This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ling.Nut (talk | contribs) at 10:18, 10 December 2009 (→heads up: This page never defines consensus: Lie-to-children). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 10:18, 10 December 2009 by Ling.Nut (talk | contribs) (→heads up: This page never defines consensus: Lie-to-children)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | 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. |
|
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 |
| Index |
|
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
System of good reasons
What's the deal with these changes? HarryAlfa seems to show up every now and then and put the text (about working to a "system of good reasons") in; someone else reverts; and there seems to be no discussion about it. On the face of it the change seems reasonable - we shouldn't be counting heads, but comparing reasoning - what's the objection?--Kotniski (talk) 10:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- "non-reasoning nay-saying is anti-Wikipedian" is not a good language. Ruslik_Zero 11:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Can't we improve the language, instead of just deleting it? Don't we agree with the sentiment?--Kotniski (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- I do not like the whole sentence: If reasons are offered to support a position, but that position is opposed, then counter-reasons should be given or different conclusions should be explained; non-reasoning nay-saying is anti-Wikipedian.. It is pointy, and HA seems trying to solve his own problems rather than to improve the policy (remember discussion on Talk:Link). Ruslik_Zero 11:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I certainly remember that... but this principle seems pretty sound (people saying "no consensus for this" or "I oppose this" without giving reasons don't exactly help the editing process along). Maybe the point is already sufficiently made on this page though.--Kotniski (talk) 12:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- I object to the language like "should be given". It is a volunteering project, and nobody "should" do anything. It is another matter when well argumented opposes or supports carry more weight than "per smbd". But the latter is already covered in Misplaced Pages:Consensus#Community_discussions_and_polls (and the language is much better!). Ruslik_Zero 13:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I certainly remember that... but this principle seems pretty sound (people saying "no consensus for this" or "I oppose this" without giving reasons don't exactly help the editing process along). Maybe the point is already sufficiently made on this page though.--Kotniski (talk) 12:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- I do not like the whole sentence: If reasons are offered to support a position, but that position is opposed, then counter-reasons should be given or different conclusions should be explained; non-reasoning nay-saying is anti-Wikipedian.. It is pointy, and HA seems trying to solve his own problems rather than to improve the policy (remember discussion on Talk:Link). Ruslik_Zero 11:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Can't we improve the language, instead of just deleting it? Don't we agree with the sentiment?--Kotniski (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The title of this section is from the text of the previous stable version of the document before this major re-write. I've made two edits, one restoring the text & one addition of my own which I believe reflects Wikipedian ethics. HarryAlffa (talk) 13:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Does anyone else think it's ironic that we've got a slow-burning edit war over whether slow-burning edit wars (as opposed to reasoned argument) are bad? - Dank (push to talk) 16:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Is it edit war or is it wikihounding by Ckatz and Ruslik? HarryAlffa (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I thought it a supreme irony when Ruslik described an edit as "is not a good language". HarryAlffa (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Another irony; when on this page, "people saying "no consensus for this" or "I oppose this" without giving reasons don't exactly help the editing process along", with Ruslik and Ckatz edit summaries of: "no consensus for this changes"; "rv. undiscussed changes"; "no consensus for this change". HarryAlffa (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Principles template
I'm adding a principles template at the bottom like a lot of other policies as this is a major policy. I don't think this is controversial but there s some discussion on WT:Policies and guidelines about exactly what the status of the 5P is which is the first entry in the template. Dmcq (talk) 11:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
CONEXCEPT
"Some exceptions supersede consensus decisions on a page. Declarations from Jimbo Wales, the Wikimedia Foundation Board, or the Developers, particularly for copyright, legal issues, or server load, have policy status."
Hang on. Does that mean that Jimmy Wales' opinion on anything from whether a specific article should be kept to whether paid editing is prohibited goes without question, overriding consensus? Or does the 'declaration' have to be made in some more official manner? Fences&Windows 02:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Examples where Jimbo's word has been shut down an idea include Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrat removal (others might be able to come up with more). The fact that Jimbo may overrule consensus has been understood to be true since essentially the site's creation. Some of the old-timers might remember more specific than the one I just mentioned. NW (Talk) 04:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- But the question is whether Jimbo's word overrules consensus by virtue of its being Jimbo's word, or only if he says that he's overruling consensus. I believe it's the latter (i.e. Jimbo doesn't always get his own way, unless he states explicitly that he's having his own way). So perhaps the wording needs clarifying. Also it's not really that they have policy status - they have a higher status than policies.--Kotniski (talk) 10:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- We need to avoid treating his comments as though they were legal precedents. In his comment on adminship, he said that the community are not the only ones to decide who becomes an admin. We don't need to interpret that to mean anything else.
