| Revision as of 13:05, 3 April 2006 view sourceFT2 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators55,546 editsm →Consensus vs. other policies: Add link to WP:SPA, not policy but relevaant to this section, outlines how brand new single purpose accounts are seen, worth cross-referencing.← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:17, 8 April 2006 view source 4.235.39.150 (talk) Wikikiss my ass. FIGHT THE POWER, MAN. ALRIGHT!Next edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| {{guideline|]}} | {{guideline|]}} | ||
| Misplaced Pages works by building ]. This is done through |
Misplaced Pages works by slowly building ]. However, we can delude ourselves into believing that we can have "consensus." This is done through discussion and ], in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of ] such as ] and ]. ] and the ] processes are designed to expedite the further division of the Misplaced Pages community when normal bickering and arguing on the talk pages fail to do so. | ||
| == Reasonable consensus-building == | == Reasonable consensus-building == | ||
| Note that consensus can only work among people who like you. If you are dealing with an article that was created by an ] for personal gain or popularity, you may find that the "consensus" is actually the singular viewpoints of the selfish author and the henchmen that maintain it. | |||
| Note that consensus can only work among reasonable ] who make a ] effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject. (''e.g.'' insisting on insertion of an insignificant ] into an article in opposition to many other editors has been judged a violation of consensus; see ].) | |||
| It is difficult to specify exactly what constitutes a reasonable or rational position. Nearly every editor believes that his (or her) position is |
It is difficult to specify exactly what constitutes a reasonable or rational position, so count on some generic Wikipedian to appear out of thin air at the right time to create the standard for you. Nearly every editor believes that his (or her) position is god's word; editors of any other type don't exist. Misplaced Pages's consensus practice is not supposed to justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric position combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, but hey -- stuff happens. With respect to good faith, no amount of emphasized assertions that one is editing according to ] while engaging in biased editing will serve to paper over the nature of one's activities. | ||
| However, if you use an excessive amount of gobbledegook -- as in the last sentence above -- you will appear intelligent enough to not warrant any attention. | |||
| == Consensus vs. other policies == | == Consensus vs. other policies == | ||
| Consensus should not trump ] |
Consensus should not trump ] -- we have got ] and the ] for that. A group of editors advocating a viewpoint do not, in theory, overcome the policy expressed in ] concerning advocacy and ]. However, a group of editors may be able to shut out certain facts and points of view through persistence, numbers, and organization. This group of editors ''should not'' agree to an article version that violates NPOV, but on occasion will do so anyway. This is generally agreed to be a bad thing, and is an example of how we are a living oxymoron of people that promote freedom of speech while restricting it if the majority feels it is appropriate. | ||
| The preferred way to deal with this problem is to draw the attention of more editors to the issue by one of the methods of ], such as consulting a ], filing a ] (on the article in question), and |
The preferred way to deal with this problem is to draw the attention of more editors to the issue by one of the methods of ], such as consulting a ], filing a ] (on the article in question), and ]. Enlarging the pool will prevent consensus being enforced by a small group of willful editors. Those who find that their facts and point of view are being excluded by a large group of editors should at least consider that they may be mistaken; if you say the sky is blue and nine hundred other people say it's purple with yellow stripes, then by golly, it's purple with yellow stripes! | ||
| ''Also see ] for considerations relating to brand new users who appear and immediately engage in an specific issue.'' | ''Also see ] for considerations relating to brand new users who appear and immediately engage in an specific issue. Be sure that you go through the ] first.'' | ||
| == Consensus vs. supermajority == | == Consensus vs. supermajority == | ||
| While the most important part of consensus-building is to thoroughly discuss and consider all issues |
While the most important part of consensus-building is to thoroughly discuss and consider all issues while battering the people doing so at the same time, it sometimes does not stop. In activities such as ], ] or ], consensus-building becomes unwieldy due to the number of contributors/discussions involved. While it is still the preferred method, some contributors have also come to ] as a method. | ||
| <blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
| In fact WP's standard way of operating is a rather good illustration of |
In fact, WP's standard way of operating is a rather good illustration of how the real world works and the hypocrisy of those that support freedom of speech: go along with what everyone agrees with, and shut up the minority of those that think or feel differently. Remember that we are masquerading as an encyclopedia, so you should be able to sleep for a <b>few</b> more hours with <i>that</i> in mind. | ||
| </blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
| Precise numbers for "supermajority" are hard to establish |
Precise numbers for "supermajority" are hard to establish. ], so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a verbal feast. When supermajority voting is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' to see just how much of your ass you are going to have handed to you. The stated outcome is the best judgment of the facilitator, often an admin. <B>(DUH!)</B> If there is strong disagreement with the outcome from the Misplaced Pages community, it is clear that consensus has not been reached, and that your ass will soon become grass. Nevertheless, some mediators of often-used Misplaced Pages-space processes have placed importance on the proportion of concurring editors reaching a particular level. This issue is controversial, and there is no consensus about having numerical guidelines, so we just do whatever the hell crosses our minds. That said, the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision, with the more critical processes tending to have higher thresholds. See the ] for more information. | ||
| However, judgment and discretion are applied to determine the correct action. The discussion itself |
However, judgment and discretion are applied to determine the correct action. The people having the discussion itself are more important than the statistics. In disputes, the term ''consensus'' is often used as if it means anything from ''genuine consensus'' to ''my position''; it is possible to see both sides in an ] claiming a consensus for its version of the article. Miracles do happen. | ||
| == See also == | == See also == | ||
| * ] | |||
| * ], ], ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
Revision as of 02:17, 8 April 2006
 | It has been suggested that this page be merged with Supermajority. (Discuss) |
 | This page documents an English Misplaced Pages ]. Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this guideline's talk page. |
]
Misplaced Pages works by slowly building a group of pissed off people in place of what was thoughtful intellectuals. However, we can delude ourselves into believing that we can have "consensus." This is done through discussion and praying to the nearest idol of Wiki, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of policies and guidelines such as Neutral point of view and the best way to butter up administrators. Surveys and the Request for comment processes are designed to expedite the further division of the Misplaced Pages community when normal bickering and arguing on the talk pages fail to do so.
