Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:43, 2 March 2009

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Consensus page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Archives

Misplaced Pages talk:Consensus/Archive 1 Misplaced Pages talk:Consensus/Archive 2 Misplaced Pages talk:Consensus/Archive 3 Misplaced Pages talk:Consensus/Archive 4 Misplaced Pages talk:Consensus/Archive 5 Misplaced Pages talk:Consensus/Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

"Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal." -- Jimmy Wales

Pointfulness

I've just been reminded of a point that this page fails to make: The goal is not to have the editors happy about the content or style of an article. The goal is to reach a consensus that Misplaced Pages's policies have been correctly applied in the article. Violating Misplaced Pages's policies "because we all agreed, so we have a consensus" is not acceptable. I'm not sure how this should be presented (I'm posting this note now because I've thought about it several times over the last few months and failed to get any further than that), but I think it would be an appropriate addition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I've written a possible way of explaining this. I think that the point is important (it expands on the penultimate sentence of the lead, and it might re-direct some editors' energy away from "winning" towards the more boring task of "complying with policies"), but I welcome copy editing and other improvements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not it at all. Policy springs from consensus, it's not the other way around. Violating Wikipedias consesus, "because we all agree" is perfectly all right, as long as one is correct in the "all" part. Ie. it doesn't hold when someone comes along and disagree. It might be good to say something about what we are agreeing to, but compliance with policy is not it. Taemyr (talk) 06:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Value of ongoing participation or it's lack thereof

In regards to this edit, I believe the content is factually true and accurate. If I leave a comment on an RFA or AfD, for example, I am never under any obligation or requirement to go back to that page again, and my comments left do not lose value in any way if I don't become an ongoing participant there. rootology (C)(T) 20:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

True: but that's a far cry from never being required to participate in any ongoing discussion, which is what the statement actually said. If you decline to participate in a talk page discussion at an article and just keep editing according to your own ideas, you can get blocked for disruption. Articles get protected every day over just such behavior.

And it's just silly to claim that a single comment made two years ago is going to be given "equal standing and value" by every current editor, or that an unexplained "drive-by" remark will always be attended to with any seriousness. Pages like these are supposed to document reality, not an editor's vision for an ideal world. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If comment on a project page is left unchallenged, then it can be presumed to be valid. If the comment is challenged, and you and others leave it undefended, then the original comment can be presumed to be defeated. If the comment was only on a talk page and is subsequently ignored, it will indeed loose value. Of course, considerable interpretation may be required. Comments may be off-topic, below the dignity of a reply, or otherwise not worth continuing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a problem with this statement because it clashes with "Silence implies consent". So for example an editor might say "I think we should do such and such". But then another person adds a comment that "the xyz policy makes it clear that such and such is not an option, and I think we should rather do this instead". If the first person does not reply, then what should the person reading the exchange assume is the first person's position on the issue?

Misplaced Pages:Silence and consensus is not nearly as absolute at "Silence implies consent". After a reasonable time, a reader might assume that the first person has yielded the point. The test comes when the second person (or someone else) actually makes a substantial edit, as to whether the edit sticks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Also I take issue with rootology. "If I leave a comment on an RFA or AfD, for example, I am never under any obligation or requirement to go back to that page again, and my comments left do not lose value in any way if I don't become an ongoing participant there." because the whole point of these processes is that the polls are meant to be a way to build consent. Leaving a comment early on in a debate and not going back to the page to look at the following arguments which might persuade you to rephrase your opinion negates the point of polls in the consensus driven system that we have developed. Ie one is not obliged to return to a debate, but one has a civic duty to do so if building consensus is to be the dynamic process it is intended to be. -- PBS (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the disputed statement, since nobody seems to think that it's actually true in every circumstance. I'd be happy to consider a weaker version that still communicates the general essence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Grammar of "Exceptions" section

