors, including good editors, ''actually'' do, at all. Can you explain? --[[User:Born2cycle|''born'']]2[[User talk:Born2cycle|<span style="color:black">'''c'''</span><span style="color:green"><span style="position: relative; bottom: {{#if:Ycl|0.1em|0.6em}};">Ycl</span></span><span style="color:black">'''e'''</span>]] 19:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

:This is a sort of passing comment: If Ring is confused by the diagram, then it's likely to leave other people confused, too.
:Also, the diagram gives a seriously misleading definition of "bold". Cleaning up someone else's typos is still bold editing, even though it's perfectly clear that typo correction constitutes an improvement. I really cannot support its current form. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 02:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
:::The word 'bold' means 'courageous and daring'—experienced editors especially would not consider fixing typos to be bold. That said, my recommendation above was to minimize the text in the diagram per se and provide necessary notes as editable text. Arguably, mentioning bold editing is not necessary; it all depends how much you want to cover in the diagram and its notes. [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 12:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::That's only in the real world. BOLD is wikijargon and has a substantially different meaning on-wiki, just like "Notable" means "qualifies for its own stand-alone article, as proven by the fact that multiple reliable sources have already taken notice of it" on-wiki, rather than what the dictionary says, which is closer to "worthy of someone taking notice of it (whether or not anyone actually has)". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for your response WAID; will have to return to this subject to this later—too many irons in the fire at the moment! [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 09:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
::Both good points. I think we're passed misunderstandings with RC and are actually at a disagreement about how consensus works. In particular, whether "waiting" is a fundamental aspect of it. Do you have a view on that question (please review the last few comments above)? Also, once we get that ironed out, I'd like to work on tweaking the diagram to make it easier to understand. And of course make wording changes to address problems like the one you just noted about bold editing. Any suggestions on what wording to use instead there? --[[User:Born2cycle|''born'']]2[[User talk:Born2cycle|<span style="color:black">'''c'''</span><span style="color:green"><span style="position: relative; bottom: {{#if:Ycl|0.1em|0.6em}};">Ycl</span></span><span style="color:black">'''e'''</span>]] 06:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
:::I think some find the two chained yes/no questions hard to follow as they consider these to occur (in some cases at least) simultaneously. So maybe these should be collapsed into a single question: "Conclusion?", with three possible answers "Unclear", "No change warranted", "Change decided upon" or some such. [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 12:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
::::I am not confused about what tie diagram says. For the record, I have no problem locating some parts of WP page editing in the proposed diagram. However, tendentious readings will be made under pressure and in that context detailed definitions become destructive and distracting. Wikipedia's strength is in its editors not its policies. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 15:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::Good Lord, I've lost track of how many different different objections for the proposed diagram you've raised and, apparently, abandoned. If this is just a game of [[Whac-A-Mole]] for you because you're just against the diagram for some unstated reason, and so the stated reasons are not really important to you, we cannot have a productive discussion about this. --[[User:Born2cycle|''born'']]2[[User talk:Born2cycle|<span style="color:black">'''c'''</span><span style="color:green"><span style="position: relative; bottom: {{#if:Ycl|0.1em|0.6em}};">Ycl</span></span><span style="color:black">'''e'''</span>]] 21:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::My objections are perfectly coherent; none of them are abandoned; all of them still stand. However, long posts are not read here. Careful consideration yields good decisions. I suspect the proposed diagram would not be a good idea and I am happy to share my objections in a eupeptic form. There is no problem before us and stable policies are a lot more important than adding a dubious diagram to a policy already functioning well. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 13:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::"There is no problem before us"...!!! Have you attended any RfCs lately? They're mostly freakin' disasters, inordinately inefficient, and the just the tip of the iceberg of the petty squabbles going on underneath. "a policy already functioning well"... Why do you think we've arrived here at this policy page? Because we've observed it functioning so abysmally. Also for consideration, why do you think, as has been reported, that "good editors are leaving WP in droves"? Jimbo himself complains that the project looks backwards instead of looking forwards. I'm astounded by how far removed from reality your statements appear to be. [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 07:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::I get that you're generally opposed to incorporating the proposed diagram, but your ''specific'' objections are a mystery, at least to me, and I've been trying to pay very close attention. Note that I at least recognized you were not confused about what the proposed diagram says. If you're just going to repeat vague general objections without engaging in a genuine effort to explain what your specific objections are so that they can be addressed, or so that others realize that they cannot be addressed, you're just being disruptive. You had two somewhat specific objections to the latest revision below. I addressed one, and Uniplex addressed the other. If those objections "still stand", please explain, in detail, how and why they were not adequately addressed by us. Anything else? --[[User:Born2cycle|''born'']]2[[User talk:Born2cycle|<span style="color:black">'''c'''</span><span style="color:green"><span style="position: relative; bottom: {{#if:Ycl|0.1em|0.6em}};">Ycl</span></span><span style="color:black">'''e'''</span>]] 16:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

=== Break 2 (process diagram) ===
[[File:Consensus2.png|thumb|right|300px|'''Consensus''' is the broad, ''community'' agreement that we strive for in making decisions on Wikipedia.<p>[Assessing ‘true’ consensus (observing that the entire community gives simultaneous agreement) is neither practical nor particularly useful since, because the community, its views, and the world at large on which those views are based, are in a constant state of flux, any determination of consensus is potentially out-of-date the moment after it has been made.]<p>Consensus in Wikipedia is deemed to be ''provisional'', that is, it may be considered to represent ‘true’ consensus, ''providing'' that it is not subsequently challenged and replaced with a new, provisional consensus.<p>The decision-making process in practice is depicted in the diagram and starts from A, the current state of a page. As above, consensus is provisional.<p>Changes (adding, removing, or modifying content) are most often the result of a single editor judging that change is needed and editing the page. This is shown by the path A→B→C→D→A.<p>To determine if and what change is warranted, an evaluation (B) per [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|sources]] and [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|Wikipedia's policies and guidelines]] is made; this, even if by a single editor, best ensures that the result should constitute ''community'' consensus.<p>At D, all that is needed beyond editing the page ([[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|citing sources as appropriate]]), is to give an appropriate [[WP:FIES|edit summary]], including the reason for the change (e.g. "... per given source", or "... per guideline ''X''").<p>Others who view the page may decide to change it further (ABCDA again) or give silent agreement (ABCA).<p>If it is unclear whether to make (or perhaps revert) a change, the issue is opened for discussion (E) at an article-, policy-, or other [[Help:Using talk pages|talk-page]] [[#Consensus-building by soliciting outside opinions|as appropriate]], and evaluation (now a collaboration by a group of editors) resumes at B.]]
Pared down diagram with editable notes. Seeing as the proposed diagram takes a generalized view, and the existing diagram details a smaller set of specific circumstances, if they are clearly designated as such, there's no reason why we can't have both. [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 16:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' including Uniplex' diagram in the article. --[[User:Born2cycle|''born'']]2[[User talk:Born2cycle|<span style="color:black">'''c'''</span><span style="color:green"><span style="position: relative; bottom: {{#if:Ycl|0.1em|0.6em}};">Ycl</span></span><span style="color:black">'''e'''</span>]] 21:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

::It has the same problem as the previous proposal: a single editor goes all the way to consensus without any other editorial input? Plus, is there really an identity between consensus and provisional consensus? If so, why "provisional"? Seems to me experienced editors are aware that a consensus goes through stages of acceptance. And if not, it's an extra word. I'm not sure what problem is being solved by adding a diagram that can't be edited. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 23:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
:::Yes, a single editor goes all the way to consensus without any other editorial input, just like in the current diagram...
::::* [previous consensus] → [make an edit] → <was the article edited further?> (no) → [new consensus]
:::And, yes, there is a distinction between consensus and provisional consensus. There really is no such thing as consensus in Wikipedia - it's really always provisional, and the proposed diagram emphasizes this, which is good. --[[User:Born2cycle|''born'']]2[[User talk:Born2cycle|<span style="color:black">'''c'''</span><span style="color:green"><span style="position: relative; bottom: {{#if:Ycl|0.1em|0.6em}};">Ycl</span></span><span style="color:black">'''e'''</span>]] 01:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
::::Ring, that consensus can be considered to be "provisional" is explained in the first note: "since pages are always subject to further change". The ABCA cycle occurs every time someone reads a page or a diff and lets it stand as is. Prior to such, the consensus for the page is provisional (subject to change), and after such, it is still provisional (subject to change)—this is the very nature of Wikipedia. You appear to have an objection to diagrams "that can't be edited"; one can only wonder as to what relevance this might have as: AFAIK, it applies equally to all diagrams in WP; if it doesn't, a helpful response would be to suggest a more suitable format to use—either way, the diagram is so simple that modification through recreation is an easy option. [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 11:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
::On the "wait" issue - it seems like there is an unstated general agreement that the period between an edit and ''any other edit'' to that page is significant to the consensus process. That is, if you make an edit it's especially provisional until someone else makes an edit; that if someone else makes an edit, without reverting your change, that somehow counts as overt acceptance of your change.... now there are two people who apparently support the change, which makes reverting it a bigger deal. Maybe this is what RC is trying to get at, and sees reflected somewhat in the current diagram but not in the proposed diagram? --[[User:Born2cycle|''born'']]2[[User talk:Born2cycle|<span style="color:black">'''c'''</span><span style="color:green"><span style="position: relative; bottom: {{#if:Ycl|0.1em|0.6em}};">Ycl</span></span><span style="color:black">'''e'''</span>]] 16:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

:::The infinite loop running through BCE seems altogether too accurate a description of seriously dysfunctional disputes to be something that we want to recommend as a best practice. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
::::But it doesn't suggest an infinite loop, since one way or another, some kind of conclusion ''is'' eventually reached, especially as "seek more opinions" escalates as per the [[WP:DR|dispute resolution process]]. Like it or not, this is the recommended ''and'' tried-and-true practice. --[[User:Born2cycle|''born'']]2[[User talk:Born2cycle|<span style="color:black">'''c'''</span><span style="color:green"><span style="position: relative; bottom: {{#if:Ycl|0.1em|0.6em}};">Ycl</span></span><span style="color:black">'''e'''</span>]] 23:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::That's basically wishful thinking. Seeking more opinions on a content dispute does not always result in reaching a conclusion about what to do with the article. In fact, #1 under ==Pitfalls== is "too many cooks", i.e., you have sought more opinions and it has made the dispute worse, not better. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::♣ The role of the diagram is not to encourage any particular path; that's a job for the text. The diagram merely reflects certain aspects of the text, specifically, the most common paths taken in the consensus process. Perhaps the title of the diagram could make its role clearer in this respect. Perhaps note E could express caution at progressing up the chain; perhaps all the notes could be worked into the main text (or are already there). The specific benefit that the diagram brings, is that in reference to it, the current text can be made shorter and still convey the same meaning. This is true for two reasons, paths may be referred to in the text very succinctly (e.g. ABCA) and some of the paths that are currently treated as being different in the current text, are in fact the same path, or the same path with only a modicum of textual qualification. Consider the diagram as a road map: a road map doesn't tell you the best route, but it is used in conjunction with a route-finder app that does. [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 11:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::I don't accept the "up is down" logic that provisional consensus is distinct from consensus because all consensus is provisional (see B2Cycle above). 2) I don't accept the "two are one" logic that Uniplex uses to imply that consensus is the same kind of provisional both before and after subsequent edits. The true statement that all WP articles can be changed does not imply that consensus is constant after a new edit. Rather, there are several criteria one can reasonably employ to assess the "stickiness" of an edit, i.e. time, discussion, subsequent edits. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 05:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::It has been neither implied nor stated that "consensus is constant after a new edit". Neither has it been implied nor stated that the diagram offers a means to assess the "stickiness" of an edit. It has been stated (many times now) that consensus is ''provisional'' after any edit: i.e. that the edit represents consensus ''providing'' that is it not subsequently challenged. This is the reality we find ourselves in at WP; one can never know if a challenge will subsequently occur. For example, [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Abbey_Road&diff=202449133&oldid=201956037 this edit], was eventually reverted as practical-joke/mistaken after being present in the article in one form or another for 19 months. Did that edit represent the consensus view during that time? No, it just hadn't been properly assessed. Did that edit have provisional consensus during that time? Yes, it was taken at face value, copy-edited, and worked in with other text, but it was always subject to the eventual assessment that would see it reverted. Does it have "constant" consensus now? No, the current text (without the edit) could be challenged again today. Will WP articles ever have "constant" consensus? Unlikely, but that's not the point, such things are best discussed in the text: the diagram's role is to inform you or to remind you of most of what you need to know, for most of the time. [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 07:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::::Okay, let's try an example and see whether it helps. [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Amygdalin&diff=prev&oldid=461973535 Here] is an actual, good-faith change made yesterday by an editor. This person presumably:
:::::::A. Read the article (which had "provisional consensus" according to this diagram).
:::::::B. Considered a possible change.
:::::::C. Concluded that a change was needed.
:::::::D. Made the change.
:::::::and—according to this diagram—this change, which replaces a direct quotation from a reputable source that is firmly against this thoroughly discredited [[alternative cancer treatment]] with a made-up recommendation to use it—instantly acquired the status of "provisional consensus", even though we could trivially predict that ''nobody'' was going to agree with this person's change, and in fact it was reverted six and a quarter minutes later.
:::::::Now are you really prepared to declare that person's edit to be just as valid and just as consensus-driven as any other change made to the page? Did that change actually have any level of support that could be described as "provisional consensus" with a straight face? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
{{od}}I say again:
:It seems like there is an unstated general agreement that the period between an edit and any other edit to that page is significant to the consensus process. That is, if you make an edit it's especially provisional until someone else makes an edit; that if someone else makes an edit, without reverting your change, that somehow counts as overt acceptance of your change.... now there are two people who apparently support the change, which makes reverting it a bigger deal.
How to address this in the diagram? What if we added:
: [E. Wait for another edit to the page] → <is change reverted> → (yes) → [F. change has provisional consensus]/ (no) → [F' change is not consensus] → [A. provisional consensus]

