Wikipedia talk:Consensus/Archive 7

Consensus and Content standards
Shouldn't it say somewhere how these are related? Currently there is not a word on Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research or Biographies of living persons in this policy. Does that mean that given consensus is established, content standards policies are unimportant?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 21:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Consensus is the means by which all those policies are upheld (in theory). It's also the means by which they were written.--Father Goose (talk) 03:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The introduction to Neutral point of view currently has this: The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to improve the application and explanation of the principles. /NewbyG (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And here is the issue: consensus is about how editors negotiate application of article content policies that govern article content, and not how editors agee on any part of the article - however, this is not the practice, and consensus is used as a means of voting in content changes--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 05:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that language in WP:NPOV is in reference to the "limited group of editors" mentioned in this policy. If there were a true, site-wide consensus to abandon the principle of neutrality, it would spell the end of the encyclopedia (cf. Conservapedia), and it wouldn't matter if WP:NPOV still said, "you can't contravene this!"--Father Goose (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)



Editors should familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's core content standards including: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles.
 * Doesn't actually what role these play in the process of establishing consensus--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 09:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Editors form an agreement about what to put in an article (consensus). Policies (including content policies, or 5 pillars, or foundation issues) are basically agreements that happened to occur very often, and which we have therefore documented to save everyone some time :-). --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So you're saying that the consensus policy pertains only to mainspace content discussions? Inhowfar then, iyo, are content policies not relevant to consensus? I'd say that the content policies are clearly very relevant for content discussions, at least as the closest thing we have to a guiding thread of sorts. And actually, I'd go even further and say that this mindset that policies are "merely descriptive, not prescriptive" is far too idealistic for reality. It may work that way for a subset of editors who basically know what they're doing, but for others, content policies are clearly more prescriptive. So this entire descriptive-only thing creates far too much leeway for people who cannot responsibly handle it. user:Everyme 17:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Consensus, (not "consensus policy") is the baseline manner in which matters are decided on a wiki.


 * Content policies are not relevant to consensus, but consensus is relevant to content policies, in the same way that it is relevant to all policies, guidelines, and essays.


 * All policies originate from diverse actions and discussions[*] on-wiki (and sometimes off-wiki too), this also includes mainspace content discussions, but is not limited to just those.


 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC) [*] The objective of any on-wiki action and/or discussion is (or at least should be) to find consensus. And the consensus so reached is what we ultimately end up calling policy, further down the line. The corollary of this is that you can change policy by simply doing things the way you think they ought to be done, and getting other people to agree and go along with you. And this is indeed the most common way to change policy. Unsurprisingly, aspects of this approach are well documented, and those are some of the oldest best practice documentation on wikipedia.

Hmm, I think the best way to explain descriptive vs prescriptive is with an example:


 * Example policy on Unicorns:


 * prescriptive: Unicorns rock, unicorns are wonderful creatures, everyone should have a unicorn pony, and everyone simply must eat ice-cream all day!


 * descriptive: Unfortunately, unicorns do not exist, even though many people fantasize about them. It is generally a bad idea to eat ice-cream all day, because you will get cavities, and cavities are known to hurt.

Which of these is the more idealistic? Which is more realistic? Which of these two policies would you use to guide you in real life? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Needless to say, that's not a valid example at all. Try this:


 * cautiously prescriptive and therefore somewhat realistic on the prescriptive level, idealistic on the descriptive level: "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner; discussing the reception, impact and significance of notable works." (from WP:PLOT)
 * This is idealistic in the sense that it doesn't have too much overlap with how things are actually done. But it is realistic in that it pays to tribute to that very fact, by providing editors with advice on how it should be done.


 * realistic on the descriptive level, idealistic in the potential prescriptive aspect: "The overwhelming majority of Wikipedia articles about fiction-related topics consists of little more than a plot summary. It may or may not be an encyclopedic approach, but it's clearly what is done on a regular basis.
 * This latter version, while realistic on the descriptive level in that it is an accurate description of how things are currently done on Wikipedia, requires the idealistic approach of trusting editors to do the right thing.


 * Which approach do you prefer? user:Everyme 18:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, here you answer my question. Your prescriptive example says how things should be done, but how do you know whether that actually works? In fact, in reality it's unlikely to have much of an effect. I hope you don't take this too harshly, or in the wrong way, but that text is literally describing a fantasy.


 * The descriptive example is better, even though it only tells what is currently happening. It's not great, but better than nothing. After some IRL legwork, you could probably extend it with something like the following text (I'm making this example up, but it's probably fairly close to what you'd come up with IRL):
 * "We wanted movie articles to consist of more than just a plot summary, because we feel that this would make them more Encyclopedic. We have tried posting messages in wikiprojects, using the wikibanner-ads, and using templates, and none of these things worked. However, when we started 'wikiproject: article improvement' and used categorizing templates to help find problem articles, we managed to improve articles away from mere plot summaries at a rate of one per week"


 * Welcome to a scientific approach to management ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, now all that's left for you to do is to convince folks over at WP:NOT. The first example I gave is of course the current text of WP:PLOT. user:Everyme 21:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

continues:


 * Cannot really agree with your approach here. If too many editors decide to throw the need for verifiability or neutrality of content overboard by just editing that way, that's policy then? Sorry, no way. No way. This has never worked for a system the size of Wikipedia today, and never will again. Maybe it did in the old days, but that's over forever. Nowadays, we need a top-down approach, at least to an extent. The policies have mostly evolved in the past, and for Wikipedia, "past" basically means a larger proportion of skilled and knowledgeable editors. The policies clearly have to be kept more stable and need to be guarded, especially seeing as people are attacking and trying to water down selected policies or aspects thereof which document practice conflicting with what they (often wrongly!) believe is the best. Someone attempts to remove WP:PLOT from WP:NOT? Well, looking at actual content editing practice, that guy's right. But should he be allowed or even encouraged to proceed, in your opinion? user:Everyme 17:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer the question I asked, but no matter. Bottom up "descriptive" systems explain what works and are rooted in reality at all times. Top down "prescriptive" systems often fail to retain this strong link to reality, especially when feedback is bad.
 * Alvin Toffler is a well known author who described how in the late 20th century, many top down systems would be dismantled in favor of more bottom up approaches. New systems should always be decentralized if possible. Acciording to Toffler, failure to decentralize means that your competitors will pass you by.
 * After essentially enduring defeat during the Vietnam war, the United States Air Force was re-organized with a bottom up approach, where local people were given final responsibility over their own part of the Organization (as opposed to merely being cogs in the machine). This approach helped the United States win against Saddam Hussein in the early '90s, at a time when his fighting forces were fully equipped with French and Soviet hardware and were quite formidable. (This was nothing like the more recent walkover of the already devastated nation). In his biography, the general in command of the us air force wondered whether he really should have attacked the Iraqi command-and-control, because their (top-down, prescriptive) style of command probably hindered the Iraqi armed forces more than it helped!
 * After world war 1, the German armed forces were reorganized and trained individual soldiers to take responsibility for themselves on the battlefield. This ability to "think on their feet" allowed the German armed forces to employ the new stratagem known as blitzkrieg. Ironically, later on there came a lot of political pressure to undo these changes to the German armed forces, however, IIRC this never actually made it all the way down to the lowest echelons.
 * The internet itself is a good example of a decentralized network where diverse persons all happen to have the same common interest in ensuring that the network stays up. There are several locations (such as internet exchanges) where people coordinate, and there are people like the RFC editor who document how internet works.
 * Many modern documents on management theory speak of hierarchical management systems as "outdated" and do not recommend them for most organizations of any size.


 * So quite contrary to your claim, not only does decentral/bottom up/descriptive practice work in large organizations, it has in fact at times lead these organizations to book great, even spectacular successes, even in the case of armed forces (which you'd think would have most benefit from only using hierarchical structures)


 * Finally, people have been "attacking" and "watering down" "established policies" since wikipedia was founded. There's nothing new or surprising there.
 * If you see people making flawed statements in policies, please correct them, and take the opportunity to educate them.
 * But never forget the possibility that you yourself might be wrong.
 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC) "No way, no way," is not a good way to approach consensus. Perhaps you might consider joining a different project with a more prescriptive nature? OTOH I'm not sure you'll find one to your liking, as I basically hold that -in the 21st century- any such project is going to be doomed to failure, due to competition from better organized projects
 * "No way" should be easy to handle for you. After all, you're actually arguing for applying a "scientific approach" to consensus with people who are no professionals at anything. To put it in the words of another Wikipedian: even mediocre writers are superb readers. Some people who believe it's a great idea for them to edit Wikipedia don't know squat, and come up with fantastic ideas like creating and enforcing (!) their own rules in their WikiProject, defying the MoS, content policies, and the basics of consensus-building. You're practically saying that your approach to consensus can rule in people who are unskilled and unaware of it. Seriously, I'll believe it when it works. Currently it doesn't. That's what I mean by "no way". user:Everyme 21:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't mind the concept of clarifying that consensus is subordinate to policy, but if it is to be done it should be short and directly to the point. On the other hand, I'm OK if we leave it out and assume it is implied or clarified elsewhere.  I had a question last month where policy is rather clear that proposals which don't progress are to be marked "failed", but where local consensus was to prolong the agony.  Who would or should enforce policy in that case?  --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Policy is absolutely subordinate to consensus. This is non-negotiable :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * well if that's true, then why bother calling them policy pages/ Why not just call them all "suggestion" pages?  --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ask User:Radiant, not me. :-) I think the argument went something along the lines of that new users need to know what they're supposed to do or so. That later on those ex-new users would end up having to teach the next group didn't quite occur to the people who used the "policy" label. ;-) Oh well. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Except for when it isn't. Come on Kim, we both know that there are policies from on high (points at that Foundation-thingy) that no amount of agreement on Wikipedia will change.  We also know there are hypothetical "consensii" formed among small groups at XfD, RM, and other places that admins chose to ignore because the parties are advocating something that flies in the face of established policy (which hypothetically is a greater consensus).  Dragons flight (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * First up, there's a bit of humor there. Consensus is built upon negotiation, so saying that it's non-negotiable is just a little odd. ;-)
 * Were you pointing at the foundation issues? So who wrote those? Check page history, and the talk page. Foundation issues. Notice some amount of negotiation going on? :-) (I love the latest question&answer on the talk page: m:Talk:Foundation_issues. )


 * Yeah, we should just all agree to kick that Jimbo character to the curb. He clearly thinks he's all high and mighty (like divine royalty or something).  ;-)  Dragons flight (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And all users (which includes admins) rightly try to find a balance between the opinions of different groups. If 10 people say one thing, and 100 people say another thing, it might be a good idea to smile and be nice to the 100 people, even if the 100 people are all wrong. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC) You should smile and be nice to everyone, of course. It's merely politic to be extra careful when you are dealing with large groups. O:-) 


 * And if none of those 100 people bother to show up to the discussion, how do we know what they think? It's times like that where we assume that policy itself is a form of consensus, and a way of incorporating the larger community's views into smaller scale discussions.  Anyway, you offered a pithy absolute that I thought might confuse people, so I wanted to challenge that.  Having a "consensus" (at least what people on Wikipedia call a consensus) still isn't an automatic invitation to assume policy doesn't matter.  Dragons flight (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A pithy self-contradictory "absolute" at that ;-) [*]


 * And indeed those 100 people don't always bother to show up, and etc... and I think we mostly agree past that point. Just because those 100 people aren't showing up, doesn't automatically mean we shouldn't take them into account. At some point one of them will eventually come by and overturn your decision, if you don't do so.


 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)  [*]Too zen? 


 * Kim is exactly right about policy being subordinate to consensus, but I'll be more specific about it: policy on Wikipedia wouldn't exist in the absence of consensus. Wikipedia doesn't have a hierarchical structure: there is no special privileged body that creates policy, nor such a body that enforces it.  This is because if such a body did exist and acted against our interests, we a) dismantle it or b) leave.
 * The Foundation has special privileges and policies that serve as a sort of shell for the project, keeping us on stable legal and financial ground -- but they do not dictate NPOV, V, CONS, or any other wiki-specific policy. If we ourselves do not agree that those policies should be upheld, they will not be upheld, since there is no way for the Foundation to enforce them short of turning the wiki into a closed venture... which would pretty much spell its end.
 * Fortunately, there is a pretty broad consensus for most of our most important policies (there is occasional disagreement about what their scope or application is, which is where WP:IAR comes in). If the consensus weren't there, this enormous communal venture would be a tower of babel.  So ultimately, consensus is what causes us all to march in more or less the same direction -- and also what allows us to change direction, as need be.  The policies represent the direction we're marching in, and we will see to it that everyone goes in more or less the direction we feel is best, regardless of whether the policies are up-to-date with what direction we've chosen.  If they are up-to-date, however, they help unify us that much more by providing clear instructions to those just joining the swarm.  And they serve as points of coordination for when we are discussing what direction we should go in, or if we should change direction.--Father Goose (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Broad consensus seems to form policy, where local consensus determines the actual applications. --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * True. Individuals and groups perfomr their tasks according to what makes the best sense to them, as long as it doesn't run counter to what the larger group is doing.--Father Goose (talk) 07:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem I see is that special interest groups will advocate courses which deviate from the best good of the project, but the mainstream has limited resources and patience for dealing with the "dark corners" of WP. In essence we are collectively apathetic, not by choice but by practical ability.--Kevin Murray (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As in when I was advised today that in Hungarian Wiki, Hungary has been pronounced independent by consensus during the Napoleonic Wars when it was, according to all English language history books, still a part of the Hapsburg Empire. This was in aid of the inevitable infobox national flag fetish pursuit--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 15:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be wandering over a few different points, so let me see if I can factor things out a bit. this is my perspective, of course, so it's subject to dispute, but maybe laying it out like this will help.

the logic behind consensus is that if enough people enter into a discussion, then those people who have specialized knowledge or specific insights will be able to convince other people (through fact and reason) that a particular perspective is the one that should be used. consensus is something that develops, as people modify their own understandings to accommodate what other people are saying. facts and sourcing are important as tools to convince other editors that what is being presented is a valid and accepted perspective (rather than a personal, untested belief). Editor A says something, Editor B objects, then A says "but look at these sources who say..." in order to convince B. Policy is supposed to help stop conflicts that prevent consensus from being reached. something like NPOV, for instance, should be (and usually is) used where there's no consensus because of pre-conceived belief structures; it becomes a referent for establishing a form of consensus that's different (one that simply includes all perspectives, rather then trying to adjudicate between them). where policy starts getting in the way of consensus, then it should be changed, though this would involve creating a consensus that the policy is getting in the way of consensus...

I'm not saying it actually works this way (though on most pages I think it works pretty well), but it seems to me that this is the way wikipedia intends to work. -- Ludwigs 2 21:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that WP works pretty closely to how Consensus describes the process. We tried a very accurate flow chart a few months ago, but it was rather complex and no PC with some in that it suggested the possibility of dialog in advance of boldness in some cases.  Policies and guidelines (processes) are rarely upheld except in the case of behavioral issues.  However, we have an outbreak of new process proposals, and WP:CREEP is rampant.  So people at WP love to write rule, but rarely follow them.  In fact those who like to write rules insist that we have no rules about how to adopt rules.  A perennial circle jerk --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * that's one of those world-weary truths that you just can't do much about: everyone loves a rule as it applies to other people, but hates it as it applies to themselves. there aren't many of us who can appreciate rules objectively.  very sad...    -- Ludwigs 2  23:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Father Goose hit the nail on the head with his first comment in this section. Of course consensus is more important than policy. Unless Wikipedia is a totalitarian state (NB: it isn't), then it is obvious that if there isn't consensus for something, then it won't usually be done. Deamon138 (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In other words original research can be included in an article if a consensus can be reached that it should be included regardless of sources being cited (or not) in the process of reaching this decision?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 01:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, so long as there's consensus for it, but there is never going to be consensus for it, because Wikipedia is not an anarchy. Deamon138 (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't kid yourself Deamon, it happens all the time, especially in the grayer areas of OR, such as synthesis. And some of our most active policy wonks are subtle advocates of anarchy.--Kevin Murray (talk) 03:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Policy gives us what we should do almost always, and guidelines give us good ideas most of the time, but there are no universal truths.  If it's obvious that there's a better way of doing things with regards to an individual article, then absolutely we should ignore the rules for the betterment of the encyclopedia.


 * We aren't here to serve policy. Policy is here to serve us; it isn't "the law", it's what we've decided works most of the time and decided to put a page up detailing that information.  That doesn't means its above rule number one, however.  Celarnor Talk to me  02:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that rule number one was that Wikipedia is a reference work, and therefore its primary offering to the reading public is the article content, and not the ability of editors to form consensus on policy, guidelines or conventions.
 * Hence my question; if I get enough people to agree with me, can I include original research in an article regardless of the three primary policies that apply to article standards?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 07:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not really a rule. That's more of a pillars kind of thing.  Policy doesn't matter to readers, at least not directly.  Policy only matters to editors, and the most important one is that policy isn't absolute, is always subject to change, and that, in the spirit of BOLD, you should always edit first and talk later.


