User:Al83tito/Consensus-building

Another proposal for consensus-building for finding descriptors on controversial areas (pseudoscience, etc.)
I started this proposal above, but I think it is distinct from the prior one, so am bringing it here. This conversation started on pseudoscience, and this proposal is still grounded on it. But I think it can also be thought of more generally.


 * The problem: Wikipedians (per above) some times have significant disagreements on when how a subject ought to be described (especially in the lead section) (for example, subjects labelled as pseudoscience).
 * There is (in my estimation) high-level agreement that many descriptors (including pseudoscience) can be used in Wikipedia. The question is how to use them accurately, and how can we make our best effort to draw that conclusion from the sources.
 * All affirm that it is not our opinions that count, but what the reliable sources say.
 * Yet at times there is disagreement on what the reliable sources overall say when taken in the aggregate.
 * Then there is the concern on both sides that some level of cherrypicking might take place in reaffirming editors' preexisting points of view.


 * A dispute resolution aid (proposed) : when a descriptive label is subject to debate and the normal process of pointing to reliable sources points to differing conclusions, the involved wikipedians can try to conduct a more objective test:
 * agree on a list of sources that define the subject. For example, the five top other encyclopedias, plus the top five Google Scholar search results, plus the top five New York Times search results.
 * The key is to agree to an objective list (as much as possible), that reduces the possibility or appearance of cherrypicking; a list that editors agree in advance is made up of reliable sources, without knowing how those talk about the subject.
 * Do some "light-handed" filtering: If for example the top fifth Google Scholar result talks about the subject but does not define it, it is stricken out and the sixth result is included instead. Repeat as necessary.
 * Then review how the sources define the subject.


 * Precedent: the Search engine test is an example of another non-binding and non-perfect yet useful quick test to help determine, in that case notability, by seeing the number of results that a term generates.


 * Example: the effectiveness and reliability of this process could be tested with non-controversial cases.
 * For example, if we conducted this process on Oncology, I would expect that the sources would all point to it being the a medical field in the study and treatment of cancer. For Islam, we would expect the results to say it is a religion.
 * If we can see this working well for the things we all agree with, we could then apply it with more confidence on areas of heretofore less agreement, and all be more accepting of what this process leads us.


 * Caveats: if running this process would some times lead to an outcome where a descriptor ought to be removed or modified, that would not preclude from the subject being discussed in light of that descriptor, based on other reliable sources that do discuss it at such. It could have its own section within the body of the article.
 * Also, if a descriptor in dispute was removed, it would still be allowable to summarize in the lead section and with due weight the more notable criticisms on the subject.




 * Supporting this proposal would only make it a recommended dispute resolution and consensus-building process in our toolkit. Its results, while carrying significant weight, would be non-binding. The hope is that this process better builds consensus, and that whatever result comes out, it is more acceptable to a greater proportion of editors.


 * Note on civility: Some remarks above have been heated. I don't care for pseudoscience and many other superstitions, etc. that sparked that discussion; I don't come with an agenda to whitewash unscientific topics. My goal is to see if we can generate more consensus in the on-going pursuit of writing good articles. Please assume good faith in this proposal. Questioning intelligence or motives are unnecessary. I look forward to engage with all kinds of opinions, and any ideas for improvement, with civility. Thank you.