Wikipedia:Consensus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. |
| The Five Pillars |
|---|
| Conduct policies |
| Civility Consensus Edit warring Editing policy No personal attacks Ownership of articles |
Consensus describes the primary way in which editorial decisions are made on Wikipedia. There is no single definition of what consensus means on Wikipedia, but in articles consensus is typically used to try to establish and ensure neutrality and verifiability. Editors usually reach consensus as a natural and inherent product of editing; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, then everyone who reads it has an opportunity to leave the page as it is or change it. When editors cannot reach agreement by editing, the process of finding a consensus is continued by discussion on the relevant Talk pages.
Contents |
What consensus is
Consensus is a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised. All editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to reach a consensus that is aligned with Wikipedia's principles.Sometimes voluntary agreement of all interested editors proves impossible to achieve, and a majority decision must be taken. More than a simple numerical majority is generally required for major changes.
Process
Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process on articles across wikipedia. Any edit that is made that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. In this way the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time without any special effort. Even where there is a dispute, sometimes all that is required is a simple rewording of the edit to make it more neutral or incorporate the other editor's concerns. Clear communication in edit summaries can make this process easier.
When there is a more serious dispute over an edit, the consensus process becomes explicit. Editors open a section on the article's talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Consensus discussion have a particular form: editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense. The goal of a consensus discussion is to reach an agreement about article content, one which may not satisfy anyone completely but which all editors involved recognize as a reasonable exposition of the topic. It is useful to remember that consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia. It is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise - with the understanding that the article is gradually improving - than to try to fight to implement a particular 'perfect' version immediately. The quality of articles with combative editors is, as a rule, far lower than that of articles where editors take a longer view.
Some articles go through extensive editing and discussion to achieve a neutral and readable product, and other articles are periodically challenged and/or revised. This is a normal function of the ongoing process of consensus. It is useful to examine the article's talk page archives and read through past discussions before re-raising an issue in talk - there is no sense in forcing everyone to rehash old discussions without need.
When editors have a particularly difficult time reaching a consensus, there are a number of processes available for consensus-building (Third opinions, requests for comment, informal mediation at the Mediation Cabal), and even some more extreme processes that will take authoritative steps to end the dispute (administrator intervention, formal mediation, and arbitration). Keep in mind, however, that administrators are primarily concerned with policy and editor behavior and will not decide content issues authoritatively. They may block editors for behaviors that interfere with the consensus process (such as edit warring, socking, or a lack of civility) or make decisions about whether edits are or are not allowable under policy, but will not usually go beyond such actions.
Level of consensus
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right.
Policies and guidelines reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community. As a result, Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policy than on other kinds of pages. Substantive changes should be proposed on the talk page first, and sufficient time should be allowed for thorough discussion before being implemented. Minor changes may be edited in, but are subject to a higher level of scrutiny. The community is more likely to accept edits to policy if they are made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others.
Consensus can change
Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions. While past "extensive discussions" can guide editors on what influenced a past consensus, editors need to re-examine each proposal on its own merits, and determine afresh whether consensus either has or has not changed.
Wikipedia remains flexible because new people may bring fresh ideas, growing may evolve new needs, people may change their minds over time when new things come up, and we may find a better way to do things.
A representative group might make a decision on behalf of the community as a whole. More often, people document changes to existing procedures at some arbitrary time after the fact. But in all these cases, nothing is permanently fixed. The world changes, and the wiki must change with it. It is reasonable and indeed often desirable to make further changes to things at a later date, even if the last change was years ago.
Exceptions
Some exceptions supersede consensus decisions on a page.- Declarations from Jimbo Wales, the Wikimedia Foundation Board, or the Developers, particularly for copyright, legal issues, or server load, have policy status.
- Office actions are outside the policies of the English Wikipedia.
- Some actions, such as removal of copyright violations and certain types of material about living persons, do not normally require debate or consensus, primarily because of the risk of real harm inherent in them.
Consensus-building
Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can happen through discussion, editing, or more often, a combination of the two. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality and verifiability in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on.Several processes can attract editors to resolve differences:
- Third Opinions involve a neutral third party in a dispute between two editors
- Mediation involves a neutral third party in a dispute among multiple editors
- Requests for Comment invites greater participation
- Village pump invites greater participation
- Wikiquette alerts offer perspective on impolite or other difficult communications
- Resolving disputes offers other options
To ensure transparency, consensus cannot be formed except on Wikipedia discussion pages. "Off-wiki" discussions, such as those taking place on other websites, on web forums or on IRC, are not taken into account when determining consensus.