In words, once the change is made whether it has provisional consensus is determined by the next edit to the page. If it's reverted it obviously does not; if it's not reverted, then it apparently does. Either way, you're back to Box A. --[[User:Born2cycle|''born'']]2[[User talk:Born2cycle|<span style="color:black">'''c'''</span><span style="color:green"><span style="position: relative; bottom: {{#if:Ycl|0.1em|0.6em}};">Ycl</span></span><span style="color:black">'''e'''</span>]] 20:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
*WAID, I can't declare that an edit is ''not'' valid until I've reviewed it, and nor can anyone else. Furthermore, there is no formal review process, no guarantee of when or if an edit will be reviewed. In the mean time, the edit has provisional consensus and readers may be viewing it. This is the very nature of WP's editing model: we trust our editors, but no more than to declare their editorial decisions as provisional. The probability of an edit having full, community consensus may go up depending on the breadth of the discussion that approved it, and the length of time it remains unchanged—we never formally measure this probabilty though, because our process doesn't require us to. (Note to self: probability of community consensus may also go down with time, as information may go out-of-date and the likelihood of a challenge goes up.) In these terms, it all sounds a bit crazy—how could it possibly produce a useful encyclopedia? But it does. [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 21:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::::Jumping back: Uniplex, we agree that consensus is mutable by nature. However, I think we part company in our willingness to leave the impression that consensus becomes sticky. The diagram that you defend says that all consensus is the same kind of provisional, and I don't think a project page on consensus should give that impression. Consensus is different before and after other editors have been on the scene. Yes, there is a sense in which both are provisional, but it is so equivocal as to be misleading to use the same expression for a fresh edit done this morning and a compromise solution arrived at after two weeks of discussion. I find it a misrepresentation of consensus rather than a useful simplification. This seems to be the position you are defending, although you might point to something in the diagram that makes this distinction clear. Thank you. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 15:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
{{od}}I suspect that both you and WAID are misinterpreting the purpose of the diagram, which is to supplement the text. The diagram shows the general case; how "sticky" consensus is depends on specific circumstances; the diagram makes no comment on it. The reply ♣ I made to WAID above may help. Also, what "bad thing" are you afraid of happening if we use the diagram? The rules are not being changed. Bad edits will still be reverted. Edit warring will still be disallowed. [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 15:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
:While it may in your mind be a supplement, it will be read tendentiously. Again, there seems to be an easy case/hard case problem. If I was going to design a diagram to supplement, I might think about box labels that match the article's section headings. Or a box for each process with arrows for segues. Discussion seems to get short shrift in this proposal even though it is the place where things get worked out. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 16:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
::Couldn't writing "See text for details" next to the diagram perform a mind transfer to the readers? Discussion of discussion is where we are trying to get to, if only we could get the basic ground rules in place first. [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 16:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


{{cquote|Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal.|author=[[User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles|Jimmy Wales]]}}
:::Should we be able to? Sure, if every single editor were a cooperative, mature person who wanted nothing more than the ideal contents for the project. In practice, it doesn't work that way. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
::::Sorry WAID, you've lost me there. Let's roll back: RC complains that the fact that the diagram supplements the text is in my mind and not in the readers' minds, is a problem. I suggest that we can transfer it from my mind, to a note—"See text for details"—and from there to the readers minds. RC also expressed an interest in the discussion area of the process; I suggested that we ought to try to do one thing at a time. What are you suggesting? [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 19:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::In translation: "Rejoice! You are neither cynical nor a born bureaucrat!"
:::::It does not matter how many disclaimers you add. If you put up a diagram that is wrong, or at least one that could be seriously wrong in some messy dispute, someone is going to pound on the table and demand that the diagram is the one True™ way. You can no more stop them from doing this than you can stop them from taking half-sentences out of context. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 01:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


__FORCETOC__
This comment is in reference to Uniplex's statement, "I can't declare that an edit is ''not'' valid until I've reviewed it":


== Consensus might become hindrance to truth ==
I understand what you're saying, but the fact is that a change like this does not have consensus from the very instant that the change is thought about, even if nobody ever sees it. It is not '''possible''' to have consensus for a change that seriously and unquestionably violates major content policies.


When [[Galileo Galilei|Galileo]] was sentenced to death, the consensus was against what he said.
"Consensus" is not "the agreement of the couple people who happen to notice the change". Consensus is based on the whole community's views. It is not ''possible'' for a POV pusher or a spammer to override the major policies ''even if nobody ever sees their bad changes''. That's what we mean at [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS]] when we say "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale."


Recently someone asked me to gain consensus first even though I cited a strong, universally accepted reference for the material.
This edit was a serious violation of consensus from the very beginning. Any individual might not be able to act on that violation (by reverting it) until he has seen it, but there is zero consensus for the change even before any specific human realizes that we have a problem, because there is a strong, unshakable, community-wide consensus ''not'' to dramatically misquote sources. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
:WAID, I don't disagree with you, but I'm not sure what bearing this has on the diagram. Perhaps I can ask you the same question that RC steadfastly refuses to answer: What "bad thing" are you afraid of happening if we use the diagram? (Since no rules are being changed: bad edits will still be reverted; edit warring will still be disallowed, etc. etc.) If someone would answer the question then we might be able to do something about it. [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 19:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


What if the right number of editors to reach consensus on a certain topic of an article is absent from participating that discussion?
:No, your accusation is inaccurate, Uniplex. I have repeatedly raised the ways in which the proposed diagrams can be read that are antithetical to current practice or good practice. Now, perhaps you want me to then say, "And the editors will then be allowed to insert falsehoods into the articles." However, a clear causal link from a bad diagram to a poor WP article might never be made. But that is not the point, right? I think that I have less faith in our ability to make a rule and know how it will be followed. (You are incorrect that adding the proposed diagram changes no rule; you are talking about your intention.) That is why I like to mention that the best path to WP excellence comes from experienced editors working within a stable set of practices that are widely understood. Changes to this page are not stable. Changes to this page that can be read in bad ways are not stable. So, what bad thing have I steadfastly refused to mention? I have been quite clear: the proposed diagram could make the work of good editors difficult and I've said it implicitly or explicitly in every post. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 21:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
::I assure you, Ring Cinema, you have been anything but clear. I cannot think of any discussion in which I have ever been involved on Wikipedia in which someone's comments were less clear or more nebulous than yours have been. After spending hours over a number of days reading and thinking about everything you've written, I have only the slightest and most general of inklings of what you're trying to say. By the way, saying you've been clear and that you've said "it" does not make it true. <p>If you really wanted to be clear, then you would do this:
::#State your objections as clearly as you can in a draft post,
::#Review everything in that draft that you've already said above and how others have responded to it, and
::#incorporate clarifications in your statement that addresses what others have said.
::If you do that, then you can say you've been clear. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 01:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


How does WikiPedia fight [[Argumentum ad populum|fallacy of popular opinions]]? [[User:Kawrno Baba|Kawrno Baba]] ([[User talk:Kawrno Baba|talk]]) 07:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
:::Uniplex, what matters is that your diagram says that this zero-consensus-from-its-conception edit has "provisional consensus". It doesn't have provisional consensus. It has no consensus whatsoever. It is exactly the kind of edit that is prohibited by all of the content policies. But you have incorrectly and misleadingly labeled that zero-consensus edit as having some kind of consensus, solely on the grounds that it happens.
:::The first "bad thing" that's going to happen is that some people will be honestly confused (especially people who don't read the text, and that's a lot of them) and thus believe that this zero-consensus edit has some sort of consensus. The second "bad thing" that's going to happen is that wikilawyers and POV pushers will find it very convenient for insisting that their anti-consensus changes have some sort of consensus. Neither of these are beneficial to the overall project. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
::::WAID, firstly, referring to the diagram as "your diagram" belies and attacks the fact that it is the result of a collaboration: it has thus far, been updated to incorporate the comments of (off the top of my head) five other editors. Secondly, your comments belie the fact that virtually every WP policy, guideline, and paragraph therein, cannot be read in isolation. Thirdly, the diagram does not imply that deliberately bad changes have any sort of consensus: a deliberately bad change omits B: ''Evaluate existing text as needed per sources, policy, and guidelines, to determine if change is warranted''. [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 07:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::The third point here is particularly important. I'm curious to know if that satisfies WAID, and, if not, why not? --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 08:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::The third point is entirely irrelevant. The diff I give as an example was impossibly bad, but it was actually made in good faith. The edit summary plainly indicates that the newbie thought his change was going to be helpful to readers. The newbie ''did'' "evaluable the existing text to determine if change is warranted": He thought the existing text violated NPOV (by emphasizing the mainstream story), and he adjusted the text to line up with sources that support his POV.
::::::This was a good-faith, zero-consensus, obviously policy-violating change. At no point in time did anything about this change have any form of consensus, "provisional" or otherwise, behind it.
::::::And there is still no path on this diagram that allows this misguided newbie to make a change ''without'' that change being declared "consensus". According to this erroneous diagram, every single (good-faith) edit results in consensus. This is simply '''wrong'''. "Make an edit" must be able to lead to something other than "consensus". "Make an edit" must have the option of leading to "discover that the edit you honestly thought was supported by sources, policies, and guidelines definitely wasn't, and thus got reverted". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Perhaps you'd like let us know what it is that a good faith edit, evaluated according to V, NPOV, etc. ''does'' have (if not provisional consensus). Also, please let us know, what the bad faith edit that I mentioned above which persisted for 19 months had (if not provisional consensus) during that time. [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 22:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::All irremediably inappropriate edits, whether made in perfectly good faith or in particularly bad faith, have the same status: '''no''' consensus for the change. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
{{od}}Fool I, for asking two questions, the first of which you did not answer. Ultimately, the purpose of the policy and the diagram is to describe best practice. The terms that we "hang" on that description are just that: terms, meaning whatever we define them to them to mean. The proposed diagram (and associated text) promotes best practice to achieve ''community consensus'' in important ways that the current one does not. It promotes collaboration, and evaluation according to policy & sources, and it discourages (through deemphasis) disagreement, compromise, and persuasion—all things that result from ''opinion'', something that [[WP:5P|is expressly forbidden]]. The proposed diagram is derived from the current diagram as follows:
* The existing policy clearly states that decision is ''primarily'' by evaluation, not compromise: so replace compromise (before the second edit) with evaluation.
* Evaluate before the second edit but not the first? Clearly not best practice, so place evaluation also before the first edit.
* Wait. Who should wait? And for how long? Is there some obligation here? No, there is no Wikipedia principle that obliges anybody to wait for approval for an edit: either before ''or after''. Review is possible but in no way mandated.
* So, the first and the second edits are in fact governed by exactly the same rules: we have an iterative process, but one that though it makes a steadfast approach towards and to track ''community consensus'', can never be known to have met it.
* Assuming good faith (which [[WP:5P|we are obliged to do]]), "provisional consensus" is a reasonable term to express the state between our best effort steps. It reflects the fact that if editors follow the principles embodied in the modified diagram, then the trust that this term bestows in them is deserved. It's a two-edged sword though: contrary to what you suggest, the term "provisional consensus" makes it ''easier'' to overturn claims of consensus for POV, since by definition, that "consensus" was only provisional.
* The escalation path in the proposed diagram (BCE) is relatively insignificant: with the above in place, it's need would be dramatically reduced.
We ''could ''proceed without the term "provisional consensus", for example, by replacing it on the diagram with "Start" (and the process paths "go back to the start"); though this would likely give a slower move towards our ultimate goal of maximising the number of edits that move the project directly towards community consensus. [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 12:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