 * But, yeah, regarding your question, absolutely. If there's a good enough reason for it and enough people agree that it seems more beneficial to have it than to not have it, then yes, although I can't really imagine what kind of scenario that would possibly be like; of course, we can't envision everything, and that's why we have rule number one.  It's better to improve the project and then discuss how to fix policy to reflect our new understanding later than to wait around until we can fix the policy pages and improve the encyclopedia after the fact.  Celarnor Talk to me  09:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Status quo ante bellum
My understanding is that, in a case where consensus has been reached, & some people then wants to change it, but others don't, the pre-existing consensus should be maintained, tagged if necessary, until a new consensus is reached. Is this correct? If so, could someone please supply a reference to somewhere in a policy or guideline where it actually says that? Reply to Talk:Buddhism, please, where the point has arisen. Peter jackson (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that really describes the process. Typically changes are proposed by either boldly changing the page or suggesting a change at the talk page.  Practically it is difficult to do the latter except with a very good idea on a well attended talk page.  If you are bold in an edit but are reverted, then the onus is on you to take it to the talk page to discuss the proposal and reversion.  In practice the majority of participants who are paying attention frequently make the decision though discussion or edit warring reversions etc.  A broader consensus can be sought by advertising the proposal at the village pump or other neutral forum; however, we do prohibit canvassing non-neutral members aka: vote-stacking.  Good luck! --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * if you want some policy point to challenge an existing consensus (in the case where, say, some editors are telling you you can't change a page because that goes against an established consensus), there are a few places in wp:NPOV and wp:consensus where it points out that consensus is not static (usually by saying that the consensus of a limited group of editors cannot surpass the broader consesus of wikipedians...). your best bet, however, is to find reliable sources that say whatever it is you want to say and add them in.  even the most stubborn editor can't really refuse an edit that adds a reliable sourced point.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The particular point in question is a matter of arramgement, not content. I may as well explain the general situation while I'm here, in case anyone has any useful ideas.


 * We're trying to rewrite the Buddhism article. It certainly needs it, being mostly unsourced & very unbalanced. Our 1st attempt, more than a year ago now, just kept getting reverted, & people largely ignored attempts to discuss things. Anachronistically speaking, you could say BRD didn't work, tho' I'd never heard of it then. Having now read most of WP policy, tho' I find it often unclear, I've been trying to proceed by discussion to reach consensus. One problem with that is that there are so many issues. It's hard to keep up discussions on many topics @ once. Lots of people just look @ the bottom of the page, not the history. Even if you look @ the history it can be hard to find things from it. So how do we try to reach consensus on everything? I keep suggesting we deal with 1 thing @ a time, but I can't enforce that of course. In addition, a lot of people are ignoring the talk page & simply making their own changes in the article, or occasionally the sandbox. Peter jackson (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As regards your statement that "even the most stubborn editor can't really refuse an edit that adds a reliable sourced point", that's too idealistic. People have repeatedly deleted sourced statements I included in the article for alternatives to the view that Buddhism is a religion. The POV statement that it is a religion remains in the article right now. What am I supposed to do about this without being guilty of revert warring? Jump straight to RfC? Report them to admin for disruptive editing? I've raised it on the talk page several times. I've been raising the whole issue of the bias in the article in the talk page for over a year, with only modest progress. Should I call an RfC for the whole article? Should I just start piling in sourced statements anyoldhow? If people keep deleting them, what do I do next? Peter jackson (talk) 11:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Have a visit to the spirituality wikiproject or ask for a wider consensus via an RfC; you shouldn't be afraid of seeking a wider consensus, its exactly why we have RfCs; that's kind of the whole point. You speak like there's something wrong with calling an RfC on that article's aspect.  Celarnor Talk to me  13:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My understanding of the dispute resolution procedure was that RfC is a last resort. Doesn't it say somewhere that if you go straight there without proper discussion 1st people are liable to be unsympathetic? Of course it may get there in the end anyway. Peter jackson (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, people are going to be displeased if you file an RfC without discussing problems with the relevant editors first; I figured that since this was a page about consensus, you had done so. Sorry.  Obviously, you should try to work this out first.  Celarnor <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  16:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Peter - you know that I've worked some on the Buddhism page, and frankly part of the problem is that you in particular refuse to let the page grow naturally. no offense, but I've seen what happens when a change gets made there - even if the change is in the right direction, you come back with about seven critical paragraphs about how it doesn't meet the ideal academic understanding.  mix that up with the coterie of idealistic pov-people that want to edit in their understandings, and I can't think of a better recipe for aggravating failure.  Frankly, I've taken a long break from editing there because while I can work with you fairly well, and I could work with the ideologues fairly well too, I can't argue work with both of you simultaneously.  now I'd like to go back there and edit some more, but only if you're ready to step back and work on this in small, less-than-perfect bites.  is that a possibility? -- Ludwigs 2  22:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not sure what you're referring to. We're trying to work step by step @ present. We've got a more coherent arrangement than we had, but it's getting less so. I was hoping we'd discuss what to do next & agree on the talk page. Instead, people are just making changes, often POV, & (nearly) always unsourced or unreliably sourced. Is that improvement? I've started making some changes myself, & I'll continue to try to get the article to comply with NPOV, if necessary eventually going to RfC. However, the present rambling nature of the article doesn't encourage me to do a lot of work on the final tidying-up stages. Peter jackson (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I hear that. it's a difficult article, because there's a lot of ego attachment among editors and it's often hard to get people to see the larger picture.  I just got tired of wading through 80 lines of talk page discussion every day just to realize that nothing ever came of them.  but yes, start adding in sourced statements; I'll try to swing by and help defend them.  are you still working on the sandboxed version or hads everything gone back to the main page?  -- Ludwigs 2  22:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus and Content standards (cont. 1)

 * So you see the Wikipedia editing as a process of edit -> find out the facts (consensus) -> edit again rather than find out the facts (research) -> edit -> interpret new facts (consensus)?
 * My problem is than why is there the As you create the article, provide references to reliable published sources. Without references, the article may be deleted. displayed at every article creation? We need to add something about consensus there because if you search for it here, you will see it is slim pickings. Nor does it improve with looking here, or here. All these places that are concerned with article production, the reason for Wikipedia's existence, discuss only policies that direct improvement in article standards to wards quality improvements. How Wikipedia is measured by the outside world is not on the number of consensus decisions reached, but the number of mistakes found in Wikipedia articles.
 * Now I note that consensus, every time I have experienced it, was in fact an arbitrated conflict. The vast number of blocks are about editors insisting on inclusion of material while lacking the said (verifiable) references. Is it really the policy of Wikipedia to promote conflicts among editors? Is not the above request included at creation of every article because quality of product should be more important than ability to network Wikipedia?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 10:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To Kevin Murray above, when I said anarchy, I don't mean the sytem of state without a government, I mean the other meaning of the term i.e. complete chaos.


 * To mrg3105:


 * "So you see the Wikipedia editing as a process of edit -> find out the facts (consensus) -> edit again rather than find out the facts (research) -> edit -> interpret new facts (consensus)?" The best way that Wikipedia ought to work is BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.
 * If its all the same to you, I would rather editors were thoughtful before "bold", so there is no revert/discuss given I prefer to edit.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 02:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "My problem is than why is there the As you create the article, provide references to reliable published sources. Without references, the article may be deleted. displayed at every article creation?" Because technically, that statement is true. Without references the article may be deleted. There is huge consensus to delete something if it doesn't have references, but since consensus can change, then it only "may" be deleted. Hence the reason why it doesn't say, "Without references the article will be deleted."
 * In a practical application though it is very hard to delete something. People vote it in, but do not reference it--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 02:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "How Wikipedia is measured by the outside world is not on the number of consensus decisions reached, but the number of mistakes found in Wikipedia articles." Yes that's true, and this is why there is wide consensus for WP:OR. But the reason WP:IAR exists is just in case this consensus changes, and provides a guarantee that we're not editing in a bureaucracy or even a totalitarian state. In the extremely unlikely event that consensus changes against WP:OR, then since we editors are human beings, we are, in sense, representative of the opinions of non-editors. So if we got rid of WP:OR, then it would be the same as Wikipedia being measured by the outside world not by the number of mistakes. But as I said, this is so so so unlikely to happen.
 * Happens all the time. My most recent experience and why I started this was when a bureaucrat changed an article title because he thought it sounded lousy, and got a consensus not based on any review of sources but just votes--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 02:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyway, as has been said, any policy/guideline is meant to serve us, not control us, so a challenge to any rule is allowable, so long as it's based on a system of good reasons. As far as I know, there won't be a system of good reasons to add original research to Wikipedia, ever, but WP:IAR and WP:CONSENSUS are there just in case. Deamon138 (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahem, no, by definition a policy is intended to control, but policy makers are those that serve by creating it. I quote from the Wikipedia artilce A policy is a deliberate plan of action to guide decisions and achieve rational outcome(s).--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 02:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (undent) mrg3105, let's not hit the straw man arguments this easily. Policy is on of the factors that's brought into the debate as people work for consensus.  if someone introduces OR that has a wide appeal, some editor is going to raise the OR flag, if only to determine whether or not it really is OR.  anyone who objects to the OR can knock it out instantly on policy grounds, and if there isn't anyone, anywhere, ever, who objects to the OR - what would that mean?  would that even happen?  even seemingly obvious ORs like 'puppies are cute' and 'Hitler was evil' will find someone who disagrees with them.  I can't imagine anyone generating effective consensus for OR on more than a temporary basis, and if they did, it would have to be something that was pretty darned close to a fact regardless.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You can raise as many flags as you want, the bottom line is that a consensus is a vote, and once the voting is over, all other policies are ignored--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 02:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. voting is not consensus, voting is majoritarian rule.  it even says so in policy.  it may work out that way as a matter of practice, but that's a different matter.  -- Ludwigs 2  01:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If there's sufficient support for a given principle (such as stick to the sources), we won't abandon it. However, there are times when we'll ignore a specific rule if the actual principle wouldn't be upheld in the process.  I'd say Kancho is a good example of this; I haven't been able to find a single reliable source to back up whats in the article, yet all the unreliable sources available make it clearly real and quite notable (in Japan and Korea, at least), and the article survived a deletion discussion on that basis.  The rules are a practical expression of our principles, but wherever there's consensus that sticking to the rules would produce a worse outcome for the encyclopedia, we ignore the rule -- even if, in general, we support it.--Father Goose (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess the reading publis wil be real judge of that--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 02:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "If its all the same to you, I would rather editors were thoughtful before "bold", so there is no revert/discuss given I prefer to edit." Are you saying editors are automatons and don't think at all before they do anything? Btw, if you read the guideline I quoted, it actually says as part of its bold point, "BE BOLD, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal change. (any change will do, but it is easier and wiser to proceed based on your best effort.)". So you point is covered in there anyway.


 * "In a practical application though it is very hard to delete something. People vote it in, but do not reference it" Things get deleted all the time: WP:AfD.


 * "My most recent experience and why I started this was when a bureaucrat changed an article title because he thought it sounded lousy, and got a consensus not based on any review of sources but just votes" If you gripe is about a particular situation then maybe you ought to be discussing that with them. Assuming good faith and all that, but unless you detail the situation, none of us can possibly agree with you that that is an example of consensus failing. You may have misinterpreted it, or you might not have. But you can't say "Consensus has failed this one time in my experience" and leave it at that, else you won't be taken seriously without the evidence.


 * "Ahem, no, by definition a policy is intended to control, but policy makers are those that serve by creating it. I quote from the Wikipedia artilce A policy is a deliberate plan of action to guide decisions and achieve rational outcome(s)." That is totally wrong. Think about this: where did the policies come from in the first place? Answer: the consensus of the community. The policies are based on the continuation of that consensus. And guess what? Consensus can change. Read WP:Policies and guidelines. It says almost straight away: "Policies and guidelines express standards that have community consensus." If they weren't standards expressed by consensus, we would change them, delete them, create new ones, or leave the encyclopaedia. You also quote the first sentence of Policy. But I shall bold the most important parts: "A policy is a deliberate plan of action to guide decisions and achieve rational outcome(s). And I shall quote a later on part of the lead, which you should've read if you want to fully understand any Wikipedia article: "Policy differs from rules or law. While law can compel or prohibit behaviors (e.g. a law requiring the payment of taxes on income) policy merely guides actions toward those that are most likely to achieve a desired outcome." So a policy is not a law. It is changeable, and only enforceable via community consensus. Policies guide, laws force.


 * "the bottom line is that a consensus is a vote" Nope, consensus is not a vote. Deamon138 (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is correct. I don't quite know where the original poster got his idea of how Wikipedia works, but it seems to be very very far off the mark.  Policy is not our law.  It isn't meant to keep us from doing what works best for the encyclopedia.  It is there to guide us in what is generally the best way of going about things.  Guidelines are meant to do something similar, but in a less general way; less general enough that it can't really be binding because there are enough things that it wouldn't apply to.


 * It isn't meant to inhibit or restrict us. It's meant to help us.  It's meant to keep Wikipedia from being complete chaos.  Our editing policies and guidelines are our editing policies and guidelines.  We can change them if and when we need them so that they serve us best.  This works because for the most part, we're all here for the project.


 * As is already said, stuff gets deleted all the time; I don't really know where you were trying to go there. It's gotten easier and easier to delete things over time, and I don't think that process needs to be streamlined in favor of the loss of information.  If you think AfD, or any venue where consensus is regularly determined by simple straw polls, then you really should probably re-examine your understanding both of these kinds of places and of consensus itself.  "Me toos" don't really matter.  Consensus is evaluated taking into account not just how many people say something, but the strength of that that something is and the strength of the various supporting arguments as well.  To say that consensus is "just a vote" couldn't be more off the mark.  In fact, we have pages dedicated to eradicating that particular myth.  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  02:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The reality is that every time I have been in a "consensus building" situation, I have seen blatant vote-staking that ignored not rules, but sources. In the last case an article was renamed because someone didn't like how it looked, and as it happened he had enough people to agree with him. The new title bears less relationship to the article content, is blatantly presenting a negative point of view, and is not supported by the sources on which it was based, but it is there because if I do anything I will be blocked because for being "disruptive", or some other piece of wikispeakie. Essentially this one individual gets to rename articles because he has networked and has the bureaucratic and administrative clout to stop others. Therefore consensus is a waste of time as a concept. It is the equivalent of asking someone to be nice as they are being mugged.


 * It is absolutely false that policies were created by consensus and that they can change. Just like in designing a car there is a basic requirement for it to be able to transport passengers irrespective of the chassis configuration, so too in a reference work there is a basic requirement for the information to be correct regardless of the (in case of printed works) the type of paper it is printed on. I would rather use a reference work that is 99% correct printed on a toilet roll than a reference work that is 90% correct printed on the best paper available. And quite frankly I don't care who writes them.


 * Same for Wikipedia. The requirement of the information to be correct is a rule, nay a law of Wikipedia. Breach of this law negates the reason for Wikipedia existence. Every breach renders it more a work of fiction and less a reference work. In the case I allude to the work of fiction remained in Wikipedia for years and was created by an 11 year old girl.


 * Correctness of reference work contents can not be arrived at by consensus, but only by assessing sources on which the proposed edit is being added. What the consensus is intended for is to resolve disputes where conflicting or alternative interpretations of sourced data is being included in the article. Is this what the current policy says? Is this what is currently being applied by editors? There is no mention of the purpose behind consensus and how it relates to the editing activity. What it does say is someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it


 * What it should say is someone makes a change or addition to a page citing a verifiable source for that edit, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it based on verification of the source or qualification of the previous edit by citing a new source. This also applies to changes in article titles. And it is my proposal to alter the reading of the current version accordingly


 * I also propose that the Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can be reached through discussion, action (editing), or more often, a combination of the two. be changed to read Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved based on verified and cited sources. This can be reached through discussion of the sources, action by editing citing sources, or more often, a combination of the two.


 * Another change I would propose is that the following Generally someone edits a page, and then subsequent viewers of the page have three options: accept the edit, change the edit, or revert the edit. be amended to Generally someone edits a page including a citation of their source (preferably citing page number), and then subsequent viewers of the page have three options: accept the edit, change the edit based on discussion of cited source interpretation, its verifiability and providing alternative sources, or revert the edit because it does not cite any source or the source it cited was not verifiable.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 07:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a lot not covered by that. Disputes can also be about how an article should be arranged, or what's important enough to be included. Citations for the latter will generally be only quasi-citations. That is, altho' on occasion a source may say such-&-such is (un)important, more often you have to look at the source as a whole to see how much space it devotes to something. Peter jackson (talk) 11:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My concern is initially with content and article quality relationship. Its harder to mandate structure and criteria for inclusivity, something I happen to be concerned with now in a major article--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 13:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to be elevating WP:V above the status of WP:CONSENSUS with these proposed changes, which is completely against what everyone else has been arguing above. WP:CONSENSUS is more important. Plus, as Peter Jackson says, lots and lots of changes to articles don't need sources even if WP:V is stuck to rigidly by the changer. Editing the layout, editing spelling, editing grammar etc etc. Plus, WP:CONSENSUS applies to pages not in article space. You generally don't need sources to make an edit on those. The idea of consensus is that if there is consensus for something, then it is done. Sources or not. If consensus is to add something without a source, then it will be done.