Consensus building in talk pages
Be bold in editing; you can also use the talk page to discuss improvements to the non-talk page, and to form a consensus concerning the editing of the page. This consensus cycle (see figure) is a common theme in Wikipedia. Wikipedia expects changes to policies and guidelines to achieve more participation and consensus than other pages. In cases where consensus is difficult, independent or more experienced editors may need to join the discussion. If edit wars or disruptive editing impede the editing of a page, or if consensus is impossible, formal dispute resolution is available.
Community discussions and polls
- Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal. —Jimbo Wales
In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority. Editors decide outcomes during discussion, polls are regarded as structured discussions rather than votes. Both during polls and discussions, opinion has more weight when you provide a rationale; convince others of your views, and give them a chance to convince you. An argumentative approach rarely convinces others.
Improper consensus-building
There are methods of building a consensus or the appearance of a consensus that are improper in Wikipedia.Canvassing is sending messages to many Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion. It is normal to invite more people into a discussion to obtain new insights and arguments. Messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion, however, compromise the consensus-building process and may be considered disruptive. Invitations must be phrased in a neutral way and addressed to a reasonably neutral group of people, e.g., sent to all active editors of the subject or posted at the message boards of the relevant wikiprojects.
The use of multiple sock puppet accounts by an editor to give the illusion of more support for a viewpoint than actually exists is prohibited. Meatpuppetry is a similar technique that involves the recruitment of editors to join a discussion on behalf of an editor, usually with the aim of swaying consensus in that discussion, and is also prohibited.
One or more editors who oppose a viewpoint that many other editors support may engage in tendentious editing practices where they refuse to allow consensus they don't agree with and are willing to perpetuate arguments indefinitely, effectively "Filibustering" the discussion. This may eventually result in a "consensus" in their favor simply by outlasting proponents of the opposing viewpoint, but this cannot reasonably be considered a true consensus.
Forum shopping and related behaviors
Forum shopping means repeatedly raising the same issue at different discussion forums (e.g. the village pump, article talk page, admin noticeboard, deletion discussions, etc.) until you get a result you like. This is generally considered disruptive, although it is acceptable to give notification at one relevant forum about a discussion going on at another, and it may also be acceptable to raise an issue at a wider forum if consensus could not be reached at a more specialized one.
It may similarly be considered disruptive to bring up the same issue at the same forum multiple times, particularly when constantly proposing something that has already been rejected (although it may be acceptable to raise the matter again after a reasonable time has passed, as consensus can change).
Similar behaviors are observed when editors make requests for administrator action. Asking other administrators to perform an administrative action – after one administrator has already decided against it – is called "admin shopping" or "asking the other parent", and is discouraged (e.g. a protection request at Wikipedia:RFPP that was declined shortly before, or retagging a page for speedy deletion after an admin declined it). In some cases appealing a bad decision is appropriate, but when doing so you should disclose and link to all prior discussions regarding the same issue.
When consensus isn't reached
When editors maintain a degree of detachment and civility, they can usually talk through issues to reach some sort of consensus. This is the normal editing process that happens on most Wikipedia pages, though few editors would recognize it as anything special. However, editors occasionally find themselves at an impasse, either because they cannot find rational grounds to settle a dispute or because they become emotionally or ideologically invested in 'winning' a dispute. When intractable disputes arise, Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes may help resolve the dispute.
The first step in dispute resolution is to talk to the other editors involved in the dispute. See the consensus building section above.
In some cases, Wikipedia policies and guidelines recommend a default behavior while editors attempt to resolve the dispute, or if the dispute cannot be resolved. For example, Wikipedia:Verifiability permits editors, using their best judgment, to remove or tag any unsourced or badly sourced material, unless there is a consensus to include the unsourced material. Wikipedia:Deletion policy takes the opposite approach: Articles may not be deleted unless there is a consensus to delete the article.
See also
Wikipedia essays and information pages concerning consensus:- Wikipedia:What is consensus?
- Wikipedia:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance
- Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus"
- Wikipedia:No consensus
- Wikipedia:Silence and consensus
- Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot
- Wikipedia:Method for consensus building
- Wikipedia:Closing discussions
- Wikipedia:Compromise
External links
- WikiEN-l mailing list July 2005
- Conflict and Consensus categories on MeatBall Wiki.
Related information
| |||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