:@[[User:Kawrno Baba|Kawrno Baba]] Please be specific and provide a link to where you were asked to gain consensus. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 10:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
RC, though you still haven't answered the question in a way that could allow the diagram to improved, we now understand your objection: the diagram represents a change, and change, in your opinion, is bad. Here are some comments from Jimbo for you to ponder: "This enshrines old bad practices and privileges the past over the future ... That radically conservative attitude conflicts with [[WP:BOLD]] and [[WP:IAR]]". [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 07:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
::@[[User:Doug Weller|Doug Weller]], please read the notice-box on top of [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kenana_ibn_al-Rabi&oldid=1218836824 here]. [[User:Kawrno Baba|Kawrno Baba]] ([[User talk:Kawrno Baba|talk]]) 11:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
: Is ''that'' what he's trying to say? It's change and change is bad? Really? Wow. In any case, the proposed diagram seems like a change to how the policy is presented, but not a change to the policy. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 08:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
:::You really should have told [[User talk:StarkReport]] you were posting here. Have you read the page for which is the talk page carefully? [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 11:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
::This is particularly alarming: "the best path to WP excellence comes from experienced editors working within a stable set of practices that are widely understood". Okay, so I'm not Jimbo, but I'm certain he'd say something more akin to: "WP excellence will come from simple, efficient practices that are easily understood by ''new'' editors". His comments just above (BOLD, IAR) are in reference to ''policy'' improvement. [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 12:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
::::As a new editor I was trying to understand the concept of 'consensus during editing' myself first. [[User:Kawrno Baba|Kawrno Baba]] ([[User talk:Kawrno Baba|talk]]) 12:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
:::Okay, so there we have it. You mistakenly believe that new editors, many of whom don't know what they're doing, will somehow make improvements, when it is pretty obvious that the backbone of WP is the experienced editors who do the bulk of the work. To undermine the experienced editors by destabilizing important policy is a destructive idea. So, yeah, wow, I have an idea about how to maintain a well-functioning institution. You don't.
:::::Well, when discussing the substance of articles, it's not editors that we formally ''rely'' on (so not what's popular to them), although it's still their job to understandably and in summary fashion relate the relevant body of reliable literature, see generally [[WP:DUE]], so that's what they either have agreement on or need to resolve. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 15:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
:::Speaking of things that haven't been articulated, there is a gaping hole where the reason to change the policy should be. Uniplex? B2C? Any ideas about what you're trying to fix? --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 15:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
:::The editor said "Fails [[WP:NPOV]]" before saying "Please gain consensus for this first." So what the editor is really saying is "I think there is a problem with this edit and I've told you what it is. Your next step is to take it to the talk page to explain why you think I'm wrong and see what other editors think." [[User:Butwhatdoiknow|Butwhatdoiknow]] ([[User talk:Butwhatdoiknow|talk]]) 16:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
::::I suppose I should mention, for the record, that B2C and Uniplex have misstated my objections rather crudely. I don't have one objection, and they land on different levels of detail. It is not hard to understand (e.g.) that the proposed diagram can be read as different from current practice -- even if the advocates claim they don't intend that -- but that reading is very simple. Since we don't need this diagram, we should do with it what we do with all the proposed edits we don't need. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 15:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
::::I don't understand how an editor can simply remove a content and claim that 'there might be a problem explain yourself'. The concept of judicial system is 'innocent until proven guilty'. This can be applied to other things as well.
:::::Ring, I'm sure that you're already aware that '''''Delete''' – No need'' is an [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] argument, one to be avoided. As for the reasons for looking for improvement, several have already been given; you did not respond. Here are some again:
::::It's like accusing someone of theft, and then asking the accused to prove that he did not commit theft. This is irrational.
::::::"There is no problem before us"...!!! Have you attended any RfCs lately? They're mostly freakin' disasters, inordinately inefficient, and the just the tip of the iceberg of the petty squabbles going on underneath. "a policy already functioning well"... Why do you think we've arrived here at this policy page? Because we've observed it functioning so abysmally. Also for consideration, why do you think, as has been reported, that "good editors are leaving WP in droves"? Jimbo himself complains that the project looks backwards instead of looking forwards. I'm astounded by how far removed from reality your statements appear to be. [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 07:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::What do you think happens to experienced editors? They leave. What will new editors become (if they don't run off screaming)? Experienced editors. Why do you ignore Jimbo's views? Do you even know who he is...? [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 17:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
::::If some editor thinks there might be a problem, and the said content is well cited, shouldn't he use the talk page to prove why he thinks there might be a problem to the said content? [[User:Kawrno Baba|Kawrno Baba]] ([[User talk:Kawrno Baba|talk]]) 06:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::You boldly added content. The other editor boldly removed it, citing [[WP:NPOV]] (not [[WP:V]]).
::::::I see the [[genetic fallacy]] in that reference to Jimbo, Uniplex. I'm sure Jimbo can speak for himself. I also don't know what you mean when you say that experienced editors leave, since the definition of an experienced editor is one who stays. I would take issue with the idea that the proposed diagram would make RfC's more efficient or that the policy on consensus is the cause of any problem. Depending on consensus is intrinsically difficult so it's unsurprising that there are sometimes problems; it is removed from reality to believe that there are rules for consensus that would obviate those problems. Even less do I accept that a flawed diagram that misstates the practice of page editing could improve the editing of pages. But I am open to good ideas about how to incrementally improve WP practices. You may recall that I mentioned the majority of the minority as a group that might be undervalued in our thinking. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 15:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::* What to do if you don't agree with that rationale? Start a discussion, perhaps by {{tl|ping}}ing the other editor and asking why they believe your addition promotes a point of view. Compare [[Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"#How to respond to a "no consensus" edit summary]].
:::::::Ring, I guarantee that, one way or another, every experienced editor will leave WP; think about it. Sorry, but "the flawed diagram" is IDONTLIKEIT—there is nothing that can be done for such claims. The diagram does not embody any change to WP practice; it merely reflects (a substantial portion of) the current text. [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 20:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::* What to do about your content during the discussion? See [[WP:QUO]]. - [[User:Butwhatdoiknow|Butwhatdoiknow]] ([[User talk:Butwhatdoiknow|talk]]) 07:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::::If that is really your argument, Uniplex, it falls spectacularly flat on its face. I feel quite certain that we do not have a problem with mortality attrition among WP editors, and if, as you claim, the proposed diagram was put forward to solve the problem of editors lost to death, you painted yourself into a corner. This makes it clear that the diagram isn't proposed for a useful stated purpose. As for your assertion that the diagram would not change WP practice, this is pure speculation on your part and, based on my experience, certainly false. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 15:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::Thank you. [[User:Kawrno Baba|Kawrno Baba]] ([[User talk:Kawrno Baba|talk]]) 07:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
:::Turning to your question, the Wikipedia goal is to resolve disputes based on the relative strength of the reasons put forth by editors with differing views (and, perhaps, some adjustments to take into account everyone's concern). There is no magic number. - [[User:Butwhatdoiknow|Butwhatdoiknow]] ([[User talk:Butwhatdoiknow|talk]]) 16:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
:Everyone with a new idea that gets lots of opposition thinks themselves Galileo, the vast majority are just wrong. The [[Galileo fallacy]] is also a thing.<br>If an editor disagrees with you the first thing is to try discussion on the articles talk page, failing that [[WP:Dispute resolution]] is a useful guide to other options available. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 12:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
::This is true, but I've honestly seen it happen multiple times. Consensus can cause a group to react to scepticism like an immune system spotting a bacterium. [[User:TiggyTheTerrible|Tiggy The Terrible]] ([[User talk:TiggyTheTerrible|talk]]) 13:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
::Your are right. The consensus is used for [[Wikipedia_talk:Consensus#Consensus-based_(not_correctness-based)| good reason]], although consensus does not necessarily equate to or imply correctness. [[User:Gluo88|Gluo88]] ([[User talk:Gluo88|talk]]) 11:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)


== WP:NOCONSENSUS ==
=== Break 3 (process diagram) ===
[[File:Consensus2.png|thumb|right|300px|'''Consensus''' is the broad, ''community'' agreement that we strive for in making decisions on Wikipedia. True consensus (simultaneous agreement of the entire community) is never determined; instead, one or more editors make their best effort to estimate it and the result is deemed ''provisional'', meaning that it may act in place of true consensus, ''providing'' that it is not subsequently challenged and replaced with a new, provisional consensus.<p>How this works in practice is depicted in the diagram and starts from A, the current state of a page. Changes (adding, removing, or modifying content) are most often made by single editor, judging that change is needed, and editing the page; this is shown by the path A→B→C→D→A.<p>To determine if and what change is warranted, an evaluation (B) per [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|sources]] and [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|Wikipedia's policies and guidelines]] is made; this, even if by a single editor, best ensures that the result should constitute ''community'' consensus.<p>At D, all that is needed beyond editing the page ([[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|citing sources as appropriate]]), is to give an appropriate [[WP:FIES|edit summary]], including the reason for the change (e.g. "... per given source", or "... per guideline ''X''").<p>Others who view the page may decide to change it further (ABCDA again) or give silent agreement (ABCA).<p>If it is unclear whether to make (or perhaps revert) a change, the issue is opened for discussion (E) at an article-, policy-, or other [[Help:Using talk pages|talk-page]] [[#Consensus-building by soliciting outside opinions|as appropriate]], and evaluation (now a collaboration by a group of editors) resumes at B.]]
[[File:ConsensusB.png|thumb|right|300px|Though it may be revisited as necessary during the evaluation, the most important thing to first establish is the set of ''criteria'' by which the potential change will be judged.<p>This involves identifying which policies and guidelines apply particularly to the matter in hand, and determining which types of reliable source will be used to provide the evidence for the criteria to be assessed.<p>If multiple source types are considered pertinent, "weighting" them in some way is sometimes appropriate. For example, depending on the subject matter, mainstream press may be considered more or less authoritative than books on the subject. [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:NPOV]] discuss this in detail.<p>Once the criteria have been established, it should be a relatively straight-forward task to consult sources to gather the evidence required to make the decision. If the decision seems difficult then options include: gathering more evidence, reestablishing the criteria, or it may become apparent that the the discussion would be better moved to a more appropriate forum (e.g. from article-talk to guideline-talk).<p>Note that to maintain clarity in a group evaluation (whose members may "dip in and out" as their time allows), it can help on the talk page to keep established information (such as the criteria and the gathered evidence) separate from the journal of related discussion.]]
Let's remind ourselves of how this discussion started: problems with the ''current'' diagram. Despite its best intentions, the current diagram supports the following conclusions:
*any edit (including bad ones) has consensus if no other edit occurs on the same page (after 24hrs, say)
*any edit has consensus if other edits subsequently occur on the same page
*NPOV editors have to compromise with POV editors (so that a partial amount of POV material receives consensus)
*POV edit 1 modified by POV edit 2 makes for a strong, "sticky" consensus
These are ''serious'' problems for something that plays such a central role in WP's operation. It's no wonder that when day-to-day editing includes elements of the above, we end up with train-wreck RfCs. With this in the mix, editors just aren't sufficiently cognizant of WP's principles or best practice. If day-to-day editing ''didn't'' suffer from the above, most problems would be solved early on and few would even get to RfC.<p>The proposed diagram attempts specifically to address the problems in the current diagram, and thus be a good, base reference for what consensus is. It doesn't preclude having other diagrams which "unroll" particular paths worthy of specific comment. Problems with the proposed diagram raised and not addressed thus far:
*possibly open to misinterpretation
The writer's challenge is to present ideas clearly and concisely—are we not up to that challenge? If not, why are we even here? If we use the diagram and a problem occurs, we'll fix it. If we can't fix it, we'll revert and think again, based on the valuable knowledge that we gained in trying—to make WP better. [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 09:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
:Do you have any evidence that your conclusions reflect reality? I think your conclusions are not realistic, certainly not under the scutiny that any bold edit attracts, and when push comes to shove, editors refer to the text, not to a simple diagram. However, I would like to encourage you make a more complete diagram, covering more of the details. This should be in addition to the simple diagram, which should come first. Experience is that "detailed and correct" inevitably is so complicated that it is not helpful as an introduction. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 09:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
::Thanks for your thoughts Joe. I suspect that all of the "conclusions" I gave, do occur in WP to a certain extent (and I think WAID alluded to some of them, somewhere above); whether or not they occur because of the diagram, is hard to say—the existing diagram could be used to bolster such claims though. The proposed diagram covers a large number of scenarios and doesn't seem to have the same problems. In fact, just about everything that has been thrown at it so far, it has coped with. It doesn't include a "give up" option: I've hesitated to do so since a) it's fairly obvious that any process can be abandoned at any point, and b) it's a bit defeatist! (We have, of course, a text section on "no consensus"). Which are some of the most important details that you think should be included in the more complete diagram? I have an idea for describing best practice for consensus discussions, but I was thinking that this may be best in text... [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 22:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
:::I don't see where any of the objections have been knocked down. The proposed diagram still has the same problems that were mentioned from the beginning. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 01:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
::::As equally does the present diagram. Do people not see by now that consensus-forming is ''not'' something that follows a diagrammatic process, and we would do better simply to abandon all attempts to illustrate this policy with diagrams?--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 11:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::How do you distinguish processes that are "diagrammatic" from those which are not? I suggest that any process is diagrammatic, and that any process that is not diagrammatic is not a process. Are you saying consensus-forming is not a process? --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 20:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::Well, yes, I suppose - at least, not a single process with defined steps and paths that can realistically be represented on a diagram.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 11:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Well, then, I present the proposed diagram as a refutation. How, ''specifically'', is the process of consensus-forming not represented by this diagram? --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 19:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Which is currently the proposed diagram?--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 09:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::Latest version now at the top of this section. [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 11:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::All right, so this proposed diagram is possibly an improvement on the present diagram, but it still seems wrong to me - depending on how you interpret it (whether "evaluate" means individually or as a group), it implies either that any edit has "provisional consensus" regardless of how long or short a time it's stood, or that you can't make any change until it's been discussed by the group. Combine the two diagrams somehow (I mean the present one and the proposed one), and you might have something that starts to look acceptable. --[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 12:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


