Doesn't help who? It ''does'' help the person in question, if they can find people who agree with them. [[Special:Contributions/86.160.222.156|86.160.222.156]] ([[User talk:86.160.222.156|talk]]) 18:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't help who? It ''does'' help the person in question, if they can find people who agree with them. [[Special:Contributions/86.160.222.156|86.160.222.156]] ([[User talk:86.160.222.156|talk]]) 18:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
: LOL. It doesn't help establish true consensus, of course. --[[User:Born2cycle|B]]2[[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|C]] 19:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
: LOL. It doesn't help establish true consensus, of course. --[[User:Born2cycle|B]]2[[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|C]] 19:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Consensus page.
Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially if there are new arguments or circumstances that were not considered before. On the other hand, if there is recent consensus on a subject, it can be disruptive to bring it up again.
Editors may propose a change either by discussionorediting. That said, in most cases an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion. Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") because such explanations provide little guidance to the proposing editor.
I put it to you that the current fourth sentence of CCC is generic wp:BRD advice. I also assert that the proposed two new CCC sentences are the same. So my proposal is to leave those sentences out and replace the current fourth sentence with "For more about modifying consensus by editing see Wikipedia:Consensus#Reaching_consensus_through_editing." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I think I want to embellish this proposal. So I've put proposed text above for the community to accept or improve. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the core question... in cases where a previously established consensus exists is the "Consensus through editing" method best practice? I would argue not. I think that in such situations, the "Consensus through discussion" method is best... (and I would stress the "Discuss first" variation). Blueboar (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BB, do you agree that the current guidance at CCC does not establish a best practice as between editing and discussion? If so, do you agree that the above draft is an acceptable re-phrasing of the current guidance? If you have answered "yes" to both of these questions then my last question is: Do you agree to the proposed language being substituted for the current CCC language (leaving open the core question of whether additional text should then be added to that language to recommend discussion over editing)? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a reason to deny that discussion is better than editing when there is an existing consensus, noting that the salient sign of an existing consensus is a previous discussion. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RC, in this talk section I am just trying to see whether the community agrees that my proposed language is an improvement over the current language (without changing the meaning). You and Blueboar may want to open up a new talk section with a title of something like "Show CCC through discussion as best practice" to see what the community thinks about adding that content to CCC. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You asked the question above, so I think the question you raised is if this is already included. My response is that maybe it is because there's no reason to believe the contrary in the context of CCC. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do I agree that the above draft is an acceptable re-phrasing of the current guidance?... Nope, I don't find it acceptable. I don't think we should tell editors that they can change previously established consensus by bold editing. That method works for general editing, but it should be avoided when there is a previously established consensus. We should stress discussion instead.
Note - I am not advocating that we explicitly disallow changing a consensus through editing ... I am saying that we should omit mentioning it in this section (because it is so potentially disruptive). Blueboar (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of CCC is that it serves to remind us that, while as a practice we accept that a consensus exists because an edit has gone unchallenged ("longstanding consensus"), a new consensus can form; no version is final. I see that you are saying there is something implicit in the name to suggest that this where we cover all aspects of changing consensus, but the project covers consensus formation above. Perhaps the section should be renamed ("No consensus is final") and returned to its place as a subsection. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the section is that consensus can be changed... it just takes more work (and more discussion) than forming an initial consensus. Blueboar (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How to "establish" consensus