Currently the first point under exceptions reads: "Declarations from Jimbo Wales except when overruled by the Arbitration Committee, the Board, or the Developers, particularly for server load or legal issues (copyright, privacy rights, and libel) have policy status (see Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines#Sources of Misplaced Pages policy)." This makes no sense. If there were a comma after the word "libel" and its parenthesis that would suggest that the Board or Developers might overrule Jimbo for server load or legal issues, which would be fine (although there would be clearer ways to put it, using dashes). But I'm wondering if the intent is the opposite, that the "Declarations" themselves would be for server load or legal issues? Ideally, assuming the meaning can be clarified, two sentences would be better: "Declarations from JW have policy status. In rare circumstances, for X reasons, those declarations might be overruled by blah, blah, and blah." Yes? Chick Bowen 23:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm reading the current phrase as "JW + others may impose policies on topics X, Y, Z". As you said, it's ambiguous enough that it merits further clarification. --Gutza 23:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Me again. Copied the stuff from the other page, where the wording was much clearer. --Gutza 00:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Much better--thanks. In the States we would still put a comma after "server load," though I guess the Brits wouldn't, and it's not a big deal. Chick Bowen 03:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"Purpose of Consensus"

I removed

"Consensus" among a small number of editors can never override the community consensus that is presented in Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines; instead, consensus is the main tool for enforcing these standards. The focus of every dispute should be determining how best to comply with the relevant policies and guidelines. Editors have reached consensus when they agree that they have appropriately applied Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, not when they personally like the outcome.

Policies and guidelines spring from consensus. It's not the other way around. Usually polices and guidelines lag behind consensus, see ]. In addition both policy and guidelines can be ignored, see WP:IAR. Taemyr (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood. This page is primarily about consensus at it operates for mainspace edits. WP:POLICY is the page concerned with the creation and changes of policies and guidelines.

And as for 'consensus' trumping policies: It does not matter if 100% of the editors on a page agree to add unsourced derogatory information to an individual's biography. This is not allowed because it does not line up with the relevant policy, even though the editors have "consensus". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Not so. Policy springs from established practice. So Consensus on how we develop mainspace is precisely what drives development of policy. And this page governs consensus in general.

The laws of California trumps consensus. Decrees from the foundation trumps consensus. That is why adding unsourced derogatory information is never going to be allowed no matter how strong a consensus there appears to be. Consensus still trumps wikipedia policy, so if there is consensus that WP:NOT should be set aside for a particular article then WP:NOT will be set aside for that article. Taemyr (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I re-added this section pending more discussion from more people. A small group, at no time, can summarily override established consensus/policy on a case-by-case basis because they want to. The wording may not be perfect, but the idea is basically "true". No minority can self-appoint their decision over a wider group on Misplaced Pages. rootology (C)(T) 22:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think what a few others have attempted to say, is that if a hand full of editors create/edit a page so that it goes against policies/guidelines(p/g), they can expect that sooner or later someone will come along and change the page to follow p/g or put it up for deletion. If they want to keep the page in the form they prefer, they will need to get consensus to change the policies/guidelines. I think we have seen it is possible for small groups to change less prominent guidelines to their liking, at least temporarily. Whether or not this is a good thing is debatable. It's harder to do this with policy, as more folks follow policy and insist on exposing proposed changes to a wider audience... --Versageek 23:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I largely agree with the sentiments you describe. But, consensus is not only a handful of editors. Or rather a handful of editors is consensus only until someone disagree.

I disagree that it is needed to gain consensus for a policy change in order to let an exception stand. All that is needed is consensus that the exception is preferable to following policy in that particular case. WP:Policy calls for both guidelines and policy to be approached with common sense.

Also note that the section as written defines consensus as a mean to the end of making sure articles follow policy. Not to the end of making an encyclopedia as good as possible. And that is a sentiment that I do not believe that has consensus. Taemyr (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The passage is fundamentally important. A group of people who don't want to follow, say WP:OR in an AfD discussion may come to a consensus that original research is okay for this article. This does not mean Misplaced Pages is suddenly allowing OR, such a majority would be given little weight compared to those who sided with the existing larger consensus that is policy. This is important otherwise the standards we use will be at the whim of special interest groups.