Wondering if the old wording was more clear? We seem to have a new generation of editors that have a different interpretation of this policy. That caused us more edit wars than it solves. Nostalgic old man. > <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 20:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
"Consensus is the broad, community agreement that we seek in making decisions on Wikipedia"? This seems inaccurate and subject to many interpretations, some of which could be false. If the whole community doesn't participate in a decision, is it still consensus? According to this sentence, maybe not. Uniplex tried to include this on the main page already and I reverted it. Now, it's almost like he might want to smuggle it in where it can't be edited. I'm sure he's not thinking that way but here it is. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 04:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
:We strive for community consensus, but we only ever achieve an estimation of it, made frequently by no more than handful of editors. This is explained a bit more in the notes with [[#Break 2 (process diagram)|the diagram above]]. @SmokeyJoe, per your suggestion, I've also added a first draft of an expansion of box B. [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 13:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


:It seems to me that closers must be more active in this, its no use just saying it's Nocon, go ahead and sort it out. OK, in some cases it can be very clear but often it won't be so clear, as in the case that has prompted this question here. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 21:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
The first of the listed "errors" is essentially wrong: "any edit (including bad ones) has consensus if no other edit occurs on the same page (after 24hrs, say)".
::I do agree with this point..... if someone's closing an RFC they should not tell people just to go ahead and have another RFC. If bold edits are contested and RCF are inconclusive...... those that edit wars in the contested content should be dealt with accordingly not rewarded with the content be included with experience editor having to deal with consequences.<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 21:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
::I think in this case it is clear; an edit in place for just six weeks doesn't become the status quo.
::If it had been a few months, then things might be ambiguous, but that isn't the case here - six weeks is just too short. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 21:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Part of the problem is that we seem to have forgotten how to reach compromises. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 21:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
::::[[Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus after discussion]], aka NOCONSENSUS, does not belong in this policy. No consensus is not a strategy for achieving consensus. No consensus belongs in [[WP:Editing policy]] and [[WP:Closing discussions]].
::::- [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 22:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::I like the idea of putting it in [[Wikipedia:Closing discussions]]. Also, I think the rather dubious bit about [[WP:STATUSQUO]] usually applying after the discussion is over should probably just get lost on during the trip to that page. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::That’s two of us, with a silent audience. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 23:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Three of us, really, though how does one progress such a thing? [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Either we do it, and see if BRD will identify a Very Interested Person™, or we have an Official Discussion™ (RFC or otherwise). [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Any day now maybe. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 01:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I'll get grief if I bold edit that, it's a policy page, so I guess an RFC.
::::::::::Here? (Editing policy is also a policy page).
::::::::::Question " Should Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus after discussion be moved to Wikipedia:Closing discussions? (and/or Editing policy).
::::::::::with this convo as RFCbefore. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 09:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I think a split/merge discussion is the usual format. I've started a separate sub-section at [[Wikipedia talk:Consensus#Moving NOCON to CLOSE]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::Not entirely opposed to moving it, but I think some form of it needs to be retained in policy, and if not here then at [[WP:EP]]. Otherwise, the guidance may be viewed as a demotion of sorts at an informational page. --[[User:GoneIn60|GoneIn60]] ([[User talk:GoneIn60|talk]]) 16:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Quite happy for the details to be examined (impartially). If there's some volunteers. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 22:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
The post close discussions/editing have not achieved any consensus either and I have opened an RFC to try and settle the matter. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 09:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)


:You have opened an RFC to try and settle the matter? Where? [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 11:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Actually, neither of the two points here is correct. A policy-violating edit never has consensus, full stop. You '''cannot''' have a consensus to violate the [[WP:COPYVIO]] policy. It is actually impossible. Secondly, the "after 24hrs" is nonsense. If a change is made and nobody looks at the page for the next ten years, and when they look at it, they remove it, then that edit does not have consensus. There is no magic time limit.
::[[Talk:Genocide of indigenous peoples#RFC Palestine]]. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 11:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:Years ago, [[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] used to talk about the importance of "the wiki way" in identifying consensus, which is to say: If an edit sticks, it probably has some level of consensus. It might be a shaky, tenuous, temporary weakling of a consensus, but it's enough of a consensus that other editors don't feel obliged to instantly revert the edit. This may be difficult to achieve on hot-button issues (or if someone has outside influences, such as a paid editor or a volunteer for a political campaign), but that's the goal: to find something that the other 'side' won't revert. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
::I miss Kim. He was very wise.
::What I read him as expressing is what is now called BRD and SILENCE. What I have deduced is that BRD is good for rapid development, and was more often appropriate in 2004 than 2024. Now, different to then, it is much better, expected, almost demanded, that there be a talk page record of consultation. Number of Watchers is no longer meaningful, and a quiet bold edit on a quiet page can be reverted as undiscussed even years later. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 01:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Nothing should be reverted "as undiscussed." Editors should provide a substantive rationale. For more on this topic, see [[wp:DRNC]]. - [[User:Butwhatdoiknow|Butwhatdoiknow]] ([[User talk:Butwhatdoiknow|talk]]) 00:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)


:{{u|Moxy}}, just for clarification, what exactly is this "{{tq|different interpretation}}" you're referring to? Here's [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Consensus&oldid=812670799#No_consensus a version from 2017] that predates some of the recent tinkering. Is that the "old wording" you had in mind, and if so, what about this version seems more clear? Presentation, phrasing, or both?{{pb}}FWIW, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Consensus&oldid=1142199786 this version] was the last revision I paid attention to. I now see that some mini-subheadings have since been added along with a bullet covering [[WP:FFD|FfD]]s. While well-intentioned, I think these unnecessarily crowd an already cluttered NOCON that's struggling to be concise. --[[User:GoneIn60|GoneIn60]] ([[User talk:GoneIn60|talk]]) 03:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
An edit has consensus when other people approve of it (or do not disapprove enough to remove it). There are various practical mechanisms for figuring out whether other people have approved of your change (passage of time, number of page views since the edit, talk page comments, subsequent change to the article, etc.) but it is the fact of approval, not the existence of these markers or indicators, that constitute consensus. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
::[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Consensus&oldid=464985282 more clear here]. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 09:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:And, yet, that's what the current diagram on this page (not the proposed one) indicates. That's the problem, and that was Uniplex's point. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 22:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
:::Ah, well that's taking it way back! Is it more clear though? I suppose it depends on how the RfC is worded. The "proposed change" could be in reference to the bold edit added a year ago...or...it could be in reference to the recent effort to remove it. I suspect that's why additional verbiage was added later on. Unfortunately, as we've seen, it hasn't really gotten us any closer to solving the underlying issue of determining when a bold edit achieves some level of consensus without discussion. --[[User:GoneIn60|GoneIn60]] ([[User talk:GoneIn60|talk]]) 10:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)