Would those who want to encourage editors to discuss before proposing a modification to an "established" consensus please say what makes a consensus "established"? (I have suggested that it is a consensus arrived at by a prior discussion. But I am evidently wrong.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus becomes "established" in two ways: 1) by specific discussion on the talk page. 2) by the text in question remaining static over a significant amount of time (this is what people are referring to when they complain about "long standing" text being changed without discussion). Blueboar (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what kind of "cite" you are looking for... it's more a fact of actual practice... the fact is, undiscussed changes to "long standing" phrasing are commonly and consistently reverted on the grounds that such changes go "against consensus" (especially when it comes to undiscussed changes to policy/guideline pages) I can supply hundreds of examples of people doing so, if that is what you are looking for. Blueboar (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily... an established consensus is presumed to be the current consensus... pending the establishment of a new consensus. This is why we say that consensus can change. Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the meaning of your sentence does not change if we take out the word "established." (An established consensus ispresumed to be the current consensus... pending the establishment of a new consensus.) Am I missing something? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I would think so. Not sure. But I disagree that changes to long-standing text can necessarily be said to be against consensus. That only makes any logical sense if the changes being proposed to that text have been considered before. If not, then there is no existing consensus, one way or the other, concerning those changes. (Nor can long-standing text be said to enjoy consensus support if noone has previously paid it any attention - and we must surely be aware that much of Wikipedia's content has never been critically examined by significantly more than one person.) Victor Yus (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is nothing illogical about saying that a longstanding consensus exists even if not every possible alternative has already been considered. 'Longstanding' does not mean after infinite consideration. It means longstanding. And in this case, it is sufficient for almost all purposes for the consensus to be pre-existing. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... A lot depends on the specific page, and how reasonable it is to claim that "no one has paid it any attention". If we are talking about a little watched article on an obscure topic, I can see Victor's point. However, if we are talking about an article that has lots and lots of people watching and discussing it (especially most policy/guideline pages), I don't think it is reasonable to say that "no one paid it any attention". In those cases, if text has remained static for a significant amount of time, I think it reasonable to say that the text reflects consensus (whether that consensus has been overtly expressed or not). Blueboar (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In that situation, yes, but only with respect to matters that have been considered. We can see (especially on these policy and guideline pages) that in spite of (or perhaps because of) all the attention they've received, they are often pretty rubbish - like this one and many others, they fail to convey any message clearly. If someone comes along with a way of improving them (which is something that we ought to very much desire), and their proposal has not previously been considered, then it makes no sense to say that there is some preexisting consensus against their proposal. Some may have substantial objections to it, in which case they should state them and then everyone should work together in good faith trying to find a solution that meets "all the legitimate concerns", but it doesn't help that process if people are somehow given a licence to opt out of it by simply saying "this text is long-standing so I don't have to address your concerns about it". Victor Yus (talk) 09:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct in saying that there is no preexisting consensus against the proposal... neither is there a preexisting consensus for the proposal. You are correct in saying that no consensus has formed regarding proposal.
However, the WP:Consensus#No_consensus section that comes right before CCC states: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove textual material, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the text as it was prior to the proposal." In other words, the default is to retain the preexisting "long standing" text. The reason we do this as the default is because there is a presumption that the preexisting text had consensus before any proposal was made to change it. Blueboar (talk) 12:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many comments begin with a predicate that previous editors didn't know what they were doing. That's the wrong assumption. It is extremely unlikely that today showed up the best editor we ever had with the most insight or understanding. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Commonly results in" doesn't mean it's necessarily the default - ideally there is no default, and the resulting text is the best possible attempt to meet all the concerns that have been raised, including the recent ones. And no, changing existing text doesn't imply that previous editors were "worse" than the most recent one, that's a weird way of thinking. We are all working together towards improving each page, each of us taking what has gone before and trying to make it (even) better. It's not supposed to be a contest. Victor Yus (talk) 06:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think I'm assuming that? Of course that isn't the case - but you and RC seem to be saying that we should assume by default that such an edit is not an improvement. I'm saying there should be no default assumption, either one way or the other (unless