 * I would also say that maybe it's true that, "The reality is that every time I have been in a "consensus building" situation, I have seen blatant vote-staking that ignored not rules, but sources", but you haven't said where this has happened, so how can anyone trust that this relation of events is correct?


 * "It is absolutely false that policies were created by consensus and that they can change." No it isn't. Please read everyone's arguments again. Do you know of any occasion when a policy was created and kept without consensus? Do you realise that the first policy was WP:Ignore all rules? As for them changing, have you ever clicked on the edit histoiry of a policy and seen how much they get edited? A fair bit you will see. Deamon138 (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My suggested amendments to Consensus are only in regards to the viewable articles, and maybe that needs to be made explicit. It is also not concerned with matters of style.
 * I do not intentionally point to the specific instances because policy needs to apply in general, and not to specific cases.
 * With all due respect Deamon138, you are wrong on two counts, that of the first policy, and that of policy created without consensus, and which exists without consensus. The first policy of Wikipedia is that it should be brought into being. Its continuing existence is not subject to editorial consensus either. Aside from that, I have little time to track changes in policy page history. Quite frankly I don't care. What I do care about is quality of article. If someone is going to read what I write, I do not what this compromised because it means I am wasting my time and theirs. Do you think differently? I think not, or you would not care enough to contribute here.
 * I therefore suggest that the core idea of producing a quality reference work be enshrined in every policy, guideline or convention as a sort of foundation stone on which all else in Wikipedia is built--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 00:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) "The first policy of Wikipedia is that it should be brought into being. Its continuing existence is not subject to editorial consensus either." Firstly, when I said first policy above, I meant literally the first policy made was WP:IAR apparently. Secondly, there is no policy that says "Wikipedia exists" (Cogito ergo sum is about the closest, though Wikipedia doesn't yet think). Anyway, the encyclopaedia's continued existence IS based on consensus. Could you imagine if the Foundation started doing things that weren't agreeable to the majority of editors? Editors would start to leave, and the Foundation would lose funding. If it got bad enough, Wikipedia couldn't function anymore, so it is actually here due to consensus. Think about it. What if people had actually decided right at the beginning: "This Wiki idea is crap". What then? Wikipedia would never have got off the ground that's what.

"that of policy created without consensus, and which exists without consensus." I should be interested to know what policy is created without consensus (aside from ones that are reverted straight away because the promoter was too bold), or what policy exists without consensus at all. I don't think there is any, but if you have examples, feel free to say what.

"I therefore suggest that the core idea of producing a quality reference work" Somehow I don't think we need a policy saying "Make Wikipedia good". It is obvious that those good faith users are going to do that anyway (as to what "quality" means, it is debatable, which is why we have the other policies anyway), and those bad faith editors will just ignore that policy. I think Wikipedia has got on well enough without a "Make Wikipedia good" policy, as if people would think it would be acceptable to make it bad if that wasn't written down.

"My suggested amendments to Consensus are only in regards to the viewable articles, and maybe that needs to be made explicit. It is also not concerned with matters of style." Well that is better, but still not adequate for me. I don't see how this would make sense. As I said, it seems to elevate WP:V above WP:CONSENSUS, when WP:V exists because of consensus. I also don't think it is this page's job to say what constitutes a valid edit (i.e. reliably sourced) since this is just for discussing the generalities of consensus. Deamon138 (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have access to Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.'s corporate policies on which its existence is based ? Its not based on policies, but on the articles of incorporation that among others state its purpose as a requirement by (in USA) the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and include a charter. These are not subject to change, and certainly not by anonymous editors. While you meant editing policies, I meant the policies that allow editing to be conducted, i.e. a higher level of policy making by the Foundation. I can assure you that financial sponsors of Wikipedia are unlikely to have a high regard for any organisation that bases its activities on ignoring all rules.
 * The Foundation does things that are not agreeable to all editors all the time, just look at the block histories :)
 * Editor, good editors, leave all the time.
 * All policies that are subject to the decisions of the Foundation's Board are made not subject to editor consensus.
 * By exclusion, editors are only here to make consensus decisions about policies that affect editing. Would you agree with this?
 * Given that editing is primarily concerned with the quality of authoring, and only later with editing (expanding the article and correcting errors), by definition, and by the current statement in Consensus, consensus comes second in the process. So, yes, consensus is subordinated to the concern for article quality which includes verifiability of sources on which content is based.
 * How? What does how in the "Somehow I don't think we need a policy saying "Make Wikipedia good"." means? Do you have a problem with policy stating the obvious, explicitly?
 * "Good faith", "bad faith" are just wikispeaky terms. What it means in the English language is that some editors, teams of editors, and networks of editors, have ulterior motives and agendas to edit with the intention of adulterating facts. It is this that consensus is intended to prevent, right?
 * I agree that it is not this page's job to say what constitutes a valid edit, but I insist that every policy must contain statements that relate it to other policies. I am not telling people how to edit, but only what constraints guide their authoring and edits (not inventing anything new in either case), namely expected quality of article contents by the Wikimedia Foundation Inc., under its charter by which it exists. This includes not using consensus to establish content as a form of voting with disregard to quality of article policies that require removal of original research, sourcing of content, and verification of sources--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 03:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * First, can you please stop redlinking to pages that don't exist? It doesn't make sense, you know full well that pages like "consensus is subordinate to the concern for article quality" don't exist (for more obvious reasons than one), and it makes reading all of that senselessly separated annoying to read outside of the editing window.


 * Second, OFFICE actions coming from the Foundation are very, very, very rare. Only a handful have ever been done.  The community so far has managed to police itself well enough.  I don't really know where you're trying to go with this, but this is by and large a volunteer run project.  Short of a few people behind the scenes who manage funds, serve as a face, and make sure we aren't in a position to get sued, everything else is up to the consensus of the editors of the project.  Do you see any corporate policies governing the functioning of a specific member project?  No, you don't, because they don't exist.  They operate themselves.  What you've done is elevated the cabal paranoia to a level.  If you don't want to edit because you're scared of the actions that might be taken by the office, no one's forcing you to be here.  For my part, I'm willing to continue assuming good faith on the part of the Foundation until they do something contrary to that.


 * What you fail to realize is that, without consensus, the whole project is meaningless. There is no truth (see WP:TRUTH).  There is no ultimate source.  The only thing we can do is try to collectively come to what we all think more or less makes the best page in an encyclopedia.  We're here to make an encyclopedia.  The Foundation isn't here to interfere with that.  Here, "The best encyclopedia" means what what we say it means.  We operate under common sense (WP:COMMONSENSE), discussing problems and coming to solutions as a group, and ignoring all the rules (WP:IAR) when it turns out the rules didn't really make the best encyclopedia page.  The most important part of all of this is that everything we do is subject to change, because there are no absolutes.  We can always be wrong about something, so its important that we be able to be bold and change it when we realize that something doesn't work the way we thought it was, rather than get caught up in ridiculous, pointless discussions.  It's important that we hold everything as editable, and it's important that we're here first and foremost to make the best encyclopedia, rather than being here first and foremost to subjugate ourselves to a bunch of absolutes that we can't change when there's a problem that can only be solved by either changing or ignoring them.  What you want to do eliminates that entirely.


 * On a more realistic note, I imagine that you're here because some dispute somewhere didn't go your way and you're trying to vent now because you imagine that by abstracting whatever problem you had into a generalized hypothetical and offering a solution, that people might agree with you. Whether that's the case or not, I don't really see any problems with the current policies being what they are.  Do you have any examples of any cases where consensus has proved to be a non-viable method of producing a decent encyclopedia article?  If not, what led you here, and if purely ideological, what, if any, more specific hypothetical situations can you offer where the current system, including dispute resolution, is too problematic?  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  08:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Aside from concurring with everything Celarnor just said, I will make this one comment:


 * "All policies that are subject to the decisions of the Foundation's Board are made not subject to editor consensus." I think you've misunderstood my point. Yes the Foundation has its own policies, and yes the Foundation can theoretically change any editing policies it wants, or block any user it wants for no apparent reason, but that is never going to happen. Why? Because editors on the project wouldn't like the decisions the Foundation is making, become disenfranchised, and leave the project. Yes editors leave all the time, but not in noticeable numbers. If the Foundation started doing things not agreeable to editors (i.e. against consensus), then the numbers leaving would be noticeable, and the numbers joining would diminish as well. So the Foundation doesn't do actions against consensus because it would annoy many many editors and signal a decline in the project, and they also wouldn't do it because I like to assume good faith and assume the Foundation isn't some dictatorial regime. Deamon138 (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Redlinking in this case is a lazy way of making speech emphasis without using colour text formatting
 * The day consensus decides (hypothetically) that articles do not require substantiation of claims from external sources, is the day that you will see the Foundation step in
 * Common sense does not apply to reference works because their creation is dependent on expert knowledge as far as article content goes; conversely ask the question, why would someone access a reference work if they can arrive at the answer by application of common sense alone? Note: everyone thinks they have this attribute.
 * Ignoring all rules is overstated given one rule is to employ common sense as you pointed out, and the others are undoubtedly the application of logic, which is based on....rules
 * While you may enjoy the chant "there is no truth", it actually fails the accepted common sense suggestion that the last accepted alternative to a solution must be true on its execution...even if the effect it produces proves to be undesirable. Moreover, logic has also provided a means to test this proposition, and through formal mathematics and other sciences has found that indeed there are some truths that are fairly hard to challenge. The statement that "there is no truth" is therefore false
 * The latest dispute that indeed brought me here, though not for the first time, concerned an article title. Quite simply it is my thinking, supported by Wikipedia policy, guidelines, common sense and logic that the title should relate to the contents of the article. The title is subject to the same requirements of all the policies and guidelines and many conventions as are the contents of the article. In fact the title established the suitability of the article's content inclusion in Wikipedia. In this case the title that had existed in the article was a borrowing from a 25 year old report cover, and was intended as a "dramatic" codename for a Soviet military operation during the Second World War. Because I happen to have read the report prepared for the US Staff College at the time, I was surprised to find the title of the report used as the title of the article. This was because the operation codename was invented for the report for dramatic effect, and never actually existed. It is not mentioned anywhere in the report which is available online, and was the basis for the article, and was in fact linked to as one of only three references (two by same author). Moreover, it is the only comprehensive reference and source of information on this particular operation in English. When I tried to change the article title to the real name of the operation, an objection was made that this was a "common name" because the report was referred to in other works by its title. I therefore contacted the author of the report, now a retired US Army Colonel, and an acknowledged expert on the subject of Soviet Second World War operations, who confirmed that the codename was invented specially for the presentation for the report during a dinner by his then 11 year old daughter. As soon as I changed the name of the article, an editor appeared, who had performed only minor editing in the article some time ago, and declared that he though the article name "looked lousy" and suggested a straw poll to rename it. From nowhere other editors appeared who promptly and with no discussion of sources agreed for renaming to "Soviet invasion of....", a phrase that is found in lots of books, but is generic, and so used by authors who only refer to the operation in passing. No examination of sources was entertained, and I was banned from performing any changes because I was "being disruptive". Aside from the fact that the operation was not an "invasion of", and that it represents a favoured, but discriminatory application of Soviets seen as invaders and not liberators (note the disputed tag on the List of invasions), particularly in the post-Cold War Eastern Europe, it also misrepresents the extent of the operation which also included areas outside of the territory specified by the new article because the editors who took such pains to rename the article failed to read the report that explains the original Soviet operation being named for the territory where their forces started, and not where they operated, these being the equivalent of North Dakota and South Dakota. So, the article, rather then being name North Dakota offensive operation, is named Invasion of South Dakota although Nebraska, Iowa and Wyoming were also "invaded" in the process. No other editing has taken place since this occurred. In effect the article was given a title no less invented than the one it had before, and this was done expressly to counter my attempt to name it as it is recorded in history. This occurred because one particular editor dislikes translations of Soviet names for operations being used to name Soviet operations on the pretext that a common English name, regardless how incorrect it is, is better then the actual name. In three cases the "common" name he forced to be adopted for articles comes from ONE source of a hanged Nazi general who was in no position to state the actual names since in two cases they were Soviet operations, and are derived from a translation into English by a twice convicted Nazi sympathiser who is a pseudo-historian found to have fabricated data on effect of among other things Allied bombing and the Holocaust.
 * So far as I'm concerned in this case the common sense you speak of, as well as every policy and logic failed because I am not a networker or a bureaucrat, and was unable to bring numbers to bear. I was told that I had to be "convincing" after statement by the original author was confirmed,a nd with no convincing being done by the proposer or supporters. A straw poll was used to vote a fictitious title into place based on nothing more than what one influential Foundation bureaucrat thought looked better, and because some editor has made a decision that Russian operations should not be afforded same treatment as operations conducted by Western Allies. Sources were ignored. No research was performed. Bias is obvious (two of the 6 voting editors are from Rumania, and have contributed copiously to articles that stress Soviet invasion and occupation of Rumania). Not one editor has made any attempt to improve the article to any substantial degree, so motives for renaming are eminently questionable. No guidelines or conventions were followed because none say a title can be changed for aesthetic reasons. It was just one blatant poll disguised in "consensus clothing".
 * I expect one of the participants, all of whom watch my contributions, will make an appearance to state that I had been blocked for incivility, and bla bla bla, and quite frankly I don't care. I would be "uncivil" as many times as I need to, because I think principles are far greater sacrifices to make than all of Wikipedia put together. However, why should some individuals have the ability to hound me out of editing here? In every case of my incivility these principles were thrown out the window (if its not there, write it), and while you and others may declare that "there is no truth", that is a principle also, so you may understand what I mean. I am neither an unreasonable individual, nor a stupid one. In every case I tried to discuss, reason, and provide what I thought was a good argument, including one like - renaming can only be based on sources which can be used to write, or at least add citations to the article. They were all disregarded--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 03:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the claim that the Foundation stepped in if we started not requiring substantiation of claims from external sources; probably, yes. But I've never seen widespread consensus that we don't need sources, and the notion that it exists somewhere is simply laughable (however, if you do have an example of such a place, I'd be happy to go wherever it is and help you out).


 * Regarding common sense as a mechanism for the production of articles; you shouldn't think of Wikipedia as a traditional encyclopedia, and I think that this is where a lot of your problems are coming from. All we do is take information from other sources and serve as an aggregator, summarizing it.  While common sense would be sufficient to locate the information from all of these sources yourself, the work is tedious, repetetive and unnecessary; it makes much more sense for a group of people to do it and then allow other people to peruse the results, which is exactly what we do.  All you need to perform this task is common sense and the ability to read.  For example, if I wanted to know the details of the outcome of World War II, I would consult a history textbook to find the dates.  Then I could hunt down newspapers from the relevant dates.  This is exactly what we do.  It doesn't require anything beyond a basic education to perform, and it certainly doesn't require expertise in history.  We don't need expert knowledge because we have no use for it in the editing process (although it can be useful in analysis of the finished product, weighting sections for academic consensus and what not).


 * Truth doesn't exist in momentary terms, at execution or otherwise. All we can do is make the best article that we can with the sources that are available.  For all we know, the aforementioned World War II could be a complete fabrication orchestrated by governments for some obscure reason.  There is no proof to the contrary (although there is substantial data to the same), so it isn't "true".  While truth and proofs do exist, they do so only in numbers; since there's a great deal more to Wikipedia than mathematics, I think we can set that aside.


 * Now that we know what actually brought you here (The article on the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, for anyone who doesn't want to dig through the editors contributions to find out what he's talking about), I can understand why you feel the way that you do. What you did, however, was not the way to go about it, and your ban was entirely justified.  You were not "hounded out of editing"; you were banned for incivility, which is exactly what you were doing (i.e, comments such as "Is there a Wikipedia guideline that says I have to be kind to people who edit without reading primary sources?").  But, putting the past behind us and hoping that you've learned civility (which is a necessary foundation of consensus; if we can't be nice to each other, there's really no point, I'm happy to explain why it turned out the way that it did.


 * First, our naming conventions dictate that we should use for an article title the most widely used name of something; that is what people are going to search for the most, and it makes the most sense to keep the article there, both to minimze database hits for redirects and because it ... just makes sense to name the article after what people know it by. The accuracy of that something isn't really a question that's taken into account there; however, thankfully, because we ignore the rules from time to time, you can still name it "The Soviet Strategic Offensive in Manchuria" if you can support that it is a bad idea to term it as an invasion (although, personally, I would disagree with you on that count, and would keep the article as named).  As others said in that discussion, we should be optimized for lay readers, not for experts and specialists, and take into account all the sources rather than just one that an editor seems to like a lot.