We do have WP:IAR for when we really need to break the rules. Of course using IAR is a bit like jumping into the water to see if you can swim or not. Chillum 00:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

But a group of people are not consensus. How much weight that should be given to a majority arguing for ignoring WP:OR depends on their specific reasons for setting WP:OR aside. The arguments from a minority that states that WP:OR can not be easily set aside because policy is a compelling argument.

We do have IAR, but how do we determine if an IAR application is good? We seek consensus; usually when IAR is well applied it is consensus by default, because no one disagrees with the action. The section under discussion however explicitly forbids this because it statess that consensus only exists if it follows policy. Taemyr (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, the minority is correct that OR can not be easily set aside because the policy constitutes a much larger consensus. That argument is correct and should be enforced by a well trained admin.

Regarding IAR, you know you used it right when it works. It is really never useful to bypass consensus or even slight opposition. IAR is pretty much only useful when breaking the rule is the correct thing to do and nobody is disagreeing.

In the end it is up to administrators to enforce policy, and if there is a good reason to not enforce policy then they are the ones to be convinced. Of course what they enforce can be changed. Anyone can go an recommend changes to policy, I have done so many times in the past with great success. Policy can change, but it should not be disregarded without very good reason. Chillum 00:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

options

Is there a better way of expressing this idea than the current text? I oppose its deletion (largely because of the number of inexperienced editors that seek to elevate anti-policy agreements above community standards), but I'm open to improvements that clarify the point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

My preferred wording of this goes along the line of "Policy is a very important argument". Taemyr (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

A portion of it could be along the lines of: "Misplaced Pages policy is the result of a very significant and carefully developed consensus involving a very large cross section of the community. As such a small consensus in a localized area cannot override the larger consensus that is policy. To change policy one needs to reach a consensus to change policy.". If not those words then the points presented in it should be integrated imo. Chillum 01:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

That is unclear. It can mean;

• The existence of exception does not automatically alter policy. Which is true.
• No execption to policy is allowed. Which is not true.

Taemyr (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem with Taemyr's statement (while more or less true) is that consensus is itself a policy. So you could read that circularly: "We agree with each other to say that 'Homeopathy is scientifically proven to be effective for all diseases'. Consensus is a policy. Therefore, since we agree, we have necessarily complied with (a) policy, and we can do this." The point that we want to make is that it's not sufficient for the editors on any given article to "agree" to violate policies like WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP in the name of consensus. It might be more accurate to say that "Content policies and guidelines (like WP:Verifiability) are very important arguments."

Chillum's proposal is a fine statement of the background principles, and applies to changes to policy pages, but it isn't so clearly applicable to the most important case (mutually agreeing POV pushing wikilawyers working in the main namespace) as to be sufficient. I think that we need to explicitly state that the goal is for the editors to agree that the resulting article manifests Misplaced Pages's policies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that one can read it as a circular argument because "The focus of every dispute should be determining how best to comply with the relevant policies and guidelines." automatically implies that consensus includes all relevant policies and guidelines not just CONSENSUS (which only covers how to reach a consensus). It seems to me that the suggested alterations are an attempt to clarify something that only adds confusion through instruction creep without adding anything meaningful. For example WhatamIdoing mentions "It might be more accurate to say that "Content policies and guidelines (like WP:Verifiability) are very important arguments" So does that mean that the Naming conventions policy is not a very important argument? I know WhatamIdoing does not mean that, but if we go adding specifics to this section we are likely to have to add lots of text to cover lots of different issues an IMHO that is not needed. --PBS (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you are missing who is arguing for what here. The wording "The focus of every dispute should be determining how best to comply with the relevant policies and guidelines." is similar to WhatamIdoings addition of WP:Consensus#Purpose of consensus. I oppose this on the grounds that consensus determine policy, it's not the other way around. And policy is not intented to be foolproof, exceptions can occur. I propsed "Policy is a very important argument" as an alternative, which WhatamIdoing opposes on the grounds that it can give rise to circular arguments. Taemyr (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Taemyr, I'm not sure how to make you understand my issue. Imagine four editors at Homeopathy foo. All four editors are strongly in favor of Foo. All four editors agree to remove all sourced scientific criticism from the article, leaving a paean to the wonders of the panacea Foo.