the actual issue at hand has essentially been decided before, in which case a default assumption may be appropriate). Victor Yus (talk) 10:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for misunderstanding your view. For my side, I am saying that we can assume that 1) "long standing" stable language enjoys some degree of consensus... however 2) that consensus can change. The question is whether that consensus has indeed changed... I am saying that, until we discuss it, we can not know whether a proposed edit will be considered an improvement or not - and because of this uncertainty, we have to discuss it before we can decide whether to implement it... especially when it changes long standing stable language. If people feel that a proposed edit is indeed an improvement, then we know that consensus has indeed changed and we can implement the edit. if people feel that the proposed edit is not an improvement, then we know that consensus has not changed, and we do not implement the edit. Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe (and I don't think you really believe) that we have to discuss every change, even if the text being altered has remained unchanged for a long time previously. It's a waste of time discussing it if noone really has any substantial reason to object to the change. I also think it makes little sense to talk about consensus having or not having changed, if the would-be improvement has never been considered before. If the question is a new one, then there can be no existing consensus about it - and people should then be strongly discouraged from using some baseless assertion of consensus as a get-out from presenting actual arguments and addressing the concerns of others. Victor Yus (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It really depends on the page where the change is proposed. If we are talking about a core policy page like WP:Verifiability, even a small change can generate a huge amount of controversy. Changing an "and" to an "or" can significantly impact how people interpret the policy, which in turn affects the entire project. So, for a page like that, yes... every change needs to be discussed. If, on the other hand, we are talking about an article on a relatively obscure topic - a page that attracts few editors and where problematic text can be added and sit unnoticed for a long time, a bold edit to correct the issue is more acceptable.
That said, I am not arguing that we "have to" discuss (ie it is not a "must") I am arguing that discussing edits first is "best practice". Even in an obscure article, it is still best practice to a) raise a concern on the talk page... b) wait a reasonable time for a reply... and (if you get no reply) thenc) make any bold changes to address the issue. No one's "time" is being wasted by doing this. No edit is so crucial that it has to be made "right now". And... by taking a bit of time to discuss first, you might actually be saving yourself time in the long run... by preventing an initial knee-jerk revert and the endless arguments that usually attend them. Blueboar (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think it's commonly accepted that this is best practice, nor ought it to be. It clearly does waste time, since it introduces an additional (quite probably redundant) discussion step into the process, and also gives an editor the added burden of keeping track of all the changes he's planning to make once it transpires that there are no objections. Also it's quite likely that any objectors will not wish to revert your edit in its entirety, but to modify it somewhat on seeing it in place - that kind of cooperative editing (as described in this policy) is often more efficient and productive than talk page discussion. Victor Yus (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When we are talking about a core policy, or a highly watched page that has been stable for a long time, then it is far more likely that any objection will be a revert to the established text. Bold editing will not be seen as cooperative, efficient or productive. Blueboar (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is just not my experience. Except on a few policy and guideline pages, where the poor quality of those pages is evidence in itself of the inferiority of your method. Victor Yus (talk) 07:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is it the common practice, it is the best practice. We are talking about a situation where there is already an existing consensus. Victor, let's not cloud the issue by imagining that each and every change considered by every editor on every page will likely be more or less acceptable when there is already a consensus. Clearly that is an error. There is no magic to an idea that an editor believes hasn't been thought of before, since he's probably just thinking of something that was already explicitly rejected. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Victor on this one. I'll elaborate (and propose a possible consensus solution) as soon as I have more time. But for now I'll just say that I think the two positions are fairly well staked out and that neither side will be able to convince the other to go 100% in its direction. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what it is about Victor's position that you endorse. Are you endorsing the mistake that he made? I hope not. This is the time to use your intellectual heft to think clearly about the matter at hand. I didn't criticize Victor's argument just to express my personal preference; I was pointing out that he mistakenly confused cases. This discussion is about what obtains when there is a consensus and an editor wants to make a change despite that consensus ("Consensus can change"). Victor's argument would apply to a different case. If I'm mistaken on that, this is the time to do the hard intellectual work of pointing out the nature of that error. If I'm not mistaken, taking the other position would simply endorse an error. I am trying to be careful to avoid a mistake. This discussion is so that we can all accomplish that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ring, how are you differentiating between "existing consensus" and "former consensus"? So imagine that I have a page whose refs are properly and fully formatted using WP:ECITE. It's been that way for years. Now—not back when the page was largely written, but now—the community has decided to officially discourage ECITE formatting. But that particular page has been stable for five years with ECITE. So is there an "existing consensus" for that citation style? Or is there actually a "former consensus", and the existing consensus is that the formatting needs to be updated, only nobody's gotten around to it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is this an argument meant to counter my position in some way? If so, it seems again that you are using an obscure, exceptional circumstance to claim that a common practice has some flaw. That's bad logic. Obviously it is possible to invent a crazy example that seems like an exception. Fortunately, we have the wisdom of consensus to defend us against these monsters. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The case I was addressing is a case where there is no prior consensus, because the matter at hand has not been considered before. (Obviously if there genuinely is a previously established consensus on the matter, then the situation is somewhat different, although the message of CCC seems to be that even in that situation it is not necessarily inappropriate to consider the matter again.) I really can't believe that anyone's experience of Wikipedia (unless they spend all their time editing exceptional pages like WP:Verifiability) is that you feel a duty to propose changes for discussion before making them. Even on very highly watched and honed pages like featured articles, people see ways to improve them, so they just do it. That's how Wikipedia works. (And we can see on policy pages and the like that when this way of making improvements breaks down, the results suffer for it. Look how much effort has been spent on this talk page, for example, and how mediocre is the "policy" page that has been produced as a result.) Victor Yus (talk) 07:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One way to end this dispute for now
Regarding CCC:
Some of us believe that we should, at least, encourage discussion first in almost all cases.
Some of us believe that we should not.
The discussion on this page tells us that, at present, neither group is going to convince the other group of the soundness of its position.
That said, I suspect that most of us agree that discussion is appropriate when editor knows a matter has been resolved by past discussion. (I say "knows" because we don't want CCC to become a bludgeon used to beat up on good faith proposals made by editors who do not know the history of the text they want to change.)
If we resolve our current CCC dispute for now by including that recommendation in CCC then the "almost always discuss first" group has the nose of the camel in the CCC tent and come back later and try to expand the recommendation.
Not the ideal solution for either side, but it will allow us to move on to other issues. I would welcome any better proposal to resolve the current dispute. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly live with this as a short term solution.
I think the long term solution will be to work on expanding/reworking the earlier sections on the various methods of achieving consensus... to give better guidance as to when reaching consensus by bold editing/revision is the most productive and appropriate, and when it is more appropriate and productive to reach consensus through talk page discussion (and, perhaps when it is appropriate to do a little of both at the same time). I think we all agree that there are times when either method is appropriate... and times when one method or the other would be inappropriate. I Don't know if we completely agree on where the lines between them are drawn, but it is worth discussing further and seeing if we can find common ground. Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting article. There is an important difference in the situations outlined there where consensus was successful. Those cases involve a tacet acceptance of inequality of expertise among the participants which is explicitly disavowed on Wikipedia. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we explicitly disavow inequality of expertise. It's more that we do not explicitly avow it. Certainly when evaluating the relative reliability of sources, expertise of the author comes into play. As for expertise between editors... some editors do gain a reputation for knowing what they are talking about in a given subject area, and other editors do pay attention to their viewpoint and give it more weight in discussions. It isn't an expertise that is backed by credentials... instead, it is an expertise backed by reputation. Blueboar (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I probably did overstate it, although comparative reliability of sources is something else. I sometimes think that more of a virtue should be made here of knowing what you're talking about. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
essays on wrongful consensus and false consensus