 * In any case, it looks like this discussion should probably start taking place with the involved parties again, although its starting to look like you aren't going to subscribe to consensus; if you want, you can possibly take it the reliable sources noticeboard, but this place is for the discussion of consensus itself and the direct issues that surround it. <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  06:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I differ in a number of points, however, the subject for discussion is consensus and I will restrain myself from commenting on the subject of the specific case above here.
 * The suggestions for changing the policy are as I presented them.
 * Again I ask the question, does consensus replace policies that relate to quality of the article or not? It seems to me a fairly simple question to answer, and that answer should be included in the Wikipedia policy.
 * So far as I'm concerned, the answer is found in the purpose for Wikipedia's existence. If someone chooses to use Wikipedia, they are either unable or unwilling to gain access to any other source on the subject of their enquiry. In such a case Wikipedia to the user represents expert knowledge, or is expected to, for it is "labeled" as it were a reference work. If "all we do is take information from other sources and serve as an aggregator, summarizing it", than I would like to know in what circumstances this aggregation and summary process can be replaced by a voting process based on something being deemed "lousy". Unfortunately for Shakespeare, sometimes it is more important what something is called, and not what it is deemed to be in someone's perception--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 13:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Insofar as consensus can change those policies, or collectively decide that the rules don't really make sense in an individual case and that there's a better way of doing something than existing policies or guidelines can provide, yes, consensus is more important than anything that we have now. If that isn't true, then that means we can't adapt our policies, which means we can't effectively control what we do, which means we can't write the best possible encyclopedia that we can.


 * However, the question "Is consensus more important than article quality" really doesn't make any sense, since there can never be any wide consensus contrary to article quality, since we're all here to improve article quality. How you perceive the good-faith actions of other editors is up to you, but for the rest of the project who abides by AGF, when we disagree with the actions of another editor, we try to figure out how their edit improves the article rather than fall on the belief that it doesn't; if we can incorporate both improvements, then we talk about an implementation and use it; if they're completely at odds, then we weigh the improvements that both possibilities add (i.e, "Should we keep our naming conventions and go with most of the existing sources for the purpose of naming this article, or should we sacrifice common usage in favor of a perceived accuracy?  Why or why not?").  Then, usually, we look around for another place this problem has come up (a good example for your particular problem is Mark Twain, whose real name is not the title of the article; however, that is how he is known in common usage and is most accessible there) and contemplate on that.  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  17:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the objective of consensus? (Cont.)
What is the objective of consensus:

A) to reach agreement

or

B) to improve the article?

If the former, then civility is of course paramount as a consideration. However, if it is the later, then quality of the article is paramount. The remark for which I was blocked was based on the proposal that I have no respect for people who edit while not taking the time to familiarise themselves with the very sources on which the article is based, but purely from their own "good faith" opinion. As St. Bernard said, ‘Hell is full of good intentions or desires.’

Ok, if you insist on bringing up my particular case, there were a variety of "good faith" approaches to a solution. If the "Soviet invasion of Manchuria" is in fact the more often used name for the offensive, one could have just created a redirect. I created several based on other variations of the name used in different books. Is it an expression of "good faith" to come to a talk page after an extended discussion that changed a completely fictitious name, and with a single declaration of actual event name's lousiness change it by an explicit straw poll? There was no attempt made to go through the consensus process. The consensus was only whether the name should be change or not. Sources were only dredged up using Google during the objections I brought up against conducting a vote as a foregone conclusion for change with no discussion! Clearly than consensus as it is presented in the policy no is irrelevant. Moreover, as is being discussed now below, the actual consensus is undefined. I postulate that consensus is based not on number of concurring opinions, stated in good faith or not, but on the actual substance of the proposals for agreement. As I asked before, can an overwhelming majority of well intentioned editors vote in that the answer to 2+2 is in fact 5? Clearly they can not because the evidential proof would not be found.

The problem with applying common name to article titles is not really a subject for discussion here, but the purpose of a reference work is to establish facts, and not to reflect popular opinion. The reason is simple, popular opinion is subject to change. While facts are also subject to change, that change is usually rational, and can be establish through a progression of linked data, while popular opinion is often reflected by a trend. Trends are rarely rational, the reason why the stock market is usually known as a gamble. I do not gamble on opinions. If someone can show that a given subject can be identified differently, than that source or sources ought to be sufficient for use in improving the article quality as citations. In the particular case of of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, the expression was nowhere used in sources that could be used for anything more than to establish that the operation indeed occurred, and the date and year of its occurrence. In most sources it is used within the context of general change in posture towards Japan, and is not "enclosed in quotes" as is done when a name of the event is being suggested as most manuals of style applied by editors in the publishing world will suggest. In any case, quality suggests a higher degree of achievement than that achievable by anyone using "common" sense and arriving at "common" usage. Is the objective of the consensus to help improve the Wikipedia to a "common" level of information quality, or an exceptional one? Is the objective of the consensus still the "quality article", i.e. at least of the GA rating?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 00:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The answer is:
 * C) All of the above.


 * Again, we're all here to improve the article. The mechanism by which we do that is consensus.  You can't separate the two, although for some reason you seem absolutely hellbent on doing that.  You see "improving the article" and "reaching consensus" as two entirely separate events, when that simply isn't the case; we reach consensus on the fact that a given word/source/name/section/whatever improves an article, so we include it, because we're here to improve the quality of an article.  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  23:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * honestly, I think the difficulty here is that you (mrg3105) are equating 'improving the article' with 'making the article true or correct', and then noting that common consensus' often strays away from 'truth' towards opinion. in other words, you're holding out a low-brow conception of consensus (something along the lines of mob psychology) that is clearly unsatisfactory, and saying that the only way of preventing that unsatisfactory result is to place policies on top to keep things in line (constraining the hoi polloi with strict rules, as it were...).  of course, that neglects the fact that policy is part' of the consensus process, which is how wikipedia avoids low-brow consensus in the first place (any low-brow consensus is eventually going to have to face new information, and once they agree (find a consensus) that new information is allowable by policy, that will change the consensus about the article content and improve the article simultaneously).  policy by itself is meaningless - it's the consensi built around policy that makes policy functional.  -- Ludwigs 2  02:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, well I have seen "consensus" in practice and...not thanks, I will stay out of any article the contents of which is being decided by a vote of opinion based on popular belief, thanks but no thanks. I note that of the hundreds of articles I watch, only rarely do I see any substantial article improvement, and it rarely comes with references. When it does, they are usually online links of dubious value and quality. Reality is, most Wikipedia editors so far as I'm concerned love giving opinion, but seemingly rarely read anything that requires the effort of page turning or even a search in GoogleBooks. However, luckily there is another rule which Wikipedia and all computing is subject to, GIGO, and it acts and will continue to act as a source of friction on the editing process as the number of corrections will eventually overwhelm the inadequate number of editors capable to fixing the errors. I have seen articles that are years old, and of such poor quality that it would be easier to write a new article than to fix one, and I know they will stay that way--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 11:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * so basically you're saying that consensus doesn't work, and so the whole core foundation of Wikipedia is shot to hell, and we should (what?) discard the project? change to a more authoritarian style? I'm doing my best here to make consensus a more workable policy for wikipedia.  I may fail, and I may be going about it the wrong way, but I'm starting to think you're objecting not because you think I'm doing it wrong, but because you think the concept of consensus itself sucks.  that's not really a valid objection, is it?  -- Ludwigs 2  01:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You Ludwigs2 are not doing anything without consensus...which is going to change a week from now, a month from now, a year from now...
 * I had made suggestions earlier on a change in application of consensus as a process subordinated to the improvement of articles, and one focused on what consensus is being reached on, rather than how it is being reached. Neither is acceptable. I personally do not think that the explicit statement that the object of any consensus is about rendering improvement to the article represents a "change to a more authoritarian style". It does represent Wikipedia becoming more authoritative. The words may seem similar, but the meanings are quite different.
 * If consensus is just about imposing a behavioural model on editors, its doing what? Rendering free behaviour modification service? I don't need one. I behave well enough if other editors read their source before they use them, and use them according to the article quality policy standards. I do however express my indignation, otherwise known in Wikispeaky as "incivility" when this does not happen. I do not think that this is in fact incivility, and I don't care how many admins block me. If "ignoring all rules" is applied to Wikipedia as a whole, it can also be applied to the policy covering incivility if it is going to be applied to non-referencing. If titles are going to be changed by vote, I will choose to ignore all rules also and just summarily change them back. What's good for the gander, and all that....
 * On the whole, ignoring all rules is a very anarchic type pronouncement. Is Wikipedia an anarchy? I have seen a fairly logical proof that it is, and discussion here does nothing to dispel this--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 14:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:CON (10,430 bytes) / links
This page documents an official English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should follow.

Policylist

Silence and consensus

Policies and guidelines

Assume good faith

Civility

WP:NPOV


 * Third Opinions involve a neutral third party in a dispute among two editors
 * Mediation will involve a single neutral third party in a dispute among multiple editors
 * Requests for Comment invites greater participation
 * Village pump invites greater participation
 * Wikiquette alerts can help resolve personal problems
 * Resolving disputes offers other options

Help:Reverting

Editing policy

Help:Edit summary

Edit war

Page protection

Talk page guidelines

WP:BOLD

Help:Talk page

Disruptive editing

-

Please do not bite the newcomers

Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles

the Board

the Developers

Copyrights

Privacy policy

Foundation_Issues


 * See also


 * BOLD, revert, discuss cycle
 * How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance
 * Staying cool when the editing gets hot
 * WikiEN-l mailing list July 2005

Wikipedia policies and guidelines



suggested rewrite for lead
I changed the lead to read as follows (got reverted, which is cool, so let's take it up here). explanations and reasons given below:

"Consensus on wikipedia means that all parties concerned with a particular article agree to the result of an edit or series of edits, or to the content of the article as a whole. It is an idealistic concept which is often implicit and imperfect, but is central to the proper editing of articles, particularly with respect to achieving neutral point of view. Typically, consensus is reached as a natural and inherent product of the wiki-editing process: one editor makes a change or addition to a page, and then other editors will revise the edit, offer objections or make requests based on other wikipedia policies, engage in talk page discussion to iron out problems, or accept the change silently. More pervasive and more contested edits should generally seek broader consensus through RfC and other consensus-generating processes; This ensure there is adequate exposure to the community.  In particular, policy and process pages need a higher standard of participation and consensus than other pages.

Consensus can be a confusing term, so care should be taken with its use. Editors often use it in a loose way to talk about the current accepted version of an article, but in general if any editor objects to an edit or to article content - regardless of how unreasonable that objection might seem - consensus does not exist. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at a single place and time, cannot be confused with consensus in its ideal sense, and cannot over-ride community consensus on a wider scale. It may be necessary on occasion to administratively override the objections of given editors for any number of reasons, usually involving disputes over the inclusion or exclusion of questionable content in the encyclopedia. When this happens, it should not be seen as achieving or restoring consensus, but rather as an unfortunate administrative act that was necessary to cope with a failure of consensus."

reasons: basically, I rewrote this to get across the idea that consensus is a continuous process which involves finding agreement with other editors, and that the preferred mode on wikipedia is to go out of our way to achieve consensus. I think some of these revisions need to be made (particularly something along the lines of point 1). suggestions or comments? -- Ludwigs 2 23:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) this version actually gives a definition of consensus in its ideal form, which seems useful for an article on consensus
 * 2) it also focusses on consensus as something that has to be worked on continuously, rather than something that can be achieved (which will help resolve a lot of paradoxical disputes where editors try to assert some 'consensus' over the objections of other editors)
 * 3) it distinguishes (at the end) between a consensus on an article, and a version of the article that was imposed administratively (which is not a consensus, though it is occasionally necessary).
 * Ludwig, you've been active for about 3 months at WP. Welcome and thanks for joining the team! But maybe you should hang-out for a while and see how the processes work before trying to modify the core policies of the project.  --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't mind Kevin, he feels that newbies who get involved in policy discussions deserve to be bitten. I agree that it would be good to have a definition of consensus, instead of having the page dive straight into suggestions of how to achieve consensus.  The problem is that on Wikipedia, in practice, consensus has extraordinary variability; it's neither unanimity nor supermajority nor even necessarily agreement.  Your language of "all parties agree" is, in this regard, incorrect.  One stubborn person cannot, in essence, hold a page hostage until his or her views are represented -- if Wikipedia did function this way, it would not function at all.--Father Goose (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * FG, that's a bit harsh. Newbies are welcome to join discussions, but should not be trying to boldly rewrite policy pages.  --Kevin Murray (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure they should try. Then they can find out how things really work!  What people really need to understand is that consensus on a wiki is different from the common language meaning, or the idealized meaning used in other formal consensus decision making processes.  It is less determined by our ideals than by the reality of what happens when you put a wiki on the web and invite all comers to participate. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 05:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Kevin - I understand the sentiment: there's a value in any community to having a history. it establishes trust and familiarity, among other things, and so I can't really fault you for your suggestion. however, I don't see that as a reason for me not to try revisions that I think are useful.  at worst I'll learn something (which happens all the time); at best, I'll make some sensible suggestions. I happen to know a lot about this particular topic, and I'm not an over-enthusiastic kid or some ham-handed goon (which I know are recurrent problems on Wikipedia).  In short, I acknowledge your concerns, but I'd ask you to look at what I'm suggesting on its own terms, rather than prejudging it because you think I'm too new to say anything smart.


 * Father G, Sam - 'consensus' only has one meaning, and that is an idealism that is almost never achieved in the real world (well, outside of small groups: you can get a perfect consensus in any group that's small and intimate enough for face-to-face communication). most collective decision processes are designed to give an effective approximation to consensus while offsetting the various problems that are inherent to large groups (factionalization, miscommunication, troublesome individuals, etc...). consensus on a wiki is no different; wikis just create their own unique set of issues and constraints. what I had thought I was emphasizing in this edit (and maybe I missed the mark) was that people in a consensus system have to keep their eye on the ideal of consensus, even when they can't quite achieve it.  if they don't, then the system breaks down into factional disagreements (i.e. competition between the beliefs of groups that have little or no interest in coming to an agreement with each other), and consensus becomes nothing more than a buzzword that each group uses to explain why the other groups are all wrong. see what I mean, and/or how can I put that better?  -- Ludwigs 2  07:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you have to recognize that Wikipedia uses something more akin to rough consensus than the unanimity that you are suggesting (which, mind you, is only one possible definition of consensus. Further, Wikipedia sometimes uses words in different ways than they are used in the "real" world (cf. Notability).
 * I agree with you that "consensus" is claimed on Wikipedia about as often as "God is on our side" is claimed off-wiki. The only way to combat such bullshittery is to get more people involved, who hopefully agree with you.  (Attracting more participants to an issue that is of importance to you, however, is often difficult.)
 * You're also right that as broad a consensus as possible should be sought in preference to majority rule. This is what's wrong with Kevin's response above, in wanting to automatically exclude you from discussions such as these, when your ideas are potentially sound if not yet fully informed (and none of us can claim to be fully informed).  Such an approach takes patience and even benevolence on the part of the people involved, however.  Those are rare qualities, and in finite supply even for those who do have them.  Then again, Wikipedia is host to more fair-minded people than I've met in any other sphere, so, I am generally encouraged.  It's worth it to urge such benevolence on Wikipedia's editors, but unrealistic to insist on it.  With that in mind, what changes would you continue to suggest for this policy's wording?--Father Goose (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Part of the problem is that words develop into euphemisms at WP and then these become the titles for our policies and guidelines under the newly evolved definition. While Ludwigs may be more accurate in describing consensus in the real world, the definition here has evolved after much hard work and "consensus."  There is a fine line between improvements and constantly reinventing the wheel in such a way as to further destabilize an inherently unstable project.  Our goal should not be a utopia of personal growth, but producing the best encyclopedic source for our readers. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * An improved Consensus would further that goal.--Father Goose (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(re-dent) Father G.: I'm not disagreeing that wikipedia usually uses 'rough' consensus rather that 'true' consensus. that's normal and expected: a true consensus would be impossible here, like most places in the world, for practical reasons. all I'm trying to suggest is that this policy should remind editors that even as we use 'rough' consensus procedures, we should all keep in mind that what we're aiming for is 'true' consensus (even though that's impossible). otherwise it's too easy to get confused about what consensus is or means.

pardon the silly example, but this is kind of like like the fifth commandment: "thou shalt not kill" taken literally is impossible (we'd starve to death without killing, unless we got mana from heaven or learned to photosynthesize). But it's still a darned good orienting principle that we should aspire to.

with that in mind, I think the policy needs to give the goal would be to give a reader an understanding of the high-minded goal, and some explanations of how to steer actual discussion towards that goal as much as possible. I thought I'd given a decent stab at the first too points, but judging by reactions, apparently not. can you tell me where I've missed?
 * some description of the ideal form of consensus
 * an acknowledgement that the ideal form is not practical, but should still be aspired to
 * (eventually) a description of how consensus processes actually work in wikipedia (to the extent that's possible), and how they relate to or approximate the ideal form.