=== Moving NOCON to CLOSE ===
::The current diagram gives the option of the copyvio edit being rejected (e.g., by someone else editing the article to remove the copyvio). This is IMO an accurate reflection of reality ''and'' an appropriate description of how consensus works: if you commit a copyvio, someone will (eventually) discover it and remove it. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
As suggested above, let's move [[WP:NOCON]] over to [[WP:CLOSE]], where it will have more immediate relevance. No changes to the wording/facts/etc. in the section are suggested – just a simple move of these words out of this page and over to the more closely related page. What do you think? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Not at all. To the contrary, the current diagram strongly suggests that if the article is not edited further after some unspecified "Wait", the copyvio edit becomes "New consensus". The proposed diagram indicates the existing text needs to be evaluated per sources ''and policy'' before deciding how to proceed, which at least implies copyvio edits are not even "provisional consensus" (because they violate policy), much less "consensus" or "new consensus".<p>Further, the proposed diagram gives the same option of rejecting a copyvio change as does the current diagram. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 02:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
: Will you propose to move the last sentence of [[WP:ONUS]] to CLOSE as well? [[User:Butwhatdoiknow|Butwhatdoiknow]] ([[User talk:Butwhatdoiknow|talk]]) 15:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
::I haven't thought about it, but I think we should deal with one thing at a time. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Sounds like a plan! Let's deal with the ONUS sentence first. - [[User:Butwhatdoiknow|Butwhatdoiknow]] ([[User talk:Butwhatdoiknow|talk]]) 18:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
::::This question was already asked three weeks ago, so it's too late to do something else "first". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
::NOCON and the last sentence of ONUS are yin and yang. You can't make this change without changing the balance between the two. I '''oppose''' moving only one into CLOSE. - [[User:Butwhatdoiknow|Butwhatdoiknow]] ([[User talk:Butwhatdoiknow|talk]]) 00:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
:::That's interesting to know, but not very clear. Do you think it would ultimately be best for NOCON and ONUS both to get moved to the other page, or do you think it would be best for neither to move? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
::::''Note: I am only talking about the last sentence in ONUS.''
::::I think it would be best for NOCON and ONUS to be reconciled and put in one place. CLOSE is probably the best, but it is not a policy or guideline. And that is the primary problem with putting only NOCON in CLOSE, it leaves ONUS as the only policy statement on the issue.
::::On the other hand, good luck getting community consensus on reconciling NOCON and ONUS. - [[User:Butwhatdoiknow|Butwhatdoiknow]] ([[User talk:Butwhatdoiknow|talk]]) 15:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Neither NOCON nor ONUS belong in WP:Consensus.
:::I think both belong primarily in [[WP:Editing policy]]. I have no issue with ONUS remaining described in WP:V, but NOCON should be no more than a pointer to WP:EP.
:::With both nested in WP:EP, both can be mentioned in [[WP:CLOSE]]. Both are true regardless of whether there has been a formal discussion to be formally closed. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 13:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
:Apart from the seeming logic of such a move, the thing that interests me most is whether it will result in closers paying more attention to it in their closes. Do you think? [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
::I have no idea if it will affect closer behavior, or if it might affect "closee" behavior (e.g., fewer close challenges, close challenges that are better explained, etc.). [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
:WP:CLOSE is not policy, so moving NOCON over there would just remove it from policy, which I do not think would be a good idea (when there's no consensus, there needs to be ''an'' answer, whatever it may be, to the question of what to do). I've thought before that it'd be good to have some sort of guideline on closing (like [[WP:DGFA]] but not just for deletion), but as long as WP:CLOSE is a mere "information page" I would oppose this. [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 03:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]], NOCON doesn't (and isn't supposed to) say anything that doesn't appear elsewhere.
::So, e.g., if the dispute is over BLPs, then you can currently say "Well, NOCON is a [[File:Pixie_dust.png|link=|alt=|20x20px]] ''policy'', and it says that WP:BLP says that contentious matter gets removed if there's no consensus", but you could just as easily say – and probably ought to be saying – "WP:BLP is a core content policy, and it says that contentious matter gets removed when editors don't agree that it's adequately sourced".
::You'd lose nothing any maybe even gain something by citing the policy that is most relevant. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
::Extraordinary Writ, thanks for a good observation. I oppose making WP:NOCON a non-policy. [[User:Peter Gulutzan|Peter Gulutzan]] ([[User talk:Peter Gulutzan|talk]]) 13:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
:::I wish that I'd never started NOCON.
:::Okay, guys, let's try this again from the top. Here's the facts:
:::# BLP says we remove contentious matter unless editors agree that it's well-sourced. This encompasses ''both'' "we have a consensus that it's badly sourced" ''and'' "we don't have a consensus that it is well-sourced".
:::# BLP is a policy. {{pixiedust|A policy}}, but BLP is definitely, absolutely, indisputably a policy. It's even one of our [[Wikipedia:Core content policies]].
:::# Some years ago, I added a little copy/summary of the BLP rules to this page. This little copy did not create or change any rules.
:::Now the question for @[[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] and @[[User:Peter Gulutzan|Peter Gulutzan]]: If we removed NOCON, would you:
:::* Still be able to remove badly sourced contentious matter when editors can't form a consensus that it's well-sourced, because the BLP policy requires this action, ''or''
:::* Have no idea what to do, because the BLP policy isn't enough all by itself, and you need to be able to cite ''two'' policies to get the badly sourced material removed?
:::If you pick the latter, then please tell me what we would actually lose by "only" having the BLP policy as an official policy that requires this. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Well, and not just in BLPs, the problem remains that the version in the article is presumed to have consensus, including that it belongs in the article for all the right reasons (sourcing/npov/nor/noncvio). So if there is no consensus, its presence in the article misrepresents a consensus that does not exist. -- [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 20:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::I don't think that's true. The version in the article might be ''presumed'' to have consensus up until the consensus was disputed, but NOCON is about when that presumption has just been proven false. You literally cannot have a presumed consensus in the article when the discussion just ended as no consensus; it is an X-and-not-X situation. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 06:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::What you just said, is another way of saying what I said, if it's in the article it has consensus. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 11:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Right, the issue is usually about how long it has been in the article in relation to it being contested. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::@[[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]], if it's
::::::::* in the article, and
::::::::* an RFC just closed saying that "there is no consensus about whether this should be in the article",
::::::::then "if it's in the article it has consensus" is a false statement, right? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Nope. Practice has it that it depends how recently the material was added and the NOCON means nocon for inclusion or exclusion and then if it was there for long enough, it has consensus pending any possible further discussion to resolve the nocon discussion one way or another. Of course this leads to altercations and I think closers ought to at least opine, if not decide, on such matters in their closes (and discussion openers should ask them to opine as well). [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I also think that it's helpful, for the minority of discussions that get formally summarized, for the closers to express an opinion on what to do next.
::::::::::I wonder if you have thought about the distinction between "There is no consensus either way, and that means we keep/remove/undo/whatever" (=what I've been saying for years) and "There is no consensus either way, and that means this version has consensus" (=what you appear to be saying here). [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I'm not saying that, I'm saying it depends, on when it was added and possibly some other things too (eg conlevel). As for your first version, that's what I want the closers to do, although they are more likely to opine than decide. What they tend to do now is say nothing and leave it to editors to figure it out. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 18:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::And this to me would be an inconsistency and an overall issue that requires guidance. Concur with Selfstudier.{{pb}}No consensus to ''keep'' is also no consensus to ''remove''. If something is:
::::::::::::#Verifiable
::::::::::::#Has been in place a reasonable amount of time
::::::::::::#Within an article with a reasonable amount of traffic
::::::::::::#Was subject to discussion including a reasonable amount of participants
::::::::::::Then a stalemate should result in retaining the disputed content...for now. Relegating this advice to an essay demotes it. -- [[User:GoneIn60|GoneIn60]] ([[User talk:GoneIn60|talk]]) 18:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The statement that "No consensus to ''keep'' is also no consensus to ''remove''" is not literally true. When you have a consensus to remove, you also have "no consensus to keep". I realize this sounds pedantic, but this kind of P&G content really needs to be as wikilawyer-resistant as we can make it.
:::::::::::::I really wish editors would quit fixating on the idea of additions and removals, when the real question may be something like "Shall we have ==This== section or ==That== section first?"
:::::::::::::@[[User:GoneIn60|GoneIn60]], the [[Wikipedia:Editing policy]] takes a default position of retaining information (though it cares about whether Wikipedia retains information, rather than whether any given article retains the information). Removing this particular sentence from ''this'' policy would not actually make it impossible for you to claim that A Policy™ Requires the outcome you prefer. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Best thing is to get the principle right, get it done and then wikilawyer it. Trying to wikilawyer it first just results in nothing getting done. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 20:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::When a proposal to take action results in "no consensus", then logically the proposed action is not taken. What happens next depends. The conditions I listed count for something, and in applicable situations, they can be enough to tip the "no consensus" balanced scale in favor of retaining disputed content. It seems most that participate in these discussions agree with that sentiment. Where we seem to differ or want more clarification (or where the wikilawyering sets in) is in regard to ''reasonable amount''; how is that determined?
::::::::::::::To your point: "When you have a consensus to remove, you also have {{tq|no consensus to keep}}".{{pb}}I don't see it this way. When you have a consensus to take action one way, then you equally have a consensus against taking action the opposite way. So if you have a "consensus to remove", then you have a "consensus against keeping". You shouldn't phrase this as "no consensus to keep". I prefer to preserve "no consensus" for situations that represent outcomes of inaction, or stalemates. --[[User:GoneIn60|GoneIn60]] ([[User talk:GoneIn60|talk]]) 04:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::They are certainly contrary, and some may just will to see it as consensus version, nonetheless. -- [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 17:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::When you have a decision that there is no consensus for a change, then that change does not have consensus. There may be no consensus about what to do instead, but there is no consensus.
::::::::::This is important for policies to get right, because the alternative is that we reward edit warring to keep [[m:The Wrong Version]] out of the article during a discussion (which would actually be a violation of the [[WP:QUO]] essay, which I recommend actually reading, because it's one of those [[WP:UPPERCASE]] shortcuts that gets cited for the opposite of what it actually says).
::::::::::What we want is:
::::::::::* Alice changes something. (NB: Not necessarily ''adding'' anything. Maybe she just moved a sentence from one section to another.)
::::::::::* Bob dislikes it and changes the article again. (NB: Not necessarily ''reverting'' Alice's edit. Maybe he rearranged a few more sentences, or added some explanatory text in an attempt to make Alice's change be [in his opinion] less bad.)
::::::::::* The discussion about what to do closes as "no consensus either way".
::::::::::* The decisions about what to do next are ''not'' prejudiced in favor of Bob's version just because "It's in the article so it has consensus".
::::::::::What we ''don't'' want is:
::::::::::* Alice changes something.
::::::::::* Bob dislikes it but decides not to risk an edit war.
::::::::::* The discussion about what to do closes as "no consensus either way".
::::::::::* The decisions about what to do next are prejudiced in favor of Alice's version just because "It's in the article so it has consensus".
::::::::::If anything, we want to reward editors for using restraint. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Which means, that where the discussion is in respect to core content policies (besides in some cases of BLP or CVIO), it results in the article remaining in internal doubt with respect to policy compliance, but external (or on-its-face) certitude with respect to policy compliance. Which is often important for article creation and improvement because we replicate articles in-form across the pedia, by editors going, that's done there, I'll replicate in kind or use it, here. And we believe it also matters to the quality, we provide readers to rely on. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 14:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::I don't know what you mean by {{xt|the article remaining in internal doubt with respect to policy compliance, but external (or on-its-face) certitude with respect to policy compliance}}. Does this mean "No consensus means there actually is no consensus, but we'll pretend, for the sake of convenience, that there is a consensus for some version or another"? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 03:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Is {{tq|When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit}} written down in policy anywhere else? That's the part I'm most concerned about (and the main reason why most people cite NOCON, I think). You're of course right that the BLP wording (and everything else) is just a summary of other policy, and I indeed don't really care about those parts of NOCON—although if we're going to state the general rule, we probably need to cross-reference the exceptions too. [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 21:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::That's a statement of statistical fact. It is not a rule and doesn't tell you what to do in any given situation. "If BLP, remove it" is a policy requirement. "Yeah, looking at a bunch of these, I see this pattern" is not a policy requirement. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 06:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::I suppose you're right, and if anything my confusion only proves your point that something needs to change. I do think this page has to say ''something'' about no consensus (which is presumably why you wrote NOCON to begin with), so I would prefer a rewrite to a full-scale move, though obviously the wording is very difficult. (Prefacing each bullet point with "According to WP:EXAMPLE..." might help somewhat.) That said, although NOCON has somehow come to symbolize the objections to ONUS, getting rid of the symbol won't get rid of the conflict or the deep-seated objections: the central problem remains [[Special:Diff/621111849|one undiscussed 2014 edit]] that there was never consensus for in the first place. [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 09:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Or we could say that the problem is [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Consensus&diff=prev&oldid=470721724 another] edit, by a now-indeffed editor, which was not only discussed but actively objected to. The same editor [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Consensus&diff=prev&oldid=499352796 repeatedly] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Consensus&diff=prev&oldid=480493050 removed] the statement about BLPs and insisted for [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=479921712 years] that [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=630480894 "no consensus means no change"]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)


