User:Cenarium/Deep Consensus

Deep Consensus is the consensus that exists on a particular issue when taking into consideration not only the apparent consensus represented by the direct comments or actions of users on the issue, but also by the consensus in support of each argument raised in those comments, or given for those actions.

Assessing deep consensus thus implies assessing the arguments and the level of consensus support they enjoy, and their applicability to the issue at hand, which in this context could be called their strength.

It seems that deep consensus ought to be the kind of consensus that should be used for decision-making on Wikipedia. It is, indeed, a common refrain that administrators must always assess the 'strength' of the arguments raised when determining consensus.

The reason being that decisions should be made by the community, and we should thus endeavor to determine the consensus of the community. But on a given issue, only a fraction of the community will be involved, a 'sample' of its members, and their opinion may be skewed one way or another compared to the opinion of the community as a whole. It would therefore be inadequate to rely simply on the consensus of the current commentators, who do not represent the community in an unbiased manner.

So it is impossible to know what the community consensus is, at best we can try to approach it. Considering the level of consensus support enjoyed by the arguments raised allows to do that, for example a valid reference to a policy, which is known to be supported by a large consensus, and, to a lesser extent, a guideline, ensures that a larger part of the community is - indirectly - involved in deciding the issue.

The perimeter of the community is subject to debate, and there is significant controversy on whether the regular commentators in policy discussions accurately represent the community as a whole. See for example the events surrounding the autoconfirmed article creation trial.