Kevin: I don't think I'm trying to reinvent the wheel; I'm not actually sure this particular wheel has been invented yet. the page is not well-developed. however, I can certainly see not wanting to disturb what is here too much. I trust, though, that we can keep that from happening. -- Ludwigs 2 17:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sincerely, welcome to WP. Nothing is well-developed here, because everything is a compromise.  "Consensu" seems to work OK at the articles, but it is a joke at the process pages (process pages are policy and guidelines). Have you heard that a camel is a horse designed by committee?  Well WP has more humps than a fancy house during Fleet Week.  Part of my sensitivity on this issue is that we just spent about three months rewritting this monster.  Sometimes stability is more important than perfection.  Cheers!  --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You missed the second point, by emphasizing the "ideal" almost to the exclusion of the practical (and actually practiced). But describing what is "actually practiced" in matters of consensus is deceptively difficult; "what usually happens" is not necessarily "what should happen", and even "what should happen" is not always what should happen.  And the more specific the guidance on any given policy page, the more likely it is to be wikilawyered.  As a result, sometimes you end up with pages like Consensus, which are a bit gutted, but also don't screw the wiki up too badly by saying the wrong thing.


 * I invite you to keep trying to improve it, though I don't intend to apply a whole lot of attention to it myself; it's too big a thing for me to wade into right now.--Father Goose (talk) 03:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Kevin: Haven't we seen how this works? Now you're the teacher, and Ludwigs is the student, I'd say. Ironically perhaps, the teacher often learns more than the student. I know it's hard to let people edit your hard work of many months (or even years in my case), but if I can survive it, do you think you can too? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I wouldn't say consensus is a joke at process pages. I thought my demonstration to you was really effective; to wit, you wouldn't be here to say such things if they were really true O:-)


 * ok - taking Father G.'s comments into consideration, how about a revision like this?

"Idealistically, consensus on Wikipedia means that everyone concerned with a particular article agrees to the content of that article. While it is pragmatically impossible to get explicit and overt agreement from everyone, consensus is expected as the natural and inherent product of the wiki-editing process: one editor makes a change or addition to a page, and then other editors will revise the edit, offer objections or make requests based on other wikipedia policies, engage in talk page discussion to iron out problems, until (eventually) all accept a version of the article (often silently). Consensus can be a confusing term, so care should be taken with its use. For instance, editors often use consensus in a loose way to talk about the current accepted version of an article, but this kind of status quo should not be confused with consensus in its ideal sense. Consensus can change as new editors and new information enter into the editing process, and a consensus shared among a limited group of editors, at a single place and time, cannot over-ride community consensus on a wider scale.

Wikipedia has various processes to help build consensus and resolve disputes that block consensus. Third Opinions Requests for Comment can attract uninvolved editors to give comments and help resolve differences in an article; Wikiquette alerts can help resolve personal problems or arguments that sometimes occur between editors; if necessary administrator assistance can be requested through various processes (see Resolving_disputes). Except in the most extreme cases, though, these processes serve only as public, neutral grounds to help build a consensus that failed in article editing; it is always best to try to build consensus first through discussion."
 * that second paragraph is what I meant by "actually practiced" - just a list of the various processes wikipedia has available, and how they are designed to support consensus rather than override it. does this version work better?  -- Ludwigs 2  21:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

well, I haven't heard back in a few days, so I'll try editing this in and see what response it gets. -- Ludwigs 2 21:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This material could be more appropriate for Silence and consensus perhaps. /NewbyG (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * the whole thing, or just particular bits? I guess I'm not seeing what you mean.  aside from the inclusion of a definition of consensus (and the second paragraph about consensus-oriented processes), most of this edit is just a rewrite of what was there before.  I think it's an improvement, of course...  what is it that you don't like?  -- Ludwigs 2  20:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * <sigh...> ok, I'm not getting any feedback here, so (maybe tomorrow) I'll try editing in a proper definition of consensus again, and see if that flies. I'll keep it minimal - maybe that will help.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Consider this to be yet another objection to your efforts here. If anything, this policy wants to explicitly disclaim the idea that consensus requires unanimity.  We frequently reach a consensus among all but one editor, but six or eight against one, especially when the proposals of the one are widely perceived as breaking major policies like V or NPOV, is still widely considered to be a consensus.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * again, the inability to distinguish between unanimity as an ideal (which is highly desirable) and unanimity as a criterion (which is impossible) doesn't do a lot of credit to the argument you're making. it's akin to saying that since 'true love' is an impossible ideal, we should treat all our personal relationships like financial transactions.  not a pretty picture...  -- Ludwigs 2  00:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you dig: "the logic may outweigh the logic"?
From Consensus: On 17:57, 7 September 2008, I changed seemingly confusing: "Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and the logic may outweigh the logic of the majority." to more explicit: "Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their strict logic, if present, outweighs a point of view of the majority.", because such seemed to be intention of the sentence. On 20:40, 8 September 2008, User:Jfdwolff reversed it. Do you agree with the reversal, please? 162.84.184.38 (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Or, in other words, is it true, that "the logic may outweigh the logic", if nothing CANNOT outweigh itself, please? 162.84.184.38 (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe we can we lose "outweigh" altogether? How about Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns. Convincing arguments typically sway community consensus. Or something like that. No need to emphasize a dichotomy with "majority" nor a metaphor with "outweigh". /NewbyG (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

definition of consensus
Newbyguesses - I'm curious why you removed that first couple of sentences that I edited in - namely: - "Idealistically, consensus on Wikipedia means that everyone concerned with a particular article agrees to the content of that article. While it is pragmatically impossible to get explicit and overt agreement from everyone, consensus is expected as the natural and inherent product of the wiki-editing process...". without arguing about the specific wording (which maybe could be better) I put that there because I feel that this policy needs some effective definition of what we mean by 'consensus'. without that, we leave a huge, gaping hole where any editor can pretty much assume that consensus means whatever it is he wants it to mean, and the policy becomes next to useless as a guiding tool. If you don't like what I wrote, that's cool, but please offer a suggestion as to how it can be revised so that we have an effective definition of consensus. -- Ludwigs 2 08:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is because consensus can not ever be defined by "overt agreement from everyone", that number being equal to the potential number of people with internet access, and therefore increasing (changing) from second to second. Consensus can never be defined by participants participants in the process. Consensus can only be defined by the basis on which it is achieved, known variously as evidence, facts, sources or some tangible, agreed upon constant--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 14:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This text WikiEN-l mailing list July 2005 used to be in WP:PRACTICAL on the project page. Now it's in the See also  section. Cheers, /NewbyG (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * mrg3105: that is a misunderstanding of the nature of consensus. "consensus can not ever be achieved by "overt agreement from everyone", for the very reasons you stated, but there is no other way to define it. Consensus is an Ideal type, and should always be treated as such, otherwise you're not really talking about consensus at all.  I think it's essential that we discuss this ideal type before we get into the details of how it is 'typically reached'.  without that kind of definition, this policy is effectively neutered.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

“Consensus” on wikipedia, as opposed to as in any dictionary publication, is a goal or an ideal (as per Ludwigs). It defies robust definition. We know it when we see it, but it looks different every time. If we could say with precision what consensus is, we could save the hassle of debate and negotiation and just go there. The next best thing is to describe the process that leads to consensus. There’s a history of difficulty here. Perhaps a picture would help? Do_you_want_me_to_draw_a_picture_or_something. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks SmokeyJoe, but that picture is wrong. In disagreement with Ludwigs2's contention that consensus defies robust definition, because it seems to me that the Wikipedia approach is more akin to the scientific method where its about testing theories (wikispeaky - "original research") against available data.
 * What is required to define consensus, is to rename the "Start" in the picture to "Author". The first "edit" is an authored article, with no preceding edits. What the author initially offers to Wikipedia is a theory. If the offering is completely lacking in cited references it is, despite the often obvious nature of the contents, original research until that data is substantiated from third party verifiable sources. How this is done, and what degree of agreement editors, the group that subsequently tries to turn theory into fact for, and even impart understanding of the subject to the reader, is consensus.
 * Another helpful definition is that of an "edit". Often used, in fact it does not mean change, but "a bringing forth" or "producing", and involves value adding. Opinion does not add value, data does. When editing is performed, that is not the grammatical or style editing, but content editing, effort is made to attain a better and clearer knowledge and understanding of the subject, and not just adding of data. Sometimes clarity can be achieved by removing data from the content.
 * Simply stating opinion or belief as to the truth or falsity of the theory, regardless of how many agree, is called theorising, not editing. Its right up there with the medieval belief in flat Earth.
 * Providing sources is called evidence. Verifiable sources are acceptable evidence.
 * Adding citations (preferably with page numbers) to the theory is called evidence-based substantiation of a theory.
 * When the group agrees that the evidence is correct in the way and degree of substantiation it offers, it is called proof.
 * When all possible implications of a theory have been addressed by offering proof, the theory becomes fact.


 * Consensus is therefore a process motivated by quality improvement by a group, which, through aggregation and summary, transitions unsubstantiated, or partly substantiated theory or opinion presented in the article into fact through use of perspective(s) and contextualised evidence derived from relevant and verifiable expert sources on the subject in the effort to verify all statements made in the article that may be questioned if they lack proof of being true or false.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 05:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Which picture is wrong? The current one?  There have been many pictures.  I dispute that is it required (by who?) to define "consensus".  Considering your offered definition: Do you think it likely that if you found a newcomer (the intended reader of this page), and told them this definition, that it would lead to improved contibutions and ultimately a superior product?  On the other hand, could that defination do damage, when a newcomer reads that wikipedia works by consensus, follows the link here, reads esoteric verbiage, and gives up?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * mrg3105: actually, I don't disagree with what you said here (though the way you said it made my head spin - lol). the process of achieving consensus is very much akin to the scientific method.  but you neglect to consider that the goal of the scientific method is create theories that are universally accepted, not to create theories that are true.  no amount of evidence in the world will prove that a theory is true, but sufficient evidence will convince everyone that they should use it as though it were true.  if scientists don't pay attention to that last point (that their goal is to create consensus among everyone that the theory works) then more often than not they end up in the fringe theory category, preaching their 'science' to a bunch of true believers.  likewise, if wikipedians don't keep focussed on the point that they are trying to create consensus among everyone that an article correctly portrays a topic, they will (more often than not) end up trying to push what they think everyone ought to believe is true about the topic, and that will just disintegrate into POV wars.
 * SmokeyJoe: I don't think it's difficult at all to say what consensus is. consensus is a state where everyone agrees that the article correctly portrays the topic.  it's impossible to reach, of course, but it's easy to state.  all I'm arguing for here is that we state it outright, and then get down to discussing the processes that move us in that direction.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I make no apologies for the rather complex definition of a rather complex concept. Although the concept of consensus has existed for some years, we seem to still be trying to formulate a definition, so five lines is an improvement on nothing :)
 * Given that we live in the world of miniaturisation, the definition is only likely to become smaller, but I did try to include all necessary ingredients.
 * I disagree that the goal of the scientific method is to create theories that are universally accepted. By virtue of being a theory they are never universally accepted, even if they are universally believed to be true. By definition, a theory that is true, is - a fact!
 * Evidential sufficiency is only applied to render a theory conditionally true, that is it is true within constraints of certain assumptions, conditions or conceptual environment. It still remains untrue if universally applied. Hence applied science, that seeks to identify all possible such conditions through experimentation. Consensus there, is also not required because it is also evidence-base, i.e. I believe it when I see it.
 * Category:Fringe theories is sadly lacking :), but surely would qualify for not applying the original research policy to its articles. However, a good many scientific facts have evolved from fringe theories, and have been turned into applications that seem to work just fine with no one laughing. "What, you want to light a fire below the decks of a ship?" - Napoleon responding to the first suggestion of steam-powered vessels.
 * "consensus is a state where everyone agrees that the article correctly portrays the topic" has the problem of not specifying why, how and within what criteria, so maybe between your one-liner and my five we can arrive at something less scary and more comprehensive?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 01:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * lol - oh please! theories should never be elevated to the throne of fact (to do that is to violate the very thing that makes science science, and render the whole enterprise futile). and my one-liner is not intended to specify how, why or what - it's only purpose is to set the lofty, unreachable state of true consensus in its proper place as the proper goal, so that when we go on to specify how, why, and what, we know precisely what they are aiming at.  this is good ol' Wittgenstein, my man: you cannot make any measurements at all until you first point out what it is you're measuring against.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Theories are elevated to the status of fact all the time.
 * If you don't intend something, don;t say it
 * Its hard to measure Wikipedia consensus because there is only one other example that I know of where a group of complete strangers with no means of evaluating their capacity for making true statements are called upon to provide a decision on a question. The one example is an abject failure at consensus, born of a society that has been in an economic recession since the 1980s, and is quite literally dying despite being one of the most technologically advanced in the World, so comparison is not easy...with Japan--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 12:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * mrg3105 - you are simply being argumentative now. if you simply want to refuse to make the distinction between ideals and practices, there's nothing I can do about that (except roll my eyes), but studied ignorance is no replacement for an actual argument.  point by point:
 * "Theories are elevated to the status of fact all the time." true, and every time they are it's a mistake. that's not the way science works.
 * "If you don't intend something, don't say it." read the entire sentence, because my intention is clearly spelled out in the latter half.
 * "Its hard to measure Wikipedia consensus because..." of some left-field analogy to post WWII Japan? hunh?
 * If you have a real point to make, make it, otherwise please stop trying to oppose the proper development of this page. -- Ludwigs 2  01:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs, you seem to be trying to write the article Consensus instead of documenting the actual practice as it happens in writing Wikipedia. This project page exists solely for documenting and guiding the actual practice. In actual practice, unanimity is not required. The definition of Wikipedia-consensus, as opposed to some other kind of consensus, therefore does not require mentioning either "overt agreement" or "everyone". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing: you seem to be misconstruing the nature of a policy. Policies are not there to 'document actual practice', but rather to 'offer guides to best practice'.  'best practice' is itself an idealistic term (since it is assumed that not all editors will innately know what best practice is), and on this particular topic (consensus) 'best practice' is meaningless without some discussion of the ideal towards which consensus reaches.  there  is plenty of space and opportunity in the policy to discuss your' real world application', but we need to determine what we are making 'real world applications' of before we do anything else.
 * I am really shocked by the amount of resistance I am getting towards adding 'ideally, consensus involves the agreement of all concerned parties'. what is it about that phrase that you object to? it would be nice if you'd spell it out, point by point, so I can disabuse you of whatever worries you have here.  -- Ludwigs 2  23:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually Ludwigs2, policy is the attempt to prevent repetition of past errors based on history of previous practice.
 * Policy can never approach the ideal state because of the factor of change which is endemic to the functioning of Wikipedia.
 * In order to formulate policy on Consensus in Wikipedia, one has to firstly define


 * 1 Its purpose (as applied)
 * The ideal purpose
 * 2 Its process (as applied)
 * The ideal process
 * 3 Policy constraints
 * 4 Foreseeable change factors
 * As I and many others see it on daily basis, and the example of the "Soviet invasion of Manchuria" is but one, is that consensus is misused as a form of vote. Therefore its purpose as applied now is to force change despite article quality policies. Therefore it its process is not about what consensus establishes, but how a group of co-believers incorporates their opinions into Wikipedia articles. There are many such examples, and in fact they dominate Wikipedia articles and consensus formation daily. Just watch it happen if I start nominating unsourced articles for deletion, or deleting any block of text or section in articles which are unreferenced. Most editors don't even have a clue about how to reference, which is not suggesting an entire book as a substantiation of contributed text.
 * Now quite frankly I don't know you from Joe Blogs, and can only form an opinion based on your communication, as you do on mine. What you don't seem to realise is that anything that is not referenced, i.e. anchored in some recognised and authoritative published source, anything you add to the Consensus policy is likely to be completely revised sooner or later, with the emphasis on sooner. This is at once a constraint and a factor in writing Wikipedia policy. Most Wikipedia policy is not worth the code it takes to display it because it is not authoritative. It is worthless as policy because it changes. Policy is meant to prevent dynamic reflections of policy writers, and help those following it, the executors - that's ME and the vast bulk of other editors who should not have to look over their shoulders as we author and edit articles for an appearance of a group of administrators who can impose their will regardless of any policy because they can. When this happens, policy is subsumed by anarchy...--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 02:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs, your idea about how Wikipedia policies happen is entirely wrong, and is directly contradicted by many long-standing pages. This is not a top-down bureaucracy. Policies document actual practice. See, for example, what Policy says: Policy change comes from three sources: In practice the first option is the most effective...
 * 1) Documenting actual good practices and seeking consensus that the documentation truly reflects them.
 * 2) Proposing a change in practice and seeking consensus for implementation of that change.
 * 3) Declarations from Jimmy Wales, the Board, or the Developers, particularly for copyright, legal issues, or server load.

See also PPP: It is often preferable for policies and guidelines to spring up organically through codifying existing practice, rather than to be imposed from the top... and ''Frequently, we simply write down what already happens. Anything that describes the usual outcome of a common process, is a good guideline for the future...''