=== Moving NOCON to Editing Policy ===
== Frame ==
:No, my first belief, and my long term gut feel, and my latest reading, is that NOCON belongs in [[WP:Editing policy]]. Nest there, it can be better referred to from [[WP:CLOSE]]. - [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 13:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
::<s>There is a conflict between NOCON and the last sentence of ONUS. If you demote NOCON to an essay then you are picking sides in that conflict. Is that an intended or unintended consequence of your support for "move only NOCON"? - [[User:Butwhatdoiknow|Butwhatdoiknow]] ([[User talk:Butwhatdoiknow|talk]]) 15:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)</s>
:::It's not demoting NOCON to an essay if moved to Editing policy? [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 15:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Oh, OK, you struck it. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 15:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
::And move the last sentence of ONUS there as well? - [[User:Butwhatdoiknow|Butwhatdoiknow]] ([[User talk:Butwhatdoiknow|talk]]) 15:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Moving that last sentence out of VNOT essentially removes ONUS from WP:V. That's a big change and something we may want to shelve for now. Obviously, it's a hot button topic with editors on both sides of the fence: [[WT:Verifiability/Archive 80#ONUS - a different idea]].{{pb}}Policies occasionally provide some brief overlapping coverage, and this would be one such area where it can exist. If editors feel VNOT is not the right place for it, the proper approach might be to flesh out the changes at WP:EP following the NOCON move, bring the policy up to date following discussion, and then decide if ONUS needs revisited. We may find more consensus at that point to remove it from VNOT and/or rephrase accordingly, but now doesn't seem like the time. -- [[User:GoneIn60|GoneIn60]] ([[User talk:GoneIn60|talk]]) 18:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
::::That sounds like a plan. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 18:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::That plan would require editors to agree to move NOCON out of this page. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::Yep, fine by me and since it's to another policy page, less objectionable for some people, I would think. And we can still leave some sort of summary here pointing to there, that's doable as well, right? [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 21:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::Consider me on board if some form of NOCON is staying in policy, just being relocated. Don't think I would support a move to an essay, however. I understand the principle behind NOCON already loosely exists in WP:EP from the comments above, but I think the reason for its existence is that it needs to be spelled out; editors need something to point to. -- [[User:GoneIn60|GoneIn60]] ([[User talk:GoneIn60|talk]]) 22:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::The main reason it exists is because I thought it would be convenient to have a handy summary of all the different rules about what to do when a discussion has a no-consensus result that are scattered about in various policies, guidelines, and procedural pages.
:::::::Boy, was I wrong. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::You've weathered a lot of storms in these here parts! ;){{pb}}It ''is'' handy, or at least it should be, since as you say it was meant to gather in one place several ''rules'' that are scattered about on various pages. Despite the number of editors here that may indicate otherwise (which in the grand scheme of things is still a small sampling of Wikipedia's overall user base), NOCON is needed in some form. You were onto something all those years ago. [[User:GoneIn60|GoneIn60]] ([[User talk:GoneIn60|talk]]) 07:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I think the biggest mistake was not predicting the shift towards revering The Policies™ (may their words endure forever). If I had, the collection probably would have ended up on its own page. Compare, e.g., [[WP:MINREF]], which is a handy list of all the times policy requires in inline citation, and yet is not on a policy page, and [[WP:NOTGOODSOURCE]], which is a bulleted list summarizing the common characteristics of [[WP:Reliable sources]], and yet is no less effective for not being on a guideline page. But this one, especially when people twist "this usually happens" into "The Policy™ Requires this", has been a mistake.
:::::::::I read decades ago that towards the end of the Roman empire, the tax laws would be written in gold ink on purple vellum, proclaimed with great ceremony, and then ignored by the people who were supposed to be paying the taxes. I would like Wikipedia to take the opposite approach to its policies: They are not statutes. They are not sacred. They are a handy summary of reality. And when they diverge from reality, we should fix them. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
::I '''support''' moving NOCON to EDITING POLICY (being sure to leave a link to NOCON in CONSENSUS). - [[User:Butwhatdoiknow|Butwhatdoiknow]] ([[User talk:Butwhatdoiknow|talk]]) 16:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
*I'm fine ('''support''') with moving to EDITING POLICY. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 19:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per discussion above.[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 08:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
So three folks and the proponent support this move and no one opposes it. Time to make the move? (Adding text to Consensus that points to it.) - [[User:Butwhatdoiknow|Butwhatdoiknow]] ([[User talk:Butwhatdoiknow|talk]]) 07:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


== Consensus-based (not correctness-based) ==
Where does consensus begin and the rest of the editorial process leave off? Perhaps upon examination we enter consensus and its necessities always from a finite number of directions. Limited cases, limited reasons, narrow requirements. Where does consensus end and the rest of the process begin? Perhaps we return only with a new consensus or the failure to achieve consensus. Since this article is about consensus, we should discipline ourselves to stay on that subject only. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 16:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
The definition of consensus involves opinions or decisions that are generally accepted within a group, without explicitly addressing correctness. Consensus does not necessarily equate to or imply correctness. Even if the majority agrees on a certain viewpoint, it may still be incorrect. Sometimes, the correct viewpoint of a minority may be overlooked by the majority, but this does not affect its correctness. This means that while consensus plays an important role in the editing process of Wikipedia, it is not always directly linked to correctness


I guess that Wikipedia uses a consensus-based decision-making process rather than a correctness-based one for good reasons. Determining absolute correctness can be challenging, especially in areas where there is ongoing debate or where information is subject to interpretation. Consensus allows Wikipedia to function effectively even in the face of uncertainty or differing opinions.
== Goal ==
--[[User:Gluo88|Gluo88]] ([[User talk:Gluo88|talk]]) 01:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)


:[[Wikipedia_talk:Consensus#Consensus_might_become_hindrance_to_truth]] triggered my above comments. [[User:Gluo88|Gluo88]] ([[User talk:Gluo88|talk]]) 11:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
There's a line I like at [[User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_88#NOTCENSORED_and_illustrations]] that says "the proper goal of community consensus should be (generally) to reflect what is in reliable sources." This is specifically about article content (rather than advice pages or behavioral issues, and therefore would have to be labeled as such), but perhaps something like that would be a helpful addition to the lead. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
::We're not the ones to ''correct''. We are the ones to report the sources. [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS]] – [[User:The Grid|<span style="color:navy">The Grid</span>]] ([[User talk:The Grid|<span style="color:navy">talk</span>]]) 13:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:Yes, it's great for content. However, the lead should be a precis of the body. Whether we ever get as far as reviewing the rest of the body, to update it to reflect current best practice, and further highlight/clarify what we all observe as horribly-bad practice, remains to be seen. If we ever do, per RC's section above, we should be careful to keep separate the essential characteristics of consensus from that of content policy. [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 09:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
::The thing to remember when Galileo is mentioned is the [[Galileo gambit]]. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 14:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
::Jimbo's statement at the top of this talk page is also rather good. Someone asked recently if it is acceptable to begin a lead with a quote, to which the response was a resounding "no"; that was in relation to articles though. [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 09:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
::Consensus doesn't imply correctnes or truth, but it does show the best understanding that the community has in a certain situation. If editors don't think the outcome was correct they should look to the strength of their arguments. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 14:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:On first impression, I don't think it is significant and central to the policy of consensus. It is not really about consensus, but about the project goal. Perhaps add it to [[WP:Goal]]. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 09:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
::Very few things are simply objectively correct or incorrect. ([[WP:Accuracy]]) and in those cases I'd guess that wp:consensus would go with the accurate side if there was even a debate. Most discussions have much more complex attributes such varying values, differing definitions of "correct"/ "incorrect", varying meaning of words, tilting article by inclusion/exclusion, selecting which of Wikipedia's vague and overlapping rules to apply, conflicting POV objectives (each self-defined as the only "correct" one) etc. "Sources" alone also does not settle it, you can always find a source that has the same POV as you. WP:Consensus is generally our way of making those decisions. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 14:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:I'd find such an addition helpful, just to underline that consensus can't override other content policies. --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|J]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|N]]</font><font color="#0000FF">[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 11:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
::I agree with Joe, it's a project goal: a goal of ''Wikipedia'' should be (generally) to reflect what is in reliable sources. Though I think [[WP:5P]] may the place for it, in the second pillar, which skirts round this sentiment. [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 22:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
:::You are right. Therefore, I believe that the quality of arguments aimed at forming consensus should be more related to their persuasive power rather than their correctness. Furthermore, I think that the quality of arguments for consensus can be measured by the level of support they receive within the group. [[User:Gluo88|Gluo88]] ([[User talk:Gluo88|talk]]) 17:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
::::This is already how consensus works, by editors policy based arguements. The second part though comes to close to [[WP:NOTAVOTE]], consensus building shouldn't be a popularity contest. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 09:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::OP has added the following section to an essay: [[Wikipedia:What is consensus?#Not necessarily equate to or imply correctness]].
::Anyways, I personally find the argument "Wikipedia should reflect the truth" to be pretty weaksauce. It's not that we don't want to reflect the truth, it's that any project this big which values "the truth" will have a pretty tough time governing itself. The reason policies like consensus exists is to make a decision-making process that actually works. It's going to be so worthless when you want to create a decision-making system that follows from "correctness". There's a whole philosophy of that I don't think I'm qualified enough to get into.
::There is also the idea that even if my viewpoint disagrees with the consensus, I can still sit in peace knowing I am "right" if I would write things like this. I personally don't think that is a good mindset. What matters most, I think, is justification. How you present your justification matters, just as the justification itself. There will be people who won't accept your justification. That's fine, not because you'd think you are "right", but because you believe you've made a valid effort in getting what ''you'' think is right to others.
::OP has also created an essay titled [[Wikipedia:What are High-Quality Arguments for Forming Consensus?]] and is about why they think how {{tq|level of support in the community}} is important. ActivelyDisinterested was quick to spot that {{tq|consensus building shouldn't be a popularity contest}}. But hey. There's a reason why OP has [[zh:维基百科:管理员解任投票/Mys 721tx/第2次|asked]] for an admin on zhwiki to be desysopped, after they have themselves been blocked by said admin citing numerous reasons (one of which is misinterpretation of the consensus policy by suggesting that it is majority rule), then trying to get people to become an angry mob with said admin "abusing blocks".
::It's unclear to me why in the request for de-adminship, OP's misquote of a third-party admin that they believed the block "isn't justified to be indef" as "isn't justified" still hasn't been corrected. My hunch is that they are less interested in the "truth" than playing with it as in populist politics. <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x[[User:0xDeadbeef|<span style="text-transform:uppercase;color:black">'''Deadbeef'''</span>]]</span>→∞ ([[User talk:0xDeadbeef#top|talk to me]]) 10:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I do not agree with your interpretation of my intention and will leave these points for other users to comment on, as I believe you may have misunderstood my intention due to your comments:{{tq|"There is also the idea that even if my viewpoint disagrees with the consensus, I can still sit in peace knowing I am "right" if I would write things like this"}}, and {{ tq|"My hunch is that they are less interested in the "truth" than playing with it as in populist politics."}} My essays and above comments were triggered by reading [[Wikipedia_talk:Consensus#Consensus_might_become_hindrance_to_truth]] as I mentioned earlier.
:::In my essays([[Wikipedia:What is consensus?#Not necessarily equate to or imply correctness|1]], [[WP:WHQA|2]]), I argue that it is more important for Wikipedia to reflect the collective agreement of its contributors rather than striving solely for objective truth. This reflects my belief that Wikipedia should prioritize representing consensus over absolute truth..
:::In my essays([[Wikipedia:What is consensus?#Not necessarily equate to or imply correctness|1]], [[WP:WHQA|2]]), I also oppose majority voting and fully support the consensus-building approach. The key idea is as follows: {{tq|The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view}} can be understood as follows: regardless of whether an argument initially represents a minority or majority opinion, a high-quality argument with greater persuasive power is more likely to be unanimously agreed upon or accepted by the majority in the process of forming consensus. In the process of forming consensus, the final method to determine whether consensus has been reached must be through understanding the level of support within the community, as this aligns with the meaning of consensus. Hopefully, my [[Wikipedia:WHQA|essay]] provides a better explanation. [[User:Gluo88|Gluo88]] ([[User talk:Gluo88|talk]]) 14:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
"Truth" is a bad word to use because it has two completely different common meanings:
#Accurate / Accuracy
#Word commonly used in unsubstantiated or wild claims. E.G. "The truth about aliens at Area 51" "The truth about our alleged moon landings" "The truth about microchips in Covid vaccines"
A part of why we got rid of "Verifiability not truth" was because it denigrates/deprecates the pursuit of accuracy (in those cases where objective fact exists) by using a word with a second common meaning of #2 <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 14:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:12, 4 January 2025



Consensus might become hindrance to truth

[edit]

When Galileo was sentenced to death, the consensus was against what he said.

Recently someone asked me to gain consensus first even though I cited a strong, universally accepted reference for the material.

What if the right number of editors to reach consensus on a certain topic of an article is absent from participating that discussion?