I added an essay on wrongful consensus. A shortcut to it is WP:WRONGCON. Previous discussion that led to it is archived with an antecedent. I was going to call the problematic case false consensus (the better name, I think) until I discovered there's already an essay called that. Whereas the wrongful-consensus essay is based on violation of any policy or guideline, the false-consensus essay is based only on violations of ArbCom decisions. I wonder if the two can be merged, to encompass all policy, guideline, and ArbCom violations and to use the better name. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PREMATURE... I note that you have marked your essay as being the product of multiple editors... however, you are the only one who has actually edited it. In other words, at the moment it is really just your own personal reflections on things said in talk page discussions. As such, I don't think it is appropriate to link to it on a policy page. I am going to remove the link... This can be revisited if others start to contribute. Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not mark the "essay as being the product of multiple editors". The template, which is supposed to be there apart from the number of editors, says "one or more", which is accurate. But if essays should not be listed on this policy page unless at least two have edited the essay, fine. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, its not a matter of "at least two"... policy and guideline pages should reflect widespread views, even when it comes to linking essays. It's OK to link a minority view essay, but we need some assurance that that minority is relatively widespread... and the more people who edit an essay, the more we can be sure that the view is relatively wide spread. Blueboar (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, if noone else edited it, it means everyone who looked at it agreed with it so strongly that they saw no need to change anything... Or again alternatively, we don't mind whether the view is widespread (the essay itself carries a disclaimer in that regard), we might just think that people reading this page would find the views expressed there to be of interest. Victor Yus (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
for the first alternative... can you think of a single case where that would be a reality? But if so, people can be asked to leave a note on the talk page saying "well done". As for the other alternative... obviously I disagree. Blueboar (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you disagree that we should include links to interesting essays that express views that might not be widely held, or do you disagree that this particular essay is interesting? Victor Yus (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that a policy or guideline page should link to essays that express views that are not widely held, no matter how "interesting" they might be. "Minority view" essays can (and should) be linked... but the minority who hold the view (ie support the essay) should be somewhat substantial. Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a "merge" is not the way to go - the new essay appears not to rely on what has been written in the past, but expresses a view specific to editorial behaviour not covered in the past by ArbCom as such. Nor do I feel that multiple editors necessarily are all interested in actually improving an essay either. In fact, it is possible in some cases that editors who dilike the premise of an essay may seek to make absurd and damaging edits to it. I would, moreover, suggest that the new essay be retitled to "Improper behaviour by editors in the consensus process" (or "tendentious consensus"?) as I do not think "wrongful" is really the right adjective to apply to the consensus arrived at. Lastly, Wikipedia does not and ought not insist that essays be "majority opinion" as that way lies madness <g> and interminable argument. As long as the opinions do not damage Wikipedia in any way, let them exist. Collect (talk) 12:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No one is suggesting a merge... or that an essay should not exist... the question is whether this page should point people to it... or to put it more exactly: whether this specific guideline page should include a link to that specific essay. Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If only a couple of editors support the views expressed in an essay, then those views are essentially "fringe". If we deliberately point editors to such an essay, by linking to it on in a policy of guideline page, we give that fringe view point undue weight. Blueboar (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We're not giving it much "weight" by simply linking to it (and anyone following the link will be told immediately that it is a page expressing not-necessarily-consensus viewpoints). We don't really have any reliable way of establishing how many people share what views (nor is it necessarily that important), but it seems that it is important to have a healthy circulation of ideas, including those that have not yet necessarily gained wide acceptance. I don't think it's healthy to try to suppress people's access to ideas merely on the grounds that those ideas can't be shown to have gained a solid following yet. Nor do I think that the number of people who have edited an essay is a good guide to what proportion of editors would agree with any of the points made in it - I certainly don't feel that by editing some part of an essay I am expressing my support for the rest of it, or that by refraining from editing or commenting on an essay I am expressing a lack of support for it. (I don't know how any of this relates to the essay at hand, I'm just concerned about the general