I've noticed over the last few weeks that several different people on several policy and guidelines pages have politely suggested to you that you get a bit more editing experience before trying to fiddle with Wikipedia's policy pages. Perhaps you will consider their suggestions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the definition consensus is defined as a lack of active opposition. I think this is wiktionary's definition. --Surturz (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Flaw in the flowchart
The flowchart shows a pathway: "Was the article edited further" → No → "New consensus". Actually, very often, the fact that no new edits were made indicates only that people are tired of arguing and/or unwilling to edit-war, but not that consensus has been reached. There are plenty of pages here that have reached a kind of stable equilibrium that nevertheless has no consensus. —Angr 21:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not so much a flaw in the flowchart as reflection of a real weakness of wiki editing. Can you offer a suggestion for a solution?  The best I've seen is to point people to Silence and consensus.  If you don't oppose it, you haven't oppsed it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a slightly different issue, though. I don't mean you've never opposed it, I mean you have opposed it over and over again, but the people who disagree with you have also opposed you over and over again, and eventually you just give up trying. Once you give up trying, the page reaches stability, but it would be a huge mistake to treat the stable version of the page as having even temporary consensus. —Angr 09:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're misreading the chart. If you're talking about a change someone else has made then you should look at the branch "Was the article edited further?" → Yes. You're supposed to read the chart in respect to your own changes, not to third parties' changes. --Gutza T T+ 21:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. In that case, you'd probably end up at "Seek a compromise", after deciding you don't agree with the edit. The fact that you voluntarily choose not to seek a compromise (for the zillionth time) is IMO outside the scope of this page. (Not that I don't agree with you, I've been there as well.) --Gutza T T+ 21:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Angr, is this a situation where you and others have debated something to death without reaching a conclusion? In that case, the flowchart is correct in that the process can go on forever and that eventually reaching a consensus is not guaranteed.

Alternatively, is this a case where some editors are routinely defeated in debate, but they (or others?) return again and again to revisit the same question. In this case, either the page does not properly document a common perspective, or you are dealing with a troll, and I would suggested using the method of slow reversion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking mostly of the former, though the latter could arise too even without anyone trolling. The point is that sooner or later, the page doesn't get edited anymore (or not with respect to the contentious material), but the mere fact that the page is stable with respect to that issue does not actually mean that consensus has been reached. The chart implies that lack of further editing implies that consensus has been reached, but in fact that is not always the case. Sometimes the lack of further editing merely implies that side A has given up trying. No compromise, no consensus, just an exhausted retreat from the battlefield, leaving side B in charge of the page. Side B's version of the page stays untouched for months and months, but nevertheless it doesn't have consensus. —Angr 12:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I know what you mean. Something that makes it worse is the auto-archiving of talk pages.  Perhaps some "disputed" tag would accurately record the situation?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, though sooner or later those get removed too when no discussion of the dispute is still happening, because it's all been discussed to death already. —Angr 13:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Odd. It's always possible to reach *some* consensus, if only to represent all sources fairly and let the reader decide (this works equally well for articles as for policy). There will always be an NPOV position that can be taken (so far I have never seen the NPOV concept actually outright fail. If you show me an example to the contrary, I'd be very interested indeed!). People often get hung up on false dichotomies or on their own arguments. If this happens to you, you can try several things, like try a different perspective on for size, or get a little help with the whole consensus shebang! :-) Remember, you're not here to fight, wikipedia is not a zero sum game, always try to seek a way for everyone to win, or surely all will lose. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, not everything is an issue of NPOV, and sometimes dichotomies aren't false. One example I'm thinking of is the whole "ß vs. ss" issue in articles like Wilhelmstraße, Franz Josef Strauß, and several dozen others. There are only two ways to spell it, Wilhelmstraße and Wilhelmstrasse, with no possibility of compromise between them. (Well, technically, writing it in all caps, WILHELMSTRASSE, would be a compromise, but that would not be an acceptable article name either.) So the article gets written with one spelling, and then there's an RM to move it to the other spelling, and sometimes the RM succeeds because during that particular week enough people from one side show up to make the "vote" 2 to 1 or more, and sometimes it fails because the "vote" is less than 2 to 1, and sometimes the "vote" is less than 2 to 1 but the article gets moved anyway despite the absence of consensus. And from time to time someone points out that this decision shouldn't be made on a case-by-case basis, as that results in inconsistency, but rather there should be a decision made at the policy/guideline level that will apply to all articles. But since the two sides are about evenly split, no consensus can or will ever be reached. Nevertheless, at some point, people give up arguing about it and the articles settle down and are stable at one spelling or the other, giving the illusion of consensus where in fact none exists. —Angr 07:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In the case of requested moves, no one tried to find consensus in the first place. RM is simply broken. Note that RM has no policy behind it, and half the time doesn't even follow any discernible polling guideline. If you spot a requested move happening on a page, I've found that it's possible to simply remove it (at least early on when someone has just posted it), and people won't protest too loudly. You can then proceed to actually find consensus. :-)
 * Removing an rm later is a bit iffy, since it may contain many people's opinions. You can still remove the poll header and footer, and start a discussion on the basis of opinions. Finally, you can always simply follow the normal structured discussion methods for polls, if by some miracle the poll is actually properly structured for once. O:-)
 * Even splits are pretty normal. This is where you start to actually negotiate with people. In the case of page names it's all just ego-wankery though, because we have a perfectly serviceable redirect system. Don't bother with those at all, and/or kill them on sight. (Of course having multiple 'equally-good' names analogous to hard links would kill that entire class of debate all at once, but no-one has gotten around to writing that ... yet ).


 * So the example you came up with is a system that actually doesn't do consensus so well (or at all), and you can just wipe it if it gets in your way (because -as a rule of thumb- consensus typically wins out over other systems). The reason this system still exists is because some people enjoy feeling important. But now you know what to do: Either just let those people have their fun and waste their time; or if you need stuff done right now and your time is precious to you, kill the process. People will accept that, if you explain what you are doing clearly and carefully.  Do you have more examples?  --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * An example from policy: the notorious WP:NFCC. Much drama over whether it should say "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" or simply "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". Lots and lots and lots of discussion with no consensus. Finally, this edit with a laughable edit summary. Since then, the page has stayed stable with respect to the contentious clause, giving the illusion of consensus where none exists. But in my first example, I wasn't asking what to do in such cases; I was merely pointing out that page stability is not actually an indicator of consensus. —Angr 09:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That particular sentence is a redundant partial restatement of NFCC#1 O:-). There doesn't appear to be a current discussion. As the discussion has moved to archive, you could place the sentence back in, and see what happens as per BRD (thus reviving the discussion), but you may feel that you already have a list of people to discuss with. Find the strongest opponent and figure out their opinion in detail (if you don't know it yet). If you think it conflicts with the foundation issues, explain your reasoning to them. Find out whether they object to the foundation issues (which states simply that all content must be GFDL or CC-BY... any use of non-free-images already contradicts that :-P but exceptions prove the rule and all that.), or if they merely object to your reasoning. O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're still missing the point. I'm not asking what do to resolve this, I'm just pointing out that the stability of the page over the last few months creates a misleading illusion of consensus. As for the phrasing of the NFC criterion itself, I'm past caring. At some level, the contested phrase is just a restatement of the first part of the sentence anyway: the original phrasing amounted to "If A then B, and if ¬B then ¬A", and now it just says "If A then B". —Angr 05:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you can try to change it any time, right? But will you succeed? --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC: definition of consensus
An apparently irresolvable debate over whether to include a definitional statement such as: "Idealistically, consensus means that all concerned parties agree to the substance of an article or edit, though in practice this is rarely feasible. Debate seems to revolve around the following points: I am on the Pro side, and may have misconstrued the Con side - please edit the above to give a better (single-line) synopsis, if necessary.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Pro: Policy should reflect 'best practices', and no discussion of the 'best practices' in consensus is meaningful without some recognition of 'true' or 'ideal' consensus
 * Con: Policy should reflect 'actual practices', and since ideal consensus is never achieved or achievable, it should not be mentioned or encouraged.


 * Con. In reliable sources that talk about human decision-making, "consensus" is usually opposed to "unanimity", in the sense that "unanimity" requires agreement by all concerned, whereas "consensus" is less than that. Here's a sample quote and citation:
 * Whereas previous treaty revisions had a unanimity requirement, the convention, as we demonstrate, relied on "qualified consensus" as its decision-making rule, something less than unanimity but more than a simple majority. —
 * With this in mind, it is better to use the word "unanimity" to describe the situation where everyone agrees, in contrast to "consensus". Eubulides (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose trying to pass off unanimity as the only form of consensus. Wikipedia policies explicitly attempt to document the real world.  See WP:PPP.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * please don't misrepresent the issue - I'm trying to be fair about this, so should you.
 * In my humble opinion a request for comment can not be used for a policy since all participating editors are involved parties! Having said that I suggest that reflecting in the policy what happens is the first step to acknowledging the practice, whether good or bad. Comparing this practice to best practice outside of Wikipedia (conducting comparative analysis) would be the second step in creating a policy definition of the ideal practice. Adopting this would require consensus...which can not be achieved because of the constant change in consensus group membership. The only relatively stable policy (even if not an ideal one) would therefore be one that is closely integrated with other policies, as was my suggestion in relationship to the article quality policies (sorry to harp on about it) because interdependencies tend to create strengths in policy creation by using multiple points of view and therefore a more critical thinking approach--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 15:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Pro. this addition creates a proper frame for understanding what consensus means.  without such a frame, it is far too easy (and far too frequent, in my experience) for editors to mistake a local consensus (between a handful of editors about a particular version of an article) for a real consensus (something which is generally acceptable to readers and editors alike).  this leads to edit-warring as editors try to defend a local consensus against outsiders, and general confusion as one groups of editors tells another that they can't disagree because it violates consensus (when in fact disagreement means there's no real consensus to violate).  this addition would help to lead editors back towards finding consensus, and away from aggressively defending consensus. -- Ludwigs 2  21:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry Ludwigs, but your question is phrased terribly.
 * I wouldn’t take serious anything that begins with “idealistically”.
 * The use of “all” renders the definition certain to fail, either outright, or through subsequent weird redefinitions of words like “party”, “agree” or “substance”.
 * Why should it be policy that a certain “practice is rarely feasible”? If this is a statement of fact or opinion, it belongs in an essay.
 * --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * just stating common sense here. we all know what consensus means in the ideal, and we all know that it's not particularly practical; I'm just asking to make that explicit.-- Ludwigs 2  00:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose By Ludwig's definition, if we have one person who is convinced that camel urine cures cancer, then we're stuck from removing it.  This is so ridiculous, I'm not sure if I should laugh, cry, or think it's time to give up on Wikipedia.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 15:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Laugh, cry, give up, then come back? ;-) You can convince the Camel Urine dude that your position is more solid, or you could include Mr. Camel Urine's sources if they exist (if there's sources, then you gotta represent them), of if there's no sources *and* Mr. C.U. is being entirely unreasonable (and only then), you can ignore Mr. C.U for being unreasonable, or finally, perhaps Mr. C.U. is actually right, you should never discount that option ;-) . It's a sequence of steps, that starts with assuming good faith. As long as there is good faith, there's always going to be a valid consensus everyone can live with. You only give up on consensus once you establish that good faith is not present, and all means of establishing a good faith rapport have failed. But often enough, people act in good faith, and who knows, you might learn something new about ... euh... camel urine. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk)
 * A better definition of consensus (and I'm sorry but I forget who said it first, possibly Avi) is something like this: the version that causes the least amount of dissatisfaction among the smallest number of editors. Another definition is a version that everyone is willing to accept, even if they don't actually like it or agree to it. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you've phrased the first one wrong (shouldn't it be 'greatest number'?), but I'd be perfectly happy with the second, if that's preferable. this is just intended to encourage an expansive definition of consensus, rather than a constrictive one that can be abused.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: look guys, don't think that I'm suggesting this because I'm going to get something out of it. I know how to deal with people who misuse consensus as a way of pov-pushing, and I have no shame about making lives miserable when I see it happen.  I'll be perfectly fine if this change isn't accepted; I might even enjoy myself more if I rid myself of the illusion that other editors take consensus seriously.  however, I happen to think wikipedia will be a nicer place if there is gentler means of encouraging editors to use broader rather than narrower definitions of consensus.  wikipedia is what we make of it - you should think about what you're making of it as you ponder this change.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to be a "nicer place" as it is not an online social network site. It is meant to be an authoritative reference source. Ideally if all contributors to same article are on the "same page", litrally, there shouldn't need to be a need for consensus--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 03:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not surprised that the latest person to seek a "broader definition" is an editor that regularly finds his views excluded under the standard Wikipedia application of this concept. I'm sure that most experienced editors have seen previous attempts to redefine consensus as "something that includes my view"; perhaps it should be added to WP:PEREN.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that would particularly discourage such people; the people who continually try to redefine consensus probably genuinely and actually believe that there's a problem with it and it needs to be addressed. People on that thin line between OR/SYNTH and just "Way out in left field" aren't going to think it applies to them.  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  06:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Mu! (aka. Framing the debate): Ask the right question and you'll get the answer you want?. :-P Both pro and con are incorrect, so this is a false dilemma.
 * (Perceived) consensus does exist on items for varying amounts of time: see: WP:SILENCE, so the con fork does not hold.
 * The pro fork seems more correct, but it once again assumes that there exists such a thing as imperfect consensus, implying the existence of a dichotomy, so this fork is also incorrect.


 * Both forks are begging the question, by assuming that there is a dichotomy between ideal and non-ideal consensus. So this is a biased survey, since no matter which fork you pick, you always have to concede the assumed dichotomy. :-P


 * Actual consensus is simply the sum of preferences of all the participants. Whether it is possible to act on that consensus is another matter entirely


 * (if some people want to do A, and others want to do not-A, you're kind of stuck until someone changes their mind; this is where negotiation comes into play. You must convince others that your position is correct. For all the most important stuff on wikipedia -our content- we have plenty of time, and we can afford to do it this way, and can't afford to not do it this way .) .


 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Incidentally, one of the reasons why we demand consensus and not polling, is to eliminate this exact fallacy. (this is especially important for content, but other parts of the wiki benefit as well.)


 * Neither Concensus is agreement, if this can't be found with civility and reasoning then dispute resolution. LeeVJ (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Pro a definition, as all the talk of how to go about achieving it is meaningless if there is no objective standard, particular as disputes arise not just over the content itself but over what the consensus is regarding content. CON the exemplar definition supplied as absolute agreement is no more consensus than a simple majority is consensus.LowKey (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Definition of consensus on wikipedia is A: Local consensus: Absence of disagreement with the current state of a page. B:Global consensus: The average position of all wikipedians on a particular topic. C: Projected/predicted consensus: If we were to try to get everyone to agree to a particular compromise on issue x right now, that outcome is the projected or predicted consensus. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Objective measurements for each are:
 * Local consensus: Act on it. If there are no edits, comments or reverts of your edits, you have local consensus, albeit temporarily (see WP:SILENCE, WP:CCC for limitations). This is an absolute measure.
 * Global consensus: A: Hold a global survey (unreliable), B: Write a policy/guideline/essay and poll on that (VERY unreliable/ deprecated) C: interview a sample of people, and discuss the subject with them in depth. (reliability is usually good enough) D: Act on it locally, then see under Local Consensus. Similar limitations apply, note that it might take a while for enough people to become aware of your edit!
 * Projected consensus: see methods under global and Local. Typically you use projected consensus when applying WP:IAR, or other situations where you're in a hurry. Some methods may need to be used post-hoc.


 * At all times, actual consensus is attained through action and negotiation --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus being replaced by silence at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles)
Somewhat along the line of the previous dispute is the current happenings at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles). Where would you draw a line if you do not have unanimity? Folks at WP:MEDRS think that they can dismiss 3-4 editors as crackpots and still have consensus. Despite several editors firmly stating their oppose, "the consensus" continues to hold, because there is only one person (me) who is willing to revert the majority. Thus WP:CONS is being de facto replaced by WP:SILENCE. I wonder is WP:SILENCE is our real policy nowadays. Paul Gene (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, WP:SILENCE is not a solution, rule, policy or guideline, but a simple statement of reality. Does that make it akin to a law of nature?
 * Can't you convince even one of the majority that you are not entirely wrong? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Make a post at the village pump; get more people. <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  15:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The accusation that "they can dismiss 3-4 editors as crackpots and still have consensus" isn't an accurate description. All the complaints against this guideline have raised issues with fundamental policy: the definition of consensus; the preference for secondary sources; the idea that newspapers are at the bottom of the pile in the quality hierarchy of sources; that learned academic sources are the top of the pile. All these issues are found on policy pages and have been applied to medical articles in that guideline. IMO those editors who have problems with WP policy should seek to change the policy first and stop edit warring on a minor guideline page. Colin°Talk 21:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * regardless of your opinions, Colin, it is clear that there is as yet insufficient consensus for raising this to guideline status. and we are not edit warring on a minor guideline page; we are trying to keep you from edit-warring an essay into guideline status. Guidelines have a higher standard for consensus; stop huffing and puffing and start rewriting it into a form that we can accept as a guideline.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Other than an utterly minor edit, I haven't edited the guideline since its promotion. Prior to that, my edits were consensus-based or uncontentious changes. You won't find me edit warring on this or any other page on WP. In contrast, you have reverted the guideline tag twice today. Rather than edit warring, you might light to discuss what changes you would like. Colin°Talk 22:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I invite the editors here to look at the RfC discussion on making this a guideline if they have any concerns about this. You'll find it here. Since Paul gene mentions the opposition, let me summarize it for you:


 * User:Una Smith, an excellent editor that appears to oppose the guideline because it supports the WP:PSTS section of WP:NOR, but later says that she opposes it simply as not being a significant improvement over WP:RS. I freely admit that it doesn't tell an editor of her quality anything that she didn't already know.
 * User:Paul gene, who opposes its status as a guideline because it supports the WP:PSTS section of WP:NOR and supplies practical advice (e.g., use medical reviews instead of original case studies) for complying with NOR.
 * User:Mihai cartoaje, who said "It is unclear what are independent, or third party, sources for the purposes of Wikipedia." Further comments indicated that the editor thought that WP:MEDRS's preference for secondary sources (required by WP:NOR) meant that it opposed WP:RS's preference for third-party sources.  Furthermore, the editor seems uninformed on the general subject, asserting, for example, that only physicians are allowed to publish articles in scientific journals.