- The background to this is the dispute at WT:PAID. If what Jimmy Wales says is policy, then all the wrangling can stop and we can have a simple statement of his policy, namely: "No editor may sell their services as a Misplaced Pages editor, administrator, bureaucrat, etc. Paid advocates may never directly edit Misplaced Pages". Fences&Windows 23:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- The relationship between things that we consider true because they seem to have consensus and things that we consider true because someone said so (the lawyers, Jimmy Wales, the WMF, ArbCom) is a subject that just never dies. This would be a good topic for the policy report in next week's Signpost. - Dank (push to talk) 17:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- But the question is whether Jimbo's word overrules consensus by virtue of its being Jimbo's word, or only if he says that he's overruling consensus. I believe it's the latter (i.e. Jimbo doesn't always get his own way, unless he states explicitly that he's having his own way). So perhaps the wording needs clarifying. Also it's not really that they have policy status - they have a higher status than policies.--Kotniski (talk) 10:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Heads up
The Policy Report in the Signpost two weeks from today will feature this page. See other Policy Reports to get an idea what we're looking for (here's tonight's, for instance). - Dank (push to talk) 20:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
heads up: This page never defines consensus
- This page never defines consensus: is it number of arguers, or weight of arguments? Don't even dream of weaseling out by saying "both." • Ling.Nut 03:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would define it as "number of editors"... after they have considered all the arguments and given them due weight. It isn't simple majority... but it is not unanimity either. Blueboar (talk) 04:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- But your answer resolves to simply "number of editors." Everything you wrote after that is (albeit unintentionally) meaningless noise, because POV gangs do not consider arguments or give them due weight. Always and everywhere, this is Misplaced Pages's foremost fatal flaw. • Ling.Nut 04:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Could you point me to a policy page where the POV gangs have enforced their POV? - Dank (push to talk) 04:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Policy? I'm talking about content. I'm sure there's gang-editing and tag-team 3RR and similar on policy pages, but I wouldn't know where. • Ling.Nut 04:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- It would be astonishing if none of our editors ever colluded on their favorite articles, and that's a shame, but it doesn't seem to be fatal to our mission, judging from our growth and reputation. But is it true as you claim that consensus is meaningless, because the gangs get to have their way? If that were true, would they put up with policies that make it dangerous to bite newbies, make personal attacks, sock, publish their own opinions, wield authority unilaterally, etc? I would think these rules would chafe a successful, self-assured gang of bullies, but I don't see evidence that such a gang has been able to enforce their will in any of the policies. You would think they'd win at least one policy fight, if they existed. - Dank (push to talk) 05:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Policy? I'm talking about content. I'm sure there's gang-editing and tag-team 3RR and similar on policy pages, but I wouldn't know where. • Ling.Nut 04:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Could you point me to a policy page where the POV gangs have enforced their POV? - Dank (push to talk) 04:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- But your answer resolves to simply "number of editors." Everything you wrote after that is (albeit unintentionally) meaningless noise, because POV gangs do not consider arguments or give them due weight. Always and everywhere, this is Misplaced Pages's foremost fatal flaw. • Ling.Nut 04:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
(undent) Do you actually edit in mainspace these days, Dan? No offense. Seriously asking. And let's not forget the start of this thread: this page doesn't define consensus. • Ling.Nut 05:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- None taken. I'll make a very bad showing in the Wikicup if I don't. - Dank (push to talk) 05:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm happy with consensus as defined in the policy. Do we need to tie it down for the wikilawyers so they can exploit it to cause trouble? Dmcq (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Consensus is never defined. • Ling.Nut 11:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- This policy describes how the wikipedia community uses consensus in building wikipedia. This is not a dictionary, it is a policy. If you think the community does something different then the policy should be updated. However I think it is a fair and reasonable description. Have you got an instance of a problem you have with it? Were you looking to it to resolve some content dispute for instance? Dmcq (talk) 12:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- I had a look at your talk page to see what the problem is and it looks like you're in an edit war about climate change. I'm afraid blaming consensus for your problems there is a bit wide of the mark. It would be better to cite verifiability for anything about climate change, there's lots of people with an axe to grind and expecting them to agree by consensus is rather pie in the sky. The debate over creationism versus evolution might be a better model for your debate though I think it is more akin to those denying men walked on the moon. Dmcq (talk) 12:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Verifiability is out as a useful tool. People can easily find malicious statements by pro-AGW people characterizing global warming skeptics as denialists. Then they can easily stick them in an article and hide behind WP:V, even though the original text is harshly POV. See my recent comments re: Barbabra Boxer as a reliable source. NO, basically, Misplaced Pages is utterly useless for controversial issues. Its articles ALWAYS assume a POV. NPOV is a polite fiction we all mumble to ourselves and pretend it exists; it's a Lie-to-children. I actually came here hoping someone would face the music, tackle hard issues and define "consensus" in any way other than "the most committed gang of editors." . Dunno what magical thinking made me believe that... • Ling.Nut 10:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Consensus is never defined. • Ling.Nut 11:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)