You go to the article. You say, "No, this doesn't comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. We must be neutral. We must report what our reliable sources say. Our reliable sources say that Foo is worthless."

The four editors say: "No! In deleting this information, we have complied with a policy. We complied with the policy WP:Consensus, which says that the only thing that matters is that we agree. It doesn't mention a single word about the (long-standing, widely supported) standard of complying with any other policy."

I want a statement in this policy that say: "POV-pushing editors may not invoke "consensus" to dramatically violate content policies so long as they comply with this single process policy." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It already does that to the extent that is preferable. Consensus is not a vote count. WP:Consensus states;

"In determining consensus, consider the strength and quality of the arguments, including the evolution of final positions, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace if available. Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the "logic" (point of view) of the majority. New users who are not yet familiar with consensus should realize that polls (if held) are often more likely to be the start of a discussion rather than the end of one. Editors decide outcomes during discussion."

In the case you mention, the four people who insist on removing the criticism is offering no argument beyond "we feel like it". The opposing argument is that (a) WP policy calls for adherence to NPOV, meaning that relevant sources gets mentioned, (b) These criticism is reliable. He also makes the implied argument that (c) these critisims is relevant pr WP:UNDUE, and (d) he prefers that the criticism is included. So there is at best no consensus present, and most editors will feel that the strength of an argument from policy is such that the mere preferences of the 4 editors gets outweighed to the point that there is a consensus for inclusion. The important point is that if sound arguments for why NPOV should be set aside is provided we have to look evaluate the discussion on the basis of those arguments. Not on a boilerplate "policy overides consensus".

WP:Consensus also states that "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale."

Which means that the apparent consensus amongst the four editors must be reevaluated when an additional editor voices his opinion. That is "we discussed this earlier" means only that there was a consensus at that earlier juncture.

Taemyr (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Taemyr, my goal is not to write this for the purpose of those people, like yourselves, that already understand what Misplaced Pages really means when it talks about consensus. My goal is to write this so that even the most inexperienced or biased person cannot misunderstand the relationship of this policy to the content policies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

But that is not what you are doing. What you are doing is putting into writing the idea that the purpose of building an encyclopedia takes second seat to following policy. Taemyr (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not, and I'm not sure how you could interpret that statement in that fashion. What I'm saying is that article-specific consensus on content takes a backseat to the content policies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You are saying that the purpose of 'consensus', which is the decision making procedure of wikipedia, is to follow policy. That means that no argument to the effect that a specific policy application is contrary to the overall purpose of making a wikipedia can possible be made. For that matter I would interpret "article-specific consensus on content takes a backseat to the content policies." in the same way. Any wording to the effect that policy can put consenus aside means that the policy becomes more important than wikipedia's purpose. Taemyr (talk) 08:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm always amazed at how liberally the term 'consensus' is abused on wikipedia. for instance, if I were to turn WhatamIdoing's example around (assume four anti-fringe editors agreeing to remove well-sourced material that supports fringe-panacea Foo, and suggest that they should be prevented from doing so) you'd have a horde of people here screaming about how that violates NPOV and consensus. what's good for the gander is not (apparently) good for the goose. In my view, the term 'consensus' should always be used as though it meant 'consensus of the community at large', and whenever it comes down to a specific NPOV debate on a specific page it should be resolved in terms of what 'the community at large' would consider a fair and unbiased presentation. efforts of fringe editors and anti-fringe editors to indoctrinate the public aside, this is what makes sense to most people, yah? --Ludwigs2 01:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No actually it comes down to NPOV only. You keep thinking consensus matters, when NPOV does. In your world fringe editors like yourself would pull together those individuals who don't understand RS and MEDRS, preventing true NPOV from happening. There is no anti-fringe editors, they are NPOV editors. And Misplaced Pages doesn't indoctrinate, except when POV, Fringe-pushing editors get involved. OrangeMarlin 06:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