The "maybe fourth" person in the opposition didn't actually voice an opinion during the RfC:
 * User:Nbauman, a professional journalist, opposes only one part of the guideline: its stated preference for citing actual scientific papers instead of a newspaper story about the scientific paper.  He appears to support the rest of the guideline.

So the opposition is two people that are unhappy because it fails to contradict existing policy, one person that doesn't seem to understand what he's talking about, and a partial opposition from someone who feels his profession is being insulted.

SmokeyJoe, the answer to your question is "no". Which is not to say that Paul hasn't tried, at length, to convince people that MEDRS should contradict NOR. He has since attracted a "supporter" in the person of Ludwigs2, whose efforts are doubtless familiar to you. Those opposed to having MEDRS directly contradict NOR are not impressed.

Celarnor, the now-guideline was listed at several WikiProjects, announced at WT:RS, and opened as a formal policy-related RFC. The first voice in favor of guideline status was on 05-August-2008. The discussion was closed on 01-Sep-2008. I don't think that anyone can claim that the community had no notice of it or no opportunity to comment.

Paul failed to get support for his proposal that MEDRS contradict NOR. Rather than conceding defeat, or trying to re-write NOR, he opened an RfC on whether the previous RfC paid enough attention to his views. I think it is time for him to decide whether his continued whinging is actually good for Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * WhatamIdoing - you seem to have neglected my objection that it goes against Rs, which clearly states that news media should be considered reliable sourcing - would you like me to provide a diff, or can we just take it as read since I'm saying it here? and I'll also point out that your comments seem to be focussed on the editors (one who feels insulted, and one who doesn't know what he's talking about), rather than on the content or on the fact that they are objecting.  if you'd like to make this personal, please say so, otherwise let's keep the issue focussed. -- Ludwigs 2  22:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The record is clear that you did not participate in the original discussion. I have mentioned that you have since been recruited as a supporter.
 * MEDRS does, however, comply with RS#News, specifically the bit that says, "For medical and scientific facts and figures, it is typically better to cite the scholarly research behind a newspaper story, rather than simply citing the story itself. Newspapers tend to overemphasize the certainty of results, and often fail to adequately report methodology, error, risks, and costs associated with a new scientific result or medical treatment." Or did you not actually read the whole section?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * so let me get this straight: you are insulting me by suggesting I haven't read a version of rs:news that Eubulides (your friend and ally) edited in about a week or so ago? see? you really think it helps your case when you deliberately change policy in order to make it easier for you to change other policies? now I have to go revert that crap that got added, so that we can have a proper discussion about it.  and you wonder why I think you're a manipulative tag-teamer...
 * why don't you guys try proper discussion, rather than running around trying to screw with the system all the time? -- Ludwigs 2  23:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? You think we aren't willing to have a proper discussion? Then how do you explain these recent discussions about the value of the popular press in writing about medical facts?


 * A small problem on this point, solved in discussion
 * Nbauman unhappy that newspapers are deprecated; many responses
 * Nbauman talking about limitations of press releases
 * Eubulides starts a ~19,000-character long discussion to revise a description of the popular press in MEDRS
 * Further improvements on that point

I'm just not seeing the lack of "proper discussion" here.

However, none of this conversation has anything to do with WP:CONSENSUS at this point. Can we agree take it back to WT:MEDRS, and leave this page to its proper purpose? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Whatamidoing misrepresents my position. Indeed, my goal is to bring MEDRS into the agreement with WP:NOR, while the majority at MEDRS plucked the parts they liked from WP:NOR and ignored the ones they do not like. Thus they created a worsened, unbalanced and prescriptive version of existing guidelines. One most telling example is that they have taken the following sentence from WP:NOR "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." but refuse to include another one that balances it: "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary or secondary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages." Paul Gene (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

''"In the case of policies and guidelines, Wikipedia expects a higher standard of participation and consensus than on other pages." "Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality - remaining neutral in our actions in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on." "Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the "logic" (point of view) of the majority. New users who are not yet familiar with consensus should realize that polls (if held) are often more likely to be the start of a discussion rather than the end of one.'' They dismiss it as wikilawering. They effectively provoke edit war by saying that if there no active reverts than there is a consensus (even with several editors opposing). And when dissenting editors start reverting them, the majority blames them for editwarring. Paul Gene (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Similar selectiveness and disingenuousness characterizes the MEDRS majority approach to the WP:Consensus guideline. First they dismiss it as irrelevant, then say that consensus does not have to be unanimous, then that having three (and by now five) opposing editors is still a consensus. When I say that WP:CONSENSUS states that
 * I don't have much time at the moment (sorry, real life, real work, and all that), but possibly I can help for a short while. Could you briefly summarize for me what your primary concern is here? Why do you consider that concern to be genuine (what is your logic)? --Kim Bruning (talk) Note how I'm actually following the instructions here? Let's see if they work! :-) 
 * Sure. Majority at WP:MEDRS trumps this policy with impunity by ignoring the opinion of five editors who object to the promotion of WP:MEDRS to the guideline status. Now, how you can help me? Paul Gene (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That looks like meta-reasoning (it's a reasoning about instructions for working with reasoning ) . Assume I know the instructions already! You claim the instructions weren't followed properly. I can help you by (in your estimation) being the first person to follow them.
 * Maybe I can make my question more precise: I'd like to know the meat of the situation: What is your reasoning as to this change to the page itself? Is it good? Is it bad? (I think you believe it is a bad change?). Why is that so? What is the logic behind that reasoning, and why do you believe the logic to be valid? --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Note that WP:WIARM recommends you have the answers to these questions at the ready at all times. So I'm not being unreasonable to request them. :-) 
 * I do not think your questions are helpful. Why do not you answer a question? How many people with good arguments do you need to object to stop calling something a consensus? Paul Gene (talk) 10:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It could be as little as one, but it depends on the context and quality of the argument. The questions I'm asking allow me to ascertain the content of your argument, and the context and quality of your argument. Once I have that information, I'll be able to give you a useful answer to your question. I'll also be able to determine my own course of action, should I choose to act. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Note that if you fail to answer these questions within a reasonable time frame, it is reasonable to say that you have forfeited your stake in the discussion entirely (see WP:WIARM for some amount of context as to why, though it could be explained better).
 * ← I think it would be good to get back to the original question on WP:Silence, if that's all right with you Kim :-P
 * WP:Silence is really an adjunct to consensus, and not an absolutely essential feature per se. Silence does not trump consensus; it's proof of consensus (much the same way that a blue sky is proof that it isn't raining (but, of course, that doesn't mean it will never rain ;-) ). It's nothing more than that. If people are yammering at each other, then obviously there is no consensus (even if people insist!), at least in theory. But in practice, if people are yammering at each other and no-one is editing the page, then silence applies. In other words: Forming consensus happens between editors, but the actual consensus happens between edits (at least so far as the wiki is concerned; if people are reverting and yammering, then silence doesn't really apply until that rigmarole has stopped) Xavexgoem (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Rather than bore the decent folks here with my arguments, please see the original discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles). My point is that the objections to the guideline are argued at least as well as the majority side (also see the discussion of Ludwigs vs What below). In addition to the three or four original dissenters there is now Eversince [] and Celarnor [] The supporters of majority are mostly "voters" in the sense that they have no arguments in favor except "we like it". For example, Support guideline status. --Arcadian (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC); Support Great article that deserves wider use. --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Support. Would make a great addition to RS. -- Fyslee / talk 19:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC) or Support: This should be a guideline simply because it encapsulates current best practices. MastCell Talk 22:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC), which reminds me Vladimir Lenin's "Why Marx's teaching is correct—simply because it is all-powerful". In these arguments you will also see no attempts on the majority's part to find a compromise, so they cannot even claim to be acting in good faith. Did I answer your question? Paul Gene (talk) 11:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For Celarnor's "opposition" to the guideline, see No, I think it's perfect as it is... you do realize I support the guideline, right? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

(Undent)I'm reading over this discussion, and I'm a bit confused because I see a lot of jargon. being slung back and forth and references to policy without specific explanation. Is there anyway you can bullet point exactly what your objection to the guideline is?--Tznkai (talk) 23:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Question to ludwigs2 and WhatamIdoing only
Ludwigs2, forgetting policy for a moment: :-) Do I understand correctly that you believe that (unspecialized) news media are reliable sources for medical articles?

Alright, so ... What is the basis for that belief?

And how about when you compare things: Do you read professional literature in (a) particular field(s)? If so, which? How does the literature in your field compare to articles in general newspapers?

WhatamIdoing: I understand you believe that popular press is not so valuable? Could you answer the same questions too?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I keep up with a narrow subsection of the professional (biomedical) literature. (I also avoid that field on Wikipedia, and decline to be identified as an available expert.)
 * Judging from my personal experience and that of my colleagues: The popular press reports are pretty poor, although mine is not the most misrepresented field.  I personally no longer accept requests for verbal interviews from reporters, and I think that's pretty typical for my peers.  If your quotes are accurate, the context is wrong; if you proof and correct the entire article (which I've done before), then the headline will be wrong (has happened to me before).  I've been misquoted or otherwise misrepresented by local reporters as well as by "science experts" at the Associated Press.  Typically, they overstate the case for the research, although sometimes it's just simple errors, like getting a name wrong or a timeline off.
 * Note that I worked for a small newspaper for two years, so I've got a decent idea of what the everyday error rates are for more accessible topics, like local events. The errors that I see in science articles are worse.
 * Furthermore, when the information presented is technically accurate, it is frequently incomplete. A non-expert won't realize that the report risk rate is the relative risk instead of the absolute risk, for example, or that the "number of cases" is annual incidence instead of prevalence, and the difference can be dramatic.  According to an ex-colleague of mine, who is a science writer for a major media organization in Bay area, the reason for that is that they write for a middle-of-high school understanding, and these "unimportant details" are beyond that level.  In effect, they assume that I don't need the details because I'll go read the real papers, and that people that won't go read the real papers can't understand the details.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds so familiar. Narrow field expert getting interviewed by the popular press... either: The expert regrets or is embarrassed by the whole event; or the "expert" is a crackpot doing self promotion.  Sometimes the organisation includes a public relations unit that produces media releases.  These also tend to be better, but stilla bit embarassing in the gross oversimplification that occur.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And I never get to the independent reviewer that is quoted as advising caution in interpreting the results, a position that I think is probably less likely to be misrepresented (since the journalist is specifically looking for a quote to "balance" the enthusiasm projected in the rest of the story). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Admitting a certain WP:TLDR, this nonetheless appears to be completely the wrong venue for the discussion immediately above. Moroever, I would note to Paul that consensus cannot be trumped simply by stating opposition. Consensus is not the same as universal agreement. To be quite frank, this comes across as mere forum-shopping. There is nothing here that I see in anything you have raised to suggest that consensus has not been achieved. That five editors continue to raise objections simply serve as a reminder that, in the event of disagreement, once consensus has been established it is important to work within that framework. Eusebeus (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Look! here's a comment for Kim, so he doesn't feel left out. But we really shouldn't be discussing this here.
 * Consensus according to dictionaries have several meanings. One - is simply majority, which does not fit here. Second - general agreement or concord; harmony - which is what we should use. Consensus at WP:MEDRS was not reached to begin with. There have never been general agreement or harmony. Eusebeus would perhaps call rape a consensus, and victim's desire to have redress at court - "forum shopping". Paul Gene (talk) 10:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a vile, tasteless and disgusting sentiment. You should retract that comment as it reflects extremely poorly on you. This looks like forum shopping to me and judging from that response I cannot blame other editors for finding your vexatious engagement wearisome and tedious. Eusebeus (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oi! Easy guys. We're all adults here. Let's try to cooperate as best we can. Going from this point forward, I expect everyone here to set a good example for others, ok? That applies to both of you! Even if you can't assume good faith in your heart, a sane and intelligent wikipedian is supposed to continue to at least pretend to assume good faith until all available avenues have been exhausted. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC) (Fortunately for me and wikipedia, those avenues far from exhausted here. Unfortunately for you two, this means you have no excuse to misbehave!)
 * I am unsure why you would somehow lump us together since my comment was perfectly civil, at which point a revolting and frankly incomprehensible equivalency (my argument = calling rape a consensual act) was brandished by this other fellow. Saying someone is forum shopping is simply saying the truth. Making an equivalency to rape as a consensual act by way of demonstrating (falsely in my view) logical fallacy has absolutely no place here and frankly Kim, voices like yours are the ones that need to be raised in such instances to make clear such expressions are unacceptable. Why on earth are you encouraging a WP:RS discussion at WP:CON? Eusebeus (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How is that your "forum shopping" accusation is civil? Rape is revolting and I am sorry that you support its equivalent at WP:MEDRS. And a consensual sex is a perfectly good analogy for a consensus. One "no" is enough in the case of sex and should be enough to define "no consensus" at MEDRS. Paul Gene (talk) 11:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't actually ask you the question though ;-) . I'm not looking for general opinions on press reliability. I am looking for very specific answers and opinions from WhatamIdoing and Ludwigs2, and will interpret them within the strict constraints and framework of the consensus process. --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC) thanks for thinking of me! :-D
 * *pokes Ludwigs2 and hopes he'll hurry up!* --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Kim - sorry, the irritation these arguments are causing me is beginning to outweigh any possible value that could come out of the discussion, and so I've been trying to ignore it all. as much as it offends me to let people win debates through cheap, stupid tricks, I'm really starting not to care.


 * but to answer your question: I'd never say anything quite that simple-minded. the fact is that news media (like any professional information source) stake their reputations on providing factual and accurate information.  some news media don't care about their reputation, of course, and those are generally not reliable by wikipedia standards (and we can dismiss those from this conversation). For news media that do try to maintain their reputation, however, articles they write on medical issues should certainly be considered reliable sources, because we should certainly assume that they have done their fact-checking.  now clearly a news report is not going to go into the detail that medical journal article will; this is a given.  but that does not reflect on the reliability of the source; merely on the capacity in which it can be used.  further, in some cases news reports will be better sources than journal articles, for the following reasons.
 * Journal articles are more likely to be primary research, and more likely to encourage editors to engage in synthesis (usually by extrapolating from the findings of the researchers in a way that the medical community has not yet done)
 * News reports are more likely to be accessible to the average reader, whereas journal articles are often jargon-filled and specialized. this specialization (further) may require a degree of analysis and interpretation, which (again) encourages editors towards wp:syn
 * journal articles are likely to reflect the particular POV of the medical community, which is by no means unbiased. it would be next-to-impossible to create NPOV articles on some topics strictly from the reports present in medical journals
 * my field is a different case - I'm a social scientist, and there's droves of lay-commentary on social scientific issues in the popular press. most of it is garbage, but a lot of it is well-crafted synthesis of things my colleagues (broadly speaking) and I work on. so, would I use something from the New York Times as part of my own primary research?  no.  would I recommend something from the New York Times as an acute analysis of some social scientific issue?  yes, I would, and have.


 * clear enough? -- Ludwigs 2  05:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

By contrast: I really see no value in promoting reliance on the popular press in the specified instances.
 * 1) This is why MEDRS directly and strongly discourages the use of primary scientific literature (which, BTW, is what User:Paul gene is unhappy about).  "I could choose to comply with this advice while simultaneously directly violating that other advice" is not an argument against the advice given.
 * 2) This could go either way:  the illusion that you really understand (the journalist's version of) an issue could encourage taking liberties with the source, whereas knowing that you're in over your sneakertops is likely to encourage you to quote the source directly so that you're least likely to get it wrong.
 * 3) The text in question says, "A news article should not be used as a sole source for a medical fact or figure."  If a fact or figure is accepted by the medical community, then I don't really think that it's likely to be a significant matter for NPOV presentation.
 * 4) * Example of a fact: People exposed to high doses of ionizing radiation have an increased risk of AML.
 * 5) * Example of a figure: Fever has a sensitivity of 86% and a specificity of 25% for diagnosing influenza.

