Wikipedia talk:Hypothetical Future Consensus

Dang it, despite repeated checking, I misspelled consensus in the title. Can someone please fix that?the1physicist 15:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC) On second glance, I accidentally capitalized the last two words.the1physicist 15:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreement
I agree with this proposed guideline. I see too many editors taking advantage of WP:IAR. The worst problem that I see with WP:IAR is that it is used as an excuse to ignore the rule of civility, which is not a rule that may be ignored. Robert McClenon 17:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the thrust of this idea, but the policy should have a clear heading, something like: "Consensus can only be considered in the present tense" or "Speculation on future consensus not allowed". I think this should be an absolute hard rule. I strongly abhor any efforts by admins to act as soothsayers in determining consensus; nobody can know the future. &mdash; Stevie is the man!  Talk 20:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

what?
This is based on a flawed premise. As Jimbo has made repeatedly clear, the product is the one and only goal of Wikipedia. Everything else is secondary. &mdash; Dan | Talk 17:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide a link to his opinion and/or is that still his opinion? Thanks.the1physicist 20:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Policy?
This page is tagged as a proposed policy, but I can't identify the specific change to Wikipedia policy being suggested. Could someone clear this up a bit?

Right now, it's more of a philisophical statement, and one that makes some very general (and rather iffy) pronouncements. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a proposal for a new policy. I have tried to do everything according to How_to_create_policy, but I might have missed something.the1physicist 20:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you may be starting from a flawed premise here. "The main idea is the wiki process. Many editors have fallen victim to the idea that the product is more important than the process, but in the case of Wikipedia, the product is the process."
 * Our goal with Wikipedia is to create a reliable and free encyclopedia
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its goals go no further
 * (both from WP:POL)

Wikipedia is a project to produce an encylopedia which happens to use a wiki. It is not a project to do something cool with a wiki that happens to produce an encyclopedia. Yes, we make use of the wiki system to a massive extent; we are heavily shaped (for the better) by the process we choose to use. But it is not the reason for the project! If the product was inseperable from the process, it would be meaningless to talk about pushing forward to print... Shimgray | talk | 16:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well actually, many people are against a print version of Wikipedia (for various reasons). Anyhow, I think the term "collaborative process" more accurately represents what I meant.  That said, myself and many other people believe the collaborative process is much more important than the finished product.  Furthermore, what about the other wikimedia projects?  Certainly the use of the wiki process isnt just a coincidence.  The idea is that a collaborative process is proven to get the job done, and we can't have rogue admins (or regular users) going against concensus under the guise of IAR.  This will (and has) lead to people getting pissed off and leaving the project, which is far more detrimental than if the article/item in question was temporarily left in a diminished state.the1physicist 20:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe that someone has to have authority to make a decision. One feature of highly progressive organizations (possibly including this one) is that since one persons position is just as valuable as someone else's, anyone (possibly with a few friends) can take over. I've made a few contributions, but I don't feel that I have any moral right (either by my self or with a few friends) to change the direction of the project away from what the founders (and funders) want. Morris 21:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That's not what is being proposed. The proposal simply aims to prevent people from overriding consensus.  I think you're mistaking a consensus that is truly wrong (due to sock puppets, etc) with a case where an user simply chooses to ignore the consensus.the1physicist 22:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with the proposal and with the intent behind the proposal. I believe that product and process are two sides of the same coin. The concept of consensus and how it is arrived at may also need to be examined. The founders of the American Republic eschewed political parties. The crossed their fingers but soon had to hold their noses. Cabals exist within Wikipedia. Cabals manufacture consensus. Should cabals be regulated? Should they be required to register? Dass 11:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Reinventing the wheel?
I would note that we already have a Wikipedia-namespace page on consensus: Consensus. Among other things, that page tries to address what exactly we mean by consensus on Wikipedia. It also mentions cases where it is or is not appropriate to override an existing (apparent) consensus. Perhaps it would be best to retire this page and move any further discussion over there. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This proposed policy isn't about more clearly defining consensus. It's primarily about preventing one of the main abuses of WP:IAR.  Namely, WP:IAR is increasingly used by 'bad' admins as a justification for overriding consensus (under the guise of future agreement), and sometimes for things worse than that.  I suppose we could just add a clause to WP:IAR.  Actually, WP:IAR is in serious need of a rewrite anyway.the1physicist 16:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm a little bit concerned about the presumptions that you're making with that statement, but I'll leave it to this&mdash;I'm troubled that you seem to be conflating policy and consensus. WP:IAR can legitimately be used to override the former, as long as it is tempered by a healthy portion of common sense and an expectation that actions taken may be reviewed.  WP:IAR should never be put forth as a way to override the latter.
 * In other words, Ignoring All Rules is precisely that: ignoring rules. It doesn't say 'ignore other people', or 'ignore consensus'.  It may be appropriate to clarify that point in WP:IAR.
 * Do you have some specific examples in mind of what you mean by 'admins...overriding consensus (under the guise of future agreement)'? It might help clarify for the rest of us precisely what you're hoping to achieve with this proposal.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd really, really like to avoid specific examples, because people will tend to look at it as some sort of personal attack and dismiss the entire concept. However, if you insist, I will. The idea for this policy came from User:Tony_Sidaway, and from the general naive assumption of good faith (when interpreting IAR) on the talk page of WP:IAR. Specifically, Tony has a habit of undeleting articles at his discretion, believing that if Afd'd, they will pass consensus. Sorry, I don't have a specific link, but I'm sure your search skills are just fine. Let me make it clear that Tony's actions really aren't all that bad. However, the line of thinking is what disturbs me. More importantly, a vast portion of the comments on WP:IAR said that IAR was okay because users will use "common sense" when interpreting it. The problem is that people are abusing WP:IAR (sometimes intentionally). Hence, the purpose of this proposed policy is to prevent one of the primary applications of WP:IAR.the1physicist 00:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Slippery slope
I don't understand the intended purpose of this proposed policy at all. It simply looks to be an attack on the actions of some admins and is based entirely upon a premise which is nothing more than the slippery slope fallacy. DreamGuy 15:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Er, what?
What exactly is being proposed here? "People shouldn't take IAR too far"? "People should be held responsible for their actions"? Or else what? How is this not redundant with some of the caveats at WP:IAR? Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 16:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not at all clear on what is being proposed. Is this proposed policy endorsing the use of a "hypothetical future consensus" as a reason for administrative action, or is it saying that although some people do this, no one should? Obviously whether I support or oppose this proposal depends on what it means to say. DES (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