yes, I keep thinking that consensus matters. pity that you don't. which also explains why there's no point responding to the rest of your post. --Ludwigs2 10:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, IMO the removal of truly well-sourced, on-topic, and accurately represented material is a problem, no matter whether it is "pro" or "anti" anything. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on the level of abstract principle; that would be a really great way to do things. but (as I said above), my experience is that there is an aggressively defended double-standard in the application of this kind of principle, and that's worse than having no principle at all. I mean look, we have editors (whom I'll leave unnamed) who push to allow academic critics of fringe theory topics to be treated as valid sources (regardless of who they are or whether their degree is remotely related to the topic), but then push to exclude academic supporters of fringe topics on the grounds that they're not notable or not credible (even when they are located in a good discipline to talk about the issues). and they get away with that by mucking with the definition of consensus so that it effectively means 'agreement among people who already agree with us'. there's no way it could be justified as 'general agreement of the community at large'. now if people don't want to reach for the broader principles of consensus, that's fine; things will get settled in the good ol' fashioned agonistic way that things have always gotten settled on wikipedia. but trying to institutionalize some half-baked idea designed to privilege one side of the debate isn't really a good idea.

An aside on edit summaries

Oh, and when you delete things that have been discussed -- I see that you found part of the talk page comments above -- then please avoid using edit summaries like "rv undiscussed addition". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I found your talk page comments to late. Sorry about missing it at first, and thus writing an somewhat inappropriate edit summary. Taemyr (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Revert

Without a mass of cutting and pasting, I decided to revert a whole bunch of inappropriate edits from Ludwigs2 and others. Ludwigs thinks consensus overrides core policy, and what he wrote, read as such. NPOV and its foundation of WEIGHT, RS, and VERIFY are the most important thing. Ludwigs should not make changes to core policy without getting others to join in. OrangeMarlin 05:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

hmmm.. reverting multiple edits by multiple editors, for no particularly good reason, and without meaningful discussion. fascinating. --Ludwigs2 06:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussed. Please refactor your personal attacks. Of course, how many times have you been blocked for personal attacks? 5? 6? OrangeMarlin 07:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

as I said on your talk page, please discuss the edits, not the editor - as you'll notice I did above. civility is not difficult, OM. --Ludwigs2 07:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been blocked. You have at least 5 times for incivility. Don't pretend to lecture me on that particular topic, despite your expertise in getting blocked frequently. OrangeMarlin 03:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

These recent edits brought to my attention how utterly wrong the current "purpose of consensus" section is: "The focus of every dispute should be determining how best to comply with the relevant policies and guidelines." That's wrong from top to bottom: the role of consensus on Misplaced Pages is dispute resolution, first and foremost, not "rule enforcement". Rule enforcement may be the ultimate result of consensus, but rule rejection can also be the result. If there's a true consensus to ignore a rule in a given case, the rule gets ignored.--Father Goose (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

FG: did you look at the version Butwhatdoiknow and I had worked out, here, prior to OM's spate of reverts? I think it's a significant improvement over the current version... --Ludwigs2 22:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You got a problem with that?

Part of the text removed by an editor's recent indiscriminate reversion was the following first sentence to the Purpose of consensus section: "Consensus is used on Misplaced Pages to determine the proper content of articles, to resolve editing disputes, and to establish community norms and policies." Is there something wrong with this sentence? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

well, on the silence implies consent rubric, I'll edit this line back in if we don't hear from OM fairly soon, and then we can move on to the next line. --Ludwigs2 22:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, NPOV supported by RS, MEDRS, and VERIFY is to determine the proper content of articles, to resolve editing disputes...blah blah blah. Consensus is not. Don't try to reinvent Misplaced Pages.OrangeMarlin 03:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)