I do see value for popular press once the topic moves outside the realm of scientific facts, which is why that is not prohibited, or even recommended against. In fact, there's an entire paragraph in that section that names a number of situations in which citing the popular press is good ("social, biographical, current-affairs and historical information... [and explanations in] plain English"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * WhatamIdoing - I sincerely doubt that the majority of editors on Wikipedia can effectively distinguish between primary and secondary research in academic journals. Academic journals provide articles written by professionals in the field, who inevitably have their own research agendas; even a simple review can be laden with the prejudgement of the author.  I mean, I know how to make the distinction (I have the background in methodology necessary to separate an established piece of data from an author's synthetic appraisal) but most people are going to take anything written in an academic journal on faith.  in fact, most individual articles in journals (even peer reviewed journals) are primary research - they are not treated by the academic community as established until they have weathered a certain amount of criticism and gathered a certain amount of attention (through third party citations and/or replications).  however, I have yet to see  wikipedia editors pay any attention to whether a particular article is established in the discipline; mostly they just cherry-pick articles for content, and disregard the actual impact of the piece.


 * of course, if you are talking about mere facts (of the 'x% of people who use chemotherapy survive cancer' sort), then academic journals are excellent sources. but then again, mere facts of this sort are often picked up and reported faithfully in news media as well, and I can't see how it makes any difference whether we report the fact from a news source or a journal source, except that the news source is clearly a secondary, third party source, whereas the journal article may not be.


 * andby the way, your hedge about the 'illusion of understanding a news media article' is meaningless - news media write to be understood. they may be outright wrong, but they are not subject to misinterpretation the way an academic journal is.


 * You seem to think that it's Wikipedia's purpose to provide cutting-edge research or analysis to its readers. by contrast, I'd be tempted to say that any academic viewpoint that has not begun to filter its way into news media and popular press probably shouldn't be presented in wikipedia at all (on the grounds that it's untested, unestablished primary research).  wikipedia is not here to prove medical points, or to answer difficult medical questions; it is here as a repository of commonly available understandings on a given topic.  I commend your desire to provide 'the truth', but it is inappropriate to push that too far in an encyclopedia.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The depth of knowledge of Wikipedians constantly surprises and impresses me. I know I've been here so long that I ought to be used to it by now. But I keep getting surprised, and it's a pleasant surprise, and so I suppose that's why I keep coming back. :-D


 * I had never been aware of the huge differences in perception of sources between the medical community and the social sciences community.


 * I've seen really cool connection graphs, that show very low inter-disciplinary citation levels (if I remember correctly... I have a pretty good visual memory though.. I wonder if I can find those graphs back) I wonder if the differences in treating sources has anything to do with it.


 * I'm going to look into that. If people attach very different value judgments to things with similar labels, well, that's a deep semiotic problem[*] undermining consensus here. Interesting! --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)  [*]A wise man once said that one who has a deep semiotic theory is truely blessed. So I jump on the rare chance when I can actually claim to have one! :-P 


 * Oh! I was sort of right, sort of wrong. See: maps of science ... (I find this representation very useful). Social sciences and medical sciences are somewhat linked, but sociology is in a corner, mostly screened from biomedical subjects by Mental health, (and a tenuous link to Brain research) . Probably you can both figure out where on the map your specialisms lie, and how closely they are linked  (if at all) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, you assert that at least some Wikipedia editors can't tell the difference between the primary and secondary literature. Editors at MEDRS (except Paul gene) agree with you, and that's why MEDRS goes on at some length on that very point. The guideline is supposed to help them do just that. It provides some advice and warns them that it's trickier than just searching for the word "review" in titles. The fact that the use of secondary literature hasn't been pushed in the past doesn't mean that we shouldn't start improving immediately.

(Kim, it may be useful to you to know the following terms as they're used in the field: Lab records=primary source for a given fact.  Original paper reporting lab results=secondary source, but primary literature.  Review paper (say, comparing half a dozen similar original papers)=tertiary source, but secondary literature.)  Wikipedia's definitions of "source", as laid out in WP:NOR, line up with the "literature" numbering scheme used by scientists, not the "source" numbering scheme. By contrast, in the social sciences, such as history, a personal diary or newspaper article written at the time of an event=primary source; the original work based on those primary sources=secondary source.)

Both the evidence of the scientific literature and the collected experience of the scientists and medical personnel at Wikipedia indicate that popular press reports do not get "mere facts" right every time (see, for example: a documented weight change of less than five pounds was widely reported as fifteen pounds because "everyone knows" that first-year college students gain fifteen pounds). Much more importantly, such reports are often critically incomplete or ultimately misleading. The scientific literature tells you that fever has a sensitivity of 86% and a specificity of 25% for diagnosing influenza, and the local newspaper says that "if you feel bad and have a fever during flu season, then you have influenza." Need more examples? Read, , , , , , , ... I could go on, but I think you get the point.

About "'illusion of understanding a news media article", I find that we have a miscommunication based on misidentification of the object of the pronoun it: I mean the illusion of understanding the actual scientific facts, based solely on the fact that you felt that you understood the newspaper article.  I expect an average person to understand a popular press article; I don't expect them to magically know the critical information that the reporter left out of the article, or even to know that the reporter might have left out information that is necessary to correctly understand the situation.

I have no interest in pushing cutting-edge research into Wikipedia. In fact, one of the goals of MEDRS's version of WP:PRIMARY is to keep unconfirmed, cutting-edge research out of Wikipedia by strongly preferring proper secondary literature (which takes months, if not years, to appear) to primary literature -- or to a newspaper article that was written immediately after this morning's press conference to announce said primary literature. "Green tea cures cancer" sells newspapers (or at least the New Scientist magazine), but the scientific literature had a different take on the matter. I believe that we are normally best off ignoring the immediate hype in the popular press and taking the advice of WP:There is no deadline to heart while we wait for secondary scientific literature to appear. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * let me say first that I enjoy discussions like this - I wish I experienced more of them, and less of people telling me to shut up and go away... <sigh...>


 * actually, I asserted that many wikipedia editors (and most readers) will be unable to accurately distinguish primary from secondary research. and please note, I am not objecting to MEDRS as an essay at all, and not even objecting to it as a guideline in its entirety; but I am worried that it will get misused in its present form.  and a little more pushing on the secondary, third-hand issue would make me happier with it.  however, the issue we are dealing with here is specifically the use of news media vs journal articles, so let's keep it focussed on that.


 * there is no question that the news media get it wrong sometimes - everyone gets it wrong sometimes; that's a part of life. but we need to be careful about how we determine what is and is not correct.  examples (using yours from above):
 * 5lbs vs. 15 lbs:if the news media reports a 15lb weight gain for college students and journal sources report a 5lb weight gain, then obviously we have to defer to the journal sources (and likely we need to mention the news sources, just to show that they got it wrong). but this should not be done uncritically: if it's only a single journal source that is not widely cited or critiqued, then we should probably treat the 15lb figure from news sources as more reliable (since it, at least, has been exposed to a broad range of potential critics).  for all we know that single journal item is flawed research, or inapplicable for some methodological reason, and we cannot ourselves evaluate its relevance.  seriously, even if we have the technical know-how to evaluate it, we can't do it.
 * fevers and flu:as you say, the scientific literature says "that fever has a sensitivity of 86% and a specificity of 25% for diagnosing influenza", but this is not something that an average reader is going to understand immediately, if at all. a reliable news source would likely not say something as simple-minded as 'if you have a fever, you have the flu'; more likely it would say something pragmatic like 'fever is one of several symptoms that indicate you may have the flu'.  this is something that readers would understand, even if it's not perfectly accurate.  in that case, my personal instincts would be to lead with a reliable (and understandable) news source, and then add the scientific material in as an expansion and explanation (i.e. I'd be informative first, and precise second).


 * and let's not forget, the news media is sometimes the only source for some information. I read a fascinating article about the relationship between cost and effectiveness of prescription drugs a while back.  that was in a newspaper; it would never make it into an academic journal (even though it is medically relevant), because no medical researcher is going to get himself blackballed from corporate grant money.


 * with respect to your 'illusion' thing, I did misunderstand you. but I'm still not sure I agree.  the "illusion of understanding the actual scientific facts, based solely on the fact that..." strikes me as an epistemological universal, not related specifically to news articles.  people always think they know things - some wise-guy used to say that ignorance is knowledge without thought - and we can't put ourselves in the position of trying to second-guess all the bizarre things that people will do with the information we provide, not without driving ourselves crazy.  most people in the world do not have a good grasp on scientific reasoning, and most would not know what to do with the full details of a piece of scientific research.  what they want is an effective summary, with a few avenues that they can pursue for more details, if they so choose.  in other words, the information that's critical to a scientific understanding of a topic is not necessarily critical to a lay understanding, and its omission from news articles is not necessarily a bad thing in all cases.


 * really, though, I think I agree with you on the last paragraph, where you say " I believe that we are normally best off ignoring the immediate hype in the popular press and taking the advice of WP:There is no deadline to heart while we wait for secondary scientific literature to appear." the only real difference I see between our perspectives is that I believe the news media can and does present decent, effective, readable reports that can sometimes have distinct advantages over academic journal articles from the perspective of wikipedia.  Yes, keep out the 'Green Tea Cures Cancer' splurges, just the way we'd keep out opinion pieces and primary research; but I don't want that to extend to a blanket assertion that news media is somehow 'lesser', because I think that's a misrepresentation.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The guideline is only a guideline, and like any guideline there is bound to be exceptions, but the general rule is accurate as stated and doesn't need to be watered down. In medicine, if news media are "the only source" for some fact, then that fact is quite suspect. Let's take the example given in the previous comment, namely cost-effectiveness of prescription drugs. There are many scholarly sources on that subject, and they can and should be used in preference to news reports. See, for example Ovsaq et al. 2008, Roy & Madhavan 2008 , and Tierney et al. 2008 . All these sources are recent scholarly reviews and they are not hard to find. Eubulides (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * errr... with respect to "In medicine, if news media are "the only source" for some fact, then that fact is quite suspect" - you say this because...?   if (a) media source 'M' says medical statement 'X', and (b) 'M' is generally considered to be a reliable source by wikipedia standards, and (c)  there are no other sources which contradict or modify statement 'X', then why are we judging that 'X' is suspect?  in fact, I don't think we should judge it as suspect, because that would mean that we wikipedians are evaluating statement 'X' in contradiction to the only reliable source we have.  of course if 'M' is not a reliable source (say it's the National Enquirer), that's an entirely different kettle of fish, but as I've been saying, we cannot as wikipedia presume that the source is not reliable simply because it's from a news media.  For example, if the New York Times were to run some article on the effectiveness of medical marijuana, and there were no scholarly articles on the effectiveness of MM (say, for the sake of argument, that no one was studying it for legal reasons), then the NYT article would be the best source we have, and because of the NYT's journalistic reputation we would have to consider it a reliable source.  yes?  -- Ludwigs 2  22:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The short answer is no. The reliability of a source (for Wikipedia's purposes) always and entirely depends on how it's used.  If The Gray Lady publishes a story that basically says, "There's been no proper research, but we interviewed four people (who just happen to be selling this product) that assert that marijuana is good for whatever ails you," then I think we have to consider that as highly suspect in terms of the actual scientific facts.  As to the opinions and assertions of the individuals pictured in the story, I would consider it reliable.  "Opinions of people running a medical marijuana farm" and "accepted scientific facts" are not the same.
 * Which brings us to another point: if a purported scientific fact does not appear anywhere in the actual scientific literature (broadly defined), then it is very reasonable for an editor to conclude that it is not actually a scientific fact.
 * Ludwigs2, there are several conversations like this going on, and they all run together after a while, but the common theme is "I wish it included text that it already includes". Would you, just for my peace of mind, please assert here that you have (recently) actually read every single word in MEDRS, straight through from start to finish?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

For goodness sake folks. This is the talk page for suggesting changes to WP:CONSENEUS. It is not a mediation forum for editors working on guidelines. Colin°Talk 13:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd been thinking about that. Would anyone object if this conversation moved to a page in userspace?  User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox is available, and we could cut this whole conversation out of here and paste it over there.  Alternatively, I suspect that Kim's questions have been answered to her satisfaction, and we could just stop.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing - I've read the entire article (whether that includes every word is more difficult to assess), and I'm tired of you using insults rather than reason to make your points. You have your agenda, and you're going to push it through without thought regardless what I say, so at least try to be polite about it.  I mean seriously - when I make changes to the essay itself, they get reverted with the request that I take them up on the talk page.  when I take them up on the talk page, I run into a stonewall of strawman arguments and insults.  go do whatever the hell you want to do, and stop pretending like you really care about getting things right.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I object to moving this discussion elsewhere. I would like to second the opinion that Whatiamdoing displays a marked lack of good will. Stonewalling problem does exist at MEDRS, and the main argument against any changes there seem to be not the merits of a proposal but "you are trying to change something we have had here for years" Paul Gene (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Paul, I propose moving . Do you feel like you have any standing to object to three people, none of whom are you, moving a conversation between just the three of them, to any place that they like?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think he has a perfect to object: this issue isn't just about you and me, no matter how much you would like to keep the matter quiet and private. -- Ludwigs 2 21:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ludwigs: Well, that's the thing. When building consensus, you start out with 2 people, and then add in a 3rd, and a 4th, etc, until everyone is heard. We have plenty of time, don't worry. :) Alright ? --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Moving a discussion to a publicly accessible page, with the move properly announced, is hardly an effort to keep things "quiet and private." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I propose moving this entire discussion (beginning "Consensus being replaced") to WT:MEDRS. It contains no discussion of the text of WP:CONSENSUS and so fails WP:TALK. A stub link will remain pointing to the moved text. I am not interested in whether Paul & co "object" to this move. Frankly, WP:TALK suggests "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article", putting this messy attempt at forum shopping straight in the bin. Unless a neutral observer can point out why relocation would be bad move, I shall do this later. Colin°Talk 08:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Ignoring other editors' opinion will only unleash another edit war like you already did at WP:MEDRS. This discussion thread was started by Kim and is related to the topic of this page. Moving it elsewhere requires consensus like everything else on Wikipedia. The fact the you oppose WP:CONSENSUS and find it irrelevant does not help you. Paul Gene (talk) 11:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are threatening an edit war, then I won't move it. Somone else might. I have archived this discussion. We do not discuss disputes over the application of policy on policy talk pages. Colin°Talk 11:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Colin has correctly read consensus, and he may move or archive this discussion as he sees fit (May I suggest to WT:MEDRS?). Paul Gene is politely reminded that people who edit war will be blocked.

This doesn't mean that people won't be heard! Rather, it's not the open-and-shut case I thought it would be. There are some legitimate concerns that need to be addressed!

At the same time, several participants need to learn more about how to build a consensus. Consensus doesn't happen magically by simply stating your position on something (although that's a good start!), nor can consensus be replaced by any particular standard procedure (cargo cult consensus, anyone? ;-)). Consensus means work. Not much work, but work nonetheless. Each of you please do some homework and prepare for yourself:
 * Your current position as to how MEDRS should be formulated (and reasoning why)
 * Some idea of where you're willing and able to compromise on that position.
 * Your current view/ best estimate of where each of the other participants stand, singly and as a group (and reasoning why).
 * Your current best estimate of where other participants are willing to compromise.

This is the minimum information we will need to start building a consensus. A dispassionate appraisal of each persons' information-set (+ a little creative diplomacy) typically leads to consensus in short order.

We will reconvene at a convenient location (I suggest WT:MEDRS) and get to work there. As the next step, you will each be asked about the above 4 points, so make sure you have them ready. Don't bother showing up until you have your homework done (a friendly admin shall block you for disruption if you try - apologies to those who already have their ducks in a row). But once you *have* done your homework, you are most welcome! I think it will be interesting hear what you all have to say :-) Let's get to it! --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC) For those who haven't done so before, it's a *very* good idea to prepare the answers to these 4 "consensus questions" beforehand for every time you click Save page. Start today!


 * Comment I suggest that perhaps the users consider filing for mediation or arbitration as there are some behaviour issues here which extend beyond the consensus process; arbcom can perhaps remedy these along with the substantive issues, which I think clearly goes beyond the purview of anything Kim or anyone else on this board can bring to the table, as evinced in the comments by Colin above. Eusebeus (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC) Striking my comment per Kim's point below. I don't care one whit about this topic and so shall leave it to those who do.
 * The case as it stands is pretty simple to clear up, and doesn't require arbcom intervention. I'd simply ask arbcom to remit the case back to me, and they'll likely agree. As for mediation, you might get a curious reply if you went there; folks are already well aware of the case. O:-) In the mean time: Do you have your position prepared? Thank you! --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (in reply to strikeout). Well, ok, I'm sorry to see you go in that case. You're always welcome to come back later if you change your mind! --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll move things to WT:MEDRS in 24 hours or so. Unless there are further objections? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, Colin has started on WT:MEDRS. I wonder what to do with the content above now. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)