How does WikiPedia fight fallacy of popular opinions? Kawrno Baba (talk) 07:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kawrno Baba Please be specific and provide a link to where you were asked to gain consensus. Doug Weller talk 10:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller, please read the notice-box on top of here. Kawrno Baba (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You really should have told User talk:StarkReport you were posting here. Have you read the page for which is the talk page carefully? Doug Weller talk 11:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a new editor I was trying to understand the concept of 'consensus during editing' myself first. Kawrno Baba (talk) 12:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when discussing the substance of articles, it's not editors that we formally rely on (so not what's popular to them), although it's still their job to understandably and in summary fashion relate the relevant body of reliable literature, see generally WP:DUE, so that's what they either have agreement on or need to resolve. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The editor said "Fails WP:NPOV" before saying "Please gain consensus for this first." So what the editor is really saying is "I think there is a problem with this edit and I've told you what it is. Your next step is to take it to the talk page to explain why you think I'm wrong and see what other editors think." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how an editor can simply remove a content and claim that 'there might be a problem explain yourself'. The concept of judicial system is 'innocent until proven guilty'. This can be applied to other things as well.
It's like accusing someone of theft, and then asking the accused to prove that he did not commit theft. This is irrational.
If some editor thinks there might be a problem, and the said content is well cited, shouldn't he use the talk page to prove why he thinks there might be a problem to the said content? Kawrno Baba (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You boldly added content. The other editor boldly removed it, citing WP:NPOV (not WP:V).
Thank you. Kawrno Baba (talk) 07:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Turning to your question, the Wikipedia goal is to resolve disputes based on the relative strength of the reasons put forth by editors with differing views (and, perhaps, some adjustments to take into account everyone's concern). There is no magic number. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone with a new idea that gets lots of opposition thinks themselves Galileo, the vast majority are just wrong. The Galileo fallacy is also a thing.
If an editor disagrees with you the first thing is to try discussion on the articles talk page, failing that WP:Dispute resolution is a useful guide to other options available. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is true, but I've honestly seen it happen multiple times. Consensus can cause a group to react to scepticism like an immune system spotting a bacterium. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your are right. The consensus is used for good reason, although consensus does not necessarily equate to or imply correctness. Gluo88 (talk) 11:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOCONSENSUS

[edit]

Wondering if the old wording was more clear? We seem to have a new generation of editors that have a different interpretation of this policy. That caused us more edit wars than it solves. Nostalgic old man. > Moxy🍁 20:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that closers must be more active in this, its no use just saying it's Nocon, go ahead and sort it out. OK, in some cases it can be very clear but often it won't be so clear, as in the case that has prompted this question here. Selfstudier (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with this point..... if someone's closing an RFC they should not tell people just to go ahead and have another RFC. If bold edits are contested and RCF are inconclusive...... those that edit wars in the contested content should be dealt with accordingly not rewarded with the content be included with experience editor having to deal with consequences.Moxy🍁 21:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think in this case it is clear; an edit in place for just six weeks doesn't become the status quo.
If it had been a few months, then things might be ambiguous, but that isn't the case here - six weeks is just too short. BilledMammal (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem is that we seem to have forgotten how to reach compromises. Blueboar (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus after discussion, aka NOCONSENSUS, does not belong in this policy. No consensus is not a strategy for achieving consensus. No consensus belongs in WP:Editing policy and WP:Closing discussions.
- SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of putting it in Wikipedia:Closing discussions. Also, I think the rather dubious bit about WP:STATUSQUO usually applying after the discussion is over should probably just get lost on during the trip to that page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s two of us, with a silent audience. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three of us, really, though how does one progress such a thing? Selfstudier (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either we do it, and see if BRD will identify a Very Interested Person™, or we have an Official Discussion™ (RFC or otherwise). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any day now maybe. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get grief if I bold edit that, it's a policy page, so I guess an RFC.
Here? (Editing policy is also a policy page).
Question " Should Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus after discussion be moved to Wikipedia:Closing discussions? (and/or Editing policy).
with this convo as RFCbefore. Selfstudier (talk) 09:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a split/merge discussion is the usual format. I've started a separate sub-section at Wikipedia talk:Consensus#Moving NOCON to CLOSE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely opposed to moving it, but I think some form of it needs to be retained in policy, and if not here then at WP:EP. Otherwise, the guidance may be viewed as a demotion of sorts at an informational page. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quite happy for the details to be examined (impartially). If there's some volunteers. Selfstudier (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The post close discussions/editing have not achieved any consensus either and I have opened an RFC to try and settle the matter. Selfstudier (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have opened an RFC to try and settle the matter? Where? SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Genocide of indigenous peoples#RFC Palestine. Selfstudier (talk) 11:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Years ago, Kim Bruning used to talk about the importance of "the wiki way" in identifying consensus, which is to say: If an edit sticks, it probably has some level of consensus. It might be a shaky, tenuous, temporary weakling of a consensus, but it's enough of a consensus that other editors don't feel obliged to instantly revert the edit. This may be difficult to achieve on hot-button issues (or if someone has outside influences, such as a paid editor or a volunteer for a political campaign), but that's the goal: to find something that the other 'side' won't revert. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I miss Kim. He was very wise.
What I read him as expressing is what is now called BRD and SILENCE. What I have deduced is that BRD is good for rapid development, and was more often appropriate in 2004 than 2024. Now, different to then, it is much better, expected, almost demanded, that there be a talk page record of consultation. Number of Watchers is no longer meaningful, and a quiet bold edit on a quiet page can be reverted as undiscussed even years later. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing should be reverted "as undiscussed." Editors should provide a substantive rationale. For more on this topic, see wp:DRNC. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moxy, just for clarification, what exactly is this "different interpretation" you're referring to? Here's a version from 2017 that predates some of the recent tinkering. Is that the "old wording" you had in mind, and if so, what about this version seems more clear? Presentation, phrasing, or both?
FWIW, this version was the last revision I paid attention to. I now see that some mini-subheadings have since been added along with a bullet covering FfDs. While well-intentioned, I think these unnecessarily crowd an already cluttered NOCON that's struggling to be concise. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
more clear here. Moxy🍁 09:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well that's taking it way back! Is it more clear though? I suppose it depends on how the RfC is worded. The "proposed change" could be in reference to the bold edit added a year ago...or...it could be in reference to the recent effort to remove it. I suspect that's why additional verbiage was added later on. Unfortunately, as we've seen, it hasn't really gotten us any closer to solving the underlying issue of determining when a bold edit achieves some level of consensus without discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving NOCON to CLOSE

[edit]

As suggested above, let's move WP:NOCON over to WP:CLOSE, where it will have more immediate relevance. No changes to the wording/facts/etc. in the section are suggested – just a simple move of these words out of this page and over to the more closely related page. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will you propose to move the last sentence of WP:ONUS to CLOSE as well? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't thought about it, but I think we should deal with one thing at a time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a plan! Let's deal with the ONUS sentence first. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This question was already asked three weeks ago, so it's too late to do something else "first". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NOCON and the last sentence of ONUS are yin and yang. You can't make this change without changing the balance between the two. I oppose moving only one into CLOSE. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting to know, but not very clear. Do you think it would ultimately be best for NOCON and ONUS both to get moved to the other page, or do you think it would be best for neither to move? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am only talking about the last sentence in ONUS.
I think it would be best for NOCON and ONUS to be reconciled and put in one place. CLOSE is probably the best, but it is not a policy or guideline. And that is the primary problem with putting only NOCON in CLOSE, it leaves ONUS as the only policy statement on the issue.
On the other hand, good luck getting community consensus on reconciling NOCON and ONUS. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither NOCON nor ONUS belong in WP:Consensus.
I think both belong primarily in WP:Editing policy. I have no issue with ONUS remaining described in WP:V, but NOCON should be no more than a pointer to WP:EP.
With both nested in WP:EP, both can be mentioned in WP:CLOSE. Both are true regardless of whether there has been a formal discussion to be formally closed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the seeming logic of such a move, the thing that interests me most is whether it will result in closers paying more attention to it in their closes. Do you think? Selfstudier (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea if it will affect closer behavior, or if it might affect "closee" behavior (e.g., fewer close challenges, close challenges that are better explained, etc.). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CLOSE is not policy, so moving NOCON over there would just remove it from policy, which I do not think would be a good idea (when there's no consensus, there needs to be an answer, whatever it may be, to the question of what to do). I've thought before that it'd be good to have some sort of guideline on closing (like WP:DGFA but not just for deletion), but as long as WP:CLOSE is a mere "information page" I would oppose this. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Extraordinary Writ, NOCON doesn't (and isn't supposed to) say anything that doesn't appear elsewhere.
So, e.g., if the dispute is over BLPs, then you can currently say "Well, NOCON is a policy, and it says that WP:BLP says that contentious matter gets removed if there's no consensus", but you could just as easily say – and probably ought to be saying – "WP:BLP is a core content policy, and it says that contentious matter gets removed when editors don't agree that it's adequately sourced".
You'd lose nothing any maybe even gain something by citing the policy that is most relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extraordinary Writ, thanks for a good observation. I oppose making WP:NOCON a non-policy. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wish that I'd never started NOCON.
Okay, guys, let's try this again from the top. Here's the facts:
  1. BLP says we remove contentious matter unless editors agree that it's well-sourced. This encompasses both "we have a consensus that it's badly sourced" and "we don't have a consensus that it is well-sourced".
  2. BLP is a policy.  A policy is not magic pixie dust, but BLP is definitely, absolutely, indisputably a policy. It's even one of our Wikipedia:Core content policies.
  3. Some years ago, I added a little copy/summary of the BLP rules to this page. This little copy did not create or change any rules.
Now the question for @Extraordinary Writ and @Peter Gulutzan: If we removed NOCON, would you:
  • Still be able to remove badly sourced contentious matter when editors can't form a consensus that it's well-sourced, because the BLP policy requires this action, or
  • Have no idea what to do, because the BLP policy isn't enough all by itself, and you need to be able to cite two policies to get the badly sourced material removed?
If you pick the latter, then please tell me what we would actually lose by "only" having the BLP policy as an official policy that requires this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, and not just in BLPs, the problem remains that the version in the article is presumed to have consensus, including that it belongs in the article for all the right reasons (sourcing/npov/nor/noncvio). So if there is no consensus, its presence in the article misrepresents a consensus that does not exist. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's true. The version in the article might be presumed to have consensus up until the consensus was disputed, but NOCON is about when that presumption has just been proven false. You literally cannot have a presumed consensus in the article when the discussion just ended as no consensus; it is an X-and-not-X situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you just said, is another way of saying what I said, if it's in the article it has consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the issue is usually about how long it has been in the article in relation to it being contested. Selfstudier (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alanscottwalker, if it's
  • in the article, and
  • an RFC just closed saying that "there is no consensus about whether this should be in the article",
then "if it's in the article it has consensus" is a false statement, right? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Practice has it that it depends how recently the material was added and the NOCON means nocon for inclusion or exclusion and then if it was there for long enough, it has consensus pending any possible further discussion to resolve the nocon discussion one way or another. Of course this leads to altercations and I think closers ought to at least opine, if not decide, on such matters in their closes (and discussion openers should ask them to opine as well). Selfstudier (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that it's helpful, for the minority of discussions that get formally summarized, for the closers to express an opinion on what to do next.
I wonder if you have thought about the distinction between "There is no consensus either way, and that means we keep/remove/undo/whatever" (=what I've been saying for years) and "There is no consensus either way, and that means this version has consensus" (=what you appear to be saying here). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that, I'm saying it depends, on when it was added and possibly some other things too (eg conlevel). As for your first version, that's what I want the closers to do, although they are more likely to opine than decide. What they tend to do now is say nothing and leave it to editors to figure it out. Selfstudier (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And this to me would be an inconsistency and an overall issue that requires guidance. Concur with Selfstudier.
No consensus to keep is also no consensus to remove. If something is:
  1. Verifiable
  2. Has been in place a reasonable amount of time
  3. Within an article with a reasonable amount of traffic
  4. Was subject to discussion including a reasonable amount of participants
Then a stalemate should result in retaining the disputed content...for now. Relegating this advice to an essay demotes it. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that "No consensus to keep is also no consensus to remove" is not literally true. When you have a consensus to remove, you also have "no consensus to keep". I realize this sounds pedantic, but this kind of P&G content really needs to be as wikilawyer-resistant as we can make it.
I really wish editors would quit fixating on the idea of additions and removals, when the real question may be something like "Shall we have ==This== section or ==That== section first?"
@GoneIn60, the Wikipedia:Editing policy takes a default position of retaining information (though it cares about whether Wikipedia retains information, rather than whether any given article retains the information). Removing this particular sentence from this policy would not actually make it impossible for you to claim that A Policy™ Requires the outcome you prefer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Best thing is to get the principle right, get it done and then wikilawyer it. Trying to wikilawyer it first just results in nothing getting done. Selfstudier (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When a proposal to take action results in "no consensus", then logically the proposed action is not taken. What happens next depends. The conditions I listed count for something, and in applicable situations, they can be enough to tip the "no consensus" balanced scale in favor of retaining disputed content. It seems most that participate in these discussions agree with that sentiment. Where we seem to differ or want more clarification (or where the wikilawyering sets in) is in regard to reasonable amount; how is that determined?
To your point: "When you have a consensus to remove, you also have no consensus to keep".
I don't see it this way. When you have a consensus to take action one way, then you equally have a consensus against taking action the opposite way. So if you have a "consensus to remove", then you have a "consensus against keeping". You shouldn't phrase this as "no consensus to keep". I prefer to preserve "no consensus" for situations that represent outcomes of inaction, or stalemates. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are certainly contrary, and some may just will to see it as consensus version, nonetheless. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you have a decision that there is no consensus for a change, then that change does not have consensus. There may be no consensus about what to do instead, but there is no consensus.
This is important for policies to get right, because the alternative is that we reward edit warring to keep m:The Wrong Version out of the article during a discussion (which would actually be a violation of the WP:QUO essay, which I recommend actually reading, because it's one of those WP:UPPERCASE shortcuts that gets cited for the opposite of what it actually says).
What we want is:
  • Alice changes something. (NB: Not necessarily adding anything. Maybe she just moved a sentence from one section to another.)
  • Bob dislikes it and changes the article again. (NB: Not necessarily reverting Alice's edit. Maybe he rearranged a few more sentences, or added some explanatory text in an attempt to make Alice's change be [in his opinion] less bad.)
  • The discussion about what to do closes as "no consensus either way".
  • The decisions about what to do next are not prejudiced in favor of Bob's version just because "It's in the article so it has consensus".
What we don't want is:
  • Alice changes something.
  • Bob dislikes it but decides not to risk an edit war.
  • The discussion about what to do closes as "no consensus either way".
  • The decisions about what to do next are prejudiced in favor of Alice's version just because "It's in the article so it has consensus".
If anything, we want to reward editors for using restraint. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which means, that where the discussion is in respect to core content policies (besides in some cases of BLP or CVIO), it results in the article remaining in internal doubt with respect to policy compliance, but external (or on-its-face) certitude with respect to policy compliance. Which is often important for article creation and improvement because we replicate articles in-form across the pedia, by editors going, that's done there, I'll replicate in kind or use it, here. And we believe it also matters to the quality, we provide readers to rely on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by the article remaining in internal doubt with respect to policy compliance, but external (or on-its-face) certitude with respect to policy compliance. Does this mean "No consensus means there actually is no consensus, but we'll pretend, for the sake of convenience, that there is a consensus for some version or another"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit written down in policy anywhere else? That's the part I'm most concerned about (and the main reason why most people cite NOCON, I think). You're of course right that the BLP wording (and everything else) is just a summary of other policy, and I indeed don't really care about those parts of NOCON—although if we're going to state the general rule, we probably need to cross-reference the exceptions too. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a statement of statistical fact. It is not a rule and doesn't tell you what to do in any given situation. "If BLP, remove it" is a policy requirement. "Yeah, looking at a bunch of these, I see this pattern" is not a policy requirement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you're right, and if anything my confusion only proves your point that something needs to change. I do think this page has to say something about no consensus (which is presumably why you wrote NOCON to begin with), so I would prefer a rewrite to a full-scale move, though obviously the wording is very difficult. (Prefacing each bullet point with "According to WP:EXAMPLE..." might help somewhat.) That said, although NOCON has somehow come to symbolize the objections to ONUS, getting rid of the symbol won't get rid of the conflict or the deep-seated objections: the central problem remains one undiscussed 2014 edit that there was never consensus for in the first place. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could say that the problem is another edit, by a now-indeffed editor, which was not only discussed but actively objected to. The same editor repeatedly removed the statement about BLPs and insisted for years that "no consensus means no change". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving NOCON to Editing Policy