Reasonable consensus-building
Note that consensus can only work among people who like you. If you are dealing with an article that was created by an attention whore for personal gain or popularity, you may find that the "consensus" is actually the singular viewpoints of the selfish author and the henchmen that maintain it.
It is difficult to specify exactly what constitutes a reasonable or rational position, so count on some generic Wikipedian to appear out of thin air at the right time to create the standard for you. Nearly every editor believes that his (or her) position is god's word; editors of any other type don't exist. Misplaced Pages's consensus practice is not supposed to justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric position combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, but hey -- stuff happens. With respect to good faith, no amount of emphasized assertions that one is editing according to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view while engaging in biased editing will serve to paper over the nature of one's activities.
However, if you use an excessive amount of gobbledegook -- as in the last sentence above -- you will appear intelligent enough to not warrant any attention.
Consensus vs. other policies
Consensus should not trump NPOV -- we have got WikiGangs and the WikiStapo for that. A group of editors advocating a viewpoint do not, in theory, overcome the policy expressed in Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not concerning advocacy and propaganda. However, a group of editors may be able to shut out certain facts and points of view through persistence, numbers, and organization. This group of editors should not agree to an article version that violates NPOV, but on occasion will do so anyway. This is generally agreed to be a bad thing, and is an example of how we are a living oxymoron of people that promote freedom of speech while restricting it if the majority feels it is appropriate.
The preferred way to deal with this problem is to draw the attention of more editors to the issue by one of the methods of dispute resolution, such as consulting a third party, filing a request for comment (on the article in question), and telling the person to shut the hell up. Enlarging the pool will prevent consensus being enforced by a small group of willful editors. Those who find that their facts and point of view are being excluded by a large group of editors should at least consider that they may be mistaken; if you say the sky is blue and nine hundred other people say it's purple with yellow stripes, then by golly, it's purple with yellow stripes!
Also see Misplaced Pages:Single purpose account for considerations relating to brand new users who appear and immediately engage in an specific issue. Be sure that you go through the proper channels first.
Consensus vs. supermajority
While the most important part of consensus-building is to thoroughly discuss and consider all issues while battering the people doing so at the same time, it sometimes does not stop. In activities such as RFA, AFD or raping Misplaced Pages with a plug to fuel your own stupid website, consensus-building becomes unwieldy due to the number of contributors/discussions involved. While it is still the preferred method, some contributors have also come to whine to an important administrator as a method.
In fact, WP's standard way of operating is a rather good illustration of how the real world works and the hypocrisy of those that support freedom of speech: go along with what everyone agrees with, and shut up the minority of those that think or feel differently. Remember that we are masquerading as an encyclopedia, so you should be able to sleep for a few more hours with that in mind.
Precise numbers for "supermajority" are hard to establish. Misplaced Pages does not protect the minority of those who think outside the majority, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a verbal feast. When supermajority voting is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' to see just how much of your ass you are going to have handed to you. The stated outcome is the best judgment of the facilitator, often an admin. (DUH!) If there is strong disagreement with the outcome from the Misplaced Pages community, it is clear that consensus has not been reached, and that your ass will soon become grass. Nevertheless, some mediators of often-used Misplaced Pages-space processes have placed importance on the proportion of concurring editors reaching a particular level. This issue is controversial, and there is no consensus about having numerical guidelines, so we just do whatever the hell crosses our minds. That said, the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision, with the more critical processes tending to have higher thresholds. See the gallup poll for more information.
However, judgment and discretion are applied to determine the correct action. The people having the discussion itself are more important than the statistics. In disputes, the term consensus is often used as if it means anything from genuine consensus to my position; it is possible to see both sides in an edit war claiming a consensus for its version of the article. Miracles do happen.