As predicted. Everyone, this is not an attack on User:Tony_Sidaway or anyone else. For the 1000th time, the purpose of this policy is to prevent one of the main abuses of WP:IAR. If anything, the slippery slope is WP:IAR which is being used as a blanket excuse by certain shady people to do anything they want. If you've read all the comments on this page, I don't know how to make it any clearer than this. Personally I'm not entirely sure we even need a separate policy for this. In all actuality, we probably just need to make the clauses/exceptions in WP:IAR much more well defined.the1physicist 04:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * My point is that the current proposal text could as easily be read as an endorsement of the kind of actions Tony Sidaway has recently taken -- as IAR -- We really mean it -- as it could be read as suggstign that such actions are not a good idea. At the moment it says that people often act not on the basis of an existing consensus, but in hope of a future consensus. It doesn't say that this is good or bad, or sometimes good and soemtimes bad, with some sort of guide to when it is which. It gives no rule or guideline for future action It seems to be merely an observation -- sometimes people do this. i take it that you feel that this is not, in general, a good idea. If so the proposed policy need to say so, clearly and explictly, or there is no point to it. I will try an edit to this effect. DES (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * ..Oh, I thought that was clear, but I guess it didn't explicity say so.the1physicist 17:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * ...I don't think anyone is reading the proposal as a personal attack; I'd say that most of the editors commenting here either are unsure of what precisely is being proposed, or that they suspect that the proposal is redundant.


 * With respect to better defining WP:IAR&mdash;I'm not sure if that policy is amenable to such modification. Kind of runs counter to the spirit of the thing, ya know?  Perhaps more emphasis on the importance of WP:DICK and respect for consensus would be appropriate....  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The "R" in IAR stands for "rules", not consensus. That editors sometimes inappropriately claim IAR as a justification for various bad things is not a reflection on the worth of IAR, it's a reflection on the actions of those editors. Anyone who'd use IAR as a justification for going against consensus is just plain misguided at best. Friday (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * But the point is that it happens anyway (not often, but happens none-the-less), so we need a rule (or clarify IAR) to prevent it.the1physicist 17:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Redirected
Since corollaries of a policy should be listed at the main policy page, and since this page never saw all that much debate in the first place, I've redirected it to IAR. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 11:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)