[edit]
No, my first belief, and my long term gut feel, and my latest reading, is that NOCON belongs in WP:Editing policy. Nest there, it can be better referred to from WP:CLOSE. - SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a conflict between NOCON and the last sentence of ONUS. If you demote NOCON to an essay then you are picking sides in that conflict. Is that an intended or unintended consequence of your support for "move only NOCON"? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not demoting NOCON to an essay if moved to Editing policy? Selfstudier (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, OK, you struck it. Selfstudier (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And move the last sentence of ONUS there as well? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moving that last sentence out of VNOT essentially removes ONUS from WP:V. That's a big change and something we may want to shelve for now. Obviously, it's a hot button topic with editors on both sides of the fence: WT:Verifiability/Archive 80#ONUS - a different idea.
Policies occasionally provide some brief overlapping coverage, and this would be one such area where it can exist. If editors feel VNOT is not the right place for it, the proper approach might be to flesh out the changes at WP:EP following the NOCON move, bring the policy up to date following discussion, and then decide if ONUS needs revisited. We may find more consensus at that point to remove it from VNOT and/or rephrase accordingly, but now doesn't seem like the time. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a plan. Selfstudier (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That plan would require editors to agree to move NOCON out of this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, fine by me and since it's to another policy page, less objectionable for some people, I would think. And we can still leave some sort of summary here pointing to there, that's doable as well, right? Selfstudier (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consider me on board if some form of NOCON is staying in policy, just being relocated. Don't think I would support a move to an essay, however. I understand the principle behind NOCON already loosely exists in WP:EP from the comments above, but I think the reason for its existence is that it needs to be spelled out; editors need something to point to. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason it exists is because I thought it would be convenient to have a handy summary of all the different rules about what to do when a discussion has a no-consensus result that are scattered about in various policies, guidelines, and procedural pages.
Boy, was I wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've weathered a lot of storms in these here parts! ;)
It is handy, or at least it should be, since as you say it was meant to gather in one place several rules that are scattered about on various pages. Despite the number of editors here that may indicate otherwise (which in the grand scheme of things is still a small sampling of Wikipedia's overall user base), NOCON is needed in some form. You were onto something all those years ago. GoneIn60 (talk) 07:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the biggest mistake was not predicting the shift towards revering The Policies™ (may their words endure forever). If I had, the collection probably would have ended up on its own page. Compare, e.g., WP:MINREF, which is a handy list of all the times policy requires in inline citation, and yet is not on a policy page, and WP:NOTGOODSOURCE, which is a bulleted list summarizing the common characteristics of WP:Reliable sources, and yet is no less effective for not being on a guideline page. But this one, especially when people twist "this usually happens" into "The Policy™ Requires this", has been a mistake.
I read decades ago that towards the end of the Roman empire, the tax laws would be written in gold ink on purple vellum, proclaimed with great ceremony, and then ignored by the people who were supposed to be paying the taxes. I would like Wikipedia to take the opposite approach to its policies: They are not statutes. They are not sacred. They are a handy summary of reality. And when they diverge from reality, we should fix them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support moving NOCON to EDITING POLICY (being sure to leave a link to NOCON in CONSENSUS). - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So three folks and the proponent support this move and no one opposes it. Time to make the move? (Adding text to Consensus that points to it.) - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 07:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus-based (not correctness-based)

[edit]

The definition of consensus involves opinions or decisions that are generally accepted within a group, without explicitly addressing correctness. Consensus does not necessarily equate to or imply correctness. Even if the majority agrees on a certain viewpoint, it may still be incorrect. Sometimes, the correct viewpoint of a minority may be overlooked by the majority, but this does not affect its correctness. This means that while consensus plays an important role in the editing process of Wikipedia, it is not always directly linked to correctness

I guess that Wikipedia uses a consensus-based decision-making process rather than a correctness-based one for good reasons. Determining absolute correctness can be challenging, especially in areas where there is ongoing debate or where information is subject to interpretation. Consensus allows Wikipedia to function effectively even in the face of uncertainty or differing opinions. --Gluo88 (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Consensus#Consensus_might_become_hindrance_to_truth triggered my above comments. Gluo88 (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're not the ones to correct. We are the ones to report the sources. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS – The Grid (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing to remember when Galileo is mentioned is the Galileo gambit. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus doesn't imply correctnes or truth, but it does show the best understanding that the community has in a certain situation. If editors don't think the outcome was correct they should look to the strength of their arguments. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very few things are simply objectively correct or incorrect. (WP:Accuracy) and in those cases I'd guess that wp:consensus would go with the accurate side if there was even a debate. Most discussions have much more complex attributes such varying values, differing definitions of "correct"/ "incorrect", varying meaning of words, tilting article by inclusion/exclusion, selecting which of Wikipedia's vague and overlapping rules to apply, conflicting POV objectives (each self-defined as the only "correct" one) etc. "Sources" alone also does not settle it, you can always find a source that has the same POV as you. WP:Consensus is generally our way of making those decisions. North8000 (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. Therefore, I believe that the quality of arguments aimed at forming consensus should be more related to their persuasive power rather than their correctness. Furthermore, I think that the quality of arguments for consensus can be measured by the level of support they receive within the group. Gluo88 (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is already how consensus works, by editors policy based arguements. The second part though comes to close to WP:NOTAVOTE, consensus building shouldn't be a popularity contest. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OP has added the following section to an essay: Wikipedia:What is consensus?#Not necessarily equate to or imply correctness.
Anyways, I personally find the argument "Wikipedia should reflect the truth" to be pretty weaksauce. It's not that we don't want to reflect the truth, it's that any project this big which values "the truth" will have a pretty tough time governing itself. The reason policies like consensus exists is to make a decision-making process that actually works. It's going to be so worthless when you want to create a decision-making system that follows from "correctness". There's a whole philosophy of that I don't think I'm qualified enough to get into.
There is also the idea that even if my viewpoint disagrees with the consensus, I can still sit in peace knowing I am "right" if I would write things like this. I personally don't think that is a good mindset. What matters most, I think, is justification. How you present your justification matters, just as the justification itself. There will be people who won't accept your justification. That's fine, not because you'd think you are "right", but because you believe you've made a valid effort in getting what you think is right to others.
OP has also created an essay titled Wikipedia:What are High-Quality Arguments for Forming Consensus? and is about why they think how level of support in the community is important. ActivelyDisinterested was quick to spot that consensus building shouldn't be a popularity contest. But hey. There's a reason why OP has asked for an admin on zhwiki to be desysopped, after they have themselves been blocked by said admin citing numerous reasons (one of which is misinterpretation of the consensus policy by suggesting that it is majority rule), then trying to get people to become an angry mob with said admin "abusing blocks".
It's unclear to me why in the request for de-adminship, OP's misquote of a third-party admin that they believed the block "isn't justified to be indef" as "isn't justified" still hasn't been corrected. My hunch is that they are less interested in the "truth" than playing with it as in populist politics. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with your interpretation of my intention and will leave these points for other users to comment on, as I believe you may have misunderstood my intention due to your comments:"There is also the idea that even if my viewpoint disagrees with the consensus, I can still sit in peace knowing I am "right" if I would write things like this", and "My hunch is that they are less interested in the "truth" than playing with it as in populist politics." My essays and above comments were triggered by reading Wikipedia_talk:Consensus#Consensus_might_become_hindrance_to_truth as I mentioned earlier.
In my essays(1, 2), I argue that it is more important for Wikipedia to reflect the collective agreement of its contributors rather than striving solely for objective truth. This reflects my belief that Wikipedia should prioritize representing consensus over absolute truth..
In my essays(1, 2), I also oppose majority voting and fully support the consensus-building approach. The key idea is as follows: The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view can be understood as follows: regardless of whether an argument initially represents a minority or majority opinion, a high-quality argument with greater persuasive power is more likely to be unanimously agreed upon or accepted by the majority in the process of forming consensus. In the process of forming consensus, the final method to determine whether consensus has been reached must be through understanding the level of support within the community, as this aligns with the meaning of consensus. Hopefully, my essay provides a better explanation. Gluo88 (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Truth" is a bad word to use because it has two completely different common meanings:

  1. Accurate / Accuracy
  2. Word commonly used in unsubstantiated or wild claims. E.G. "The truth about aliens at Area 51" "The truth about our alleged moon landings" "The truth about microchips in Covid vaccines"

A part of why we got rid of "Verifiability not truth" was because it denigrates/deprecates the pursuit of accuracy (in those cases where objective fact exists) by using a word with a second common meaning of #2 North8000 (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Consensus&oldid=1267250160"