principle). Victor Yus (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I very much disagree. Suppose someone dislikes our BLP policy... and writes an essay saying that it is OK to add unsourced accusations against the subject of a Bio article. The editor with such a fringe view is free to express his/her opinion and write an essay, but it would be highly inappropriate for the BLP policy to draw any attention to it... we would NOT link to that essay at WP:BLP (nor at any other policy or guideline page that related to BLPs). Blueboar (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way... I did not mean to imply that counting the number of people who have edited an essay is the only way to tell whether the views expressed are "widely held" (and I am sorry if I gave that impression)... it is simply one way to do so. Another way to determine the "support level" of an essay is to look at how many editors point to it during article discussions. The more that editors point to it, the more we can say the views expressed are not fringe views. Yet another way is to hold a broad based RFC, asking whether the essay has support and should be linked (the more "yes" votes, the more we can say that the views are likely to be supported by a wide range of editors). Blueboar (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I don't at all like the idea that we should base our essay link inclusion decisions primarily on the level of support that the essays have. Are we so frightened of change that we have to try to prevent people from accessing new and unorthodox ideas? As long as these essays aren't proposing something illegal or immoral (which might be the case in the BLP example) we have nothing to fear - let people read and assess the alternative views and the arguments supporting them, maybe Wikipedia will come to be improved as a result. Victor Yus (talk) 08:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we ought not delete "wrong essays" - for one thing, the MfD discussion is likely to bring out only a very small subset of editors, and in some cases they may not be a representative subset of all editors, as they are intrinsically "self-selected" for indeterminate reasons. The other reason is that given by John Milton a very long time ago - it is discussion with differing views which leads us forward, not restriction to "approved" views. Collect (talk) 14:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree that we ought not to delete "wrong essays" (and for the record, I don't think Nick's essay is "wrong")... again, the question isn't whether an essay should exist... the question is whether we should link to a given essay on a given policy/guideline page (and if so, at what point we should link to it).
Perhaps this is a question that needs to be discussed in a wider context (and in a venue that will gather a wider audience). I have posted the following at the Village Pump (policy): When is it appropriate (and when is it inappropriate) to link to an essay on policy and guideline pages... are their limitations, and if so what are they?. Blueboar (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A link from a policy page implies endorsement. It has nothing to do with a disinclination to entertain different views. If the essay is persuasive then its views will be adopted. Nick tried these ideas on us here and they weren't accepted but weren't completely rejected, either. That seems like a normal exchange of opinion and argument. I would note that Nick's proposals were modified in this discussion but his essay returns to his original proposal. That is a further reason, if one were needed, to decline the link for now. It's hard to avoid the inference that he is trying to include them despite their rejection. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's fairly common to link policies or guidleines to essays, often marking a link as being to an essay. I don't object that some policies and guidelines don't link or are more limited than others as to which essays to which to link, but linking appears to be a legitimate way to expand communication, as long as it's not confusing. In the case of this one, talk page discussion seemed to have died out. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks okay as a start and is subsantively different than sham or wrongful consensus but has a problem of inclarity I can't solve, not knowing your (the original editor's) intent. Either of the following is true, but not both:
Because procedurally flawed consensus is limited to procedures, among policies it includes only those policies that are about procedures, thus is narrower than wrongful or sham. There may be no guidelines that are considered clearly procedural; at least, there is no comparable category. I don't know which essays would be considered clearly procedural.
Procedurally flawed consensus includes failure to adhere to, say, BRDorcoatrack, which are essay-based procedures (if defining procedure very broadly), and thus the new essay raises a question of which essays establishing procedures should be encompassed (e.g., cf.Wikipedia:Do not say "With all due respect"); by the terms of your new essay, it is all of them. The overbreadth is untenable in practice.
In general, recognition of all of these kinds of real or so-called consensus is useful to varying degrees. I suggest tightening up the new essay in whichever direction is useful enough or, if both are sufficiently useful, tightening this one way and writing yet another essay for the other kind.
I intentionally left "procedure" vague. A lot of what you are talking about on your essays is how violations of our Behavioral Policies affect consensus discussions... but we also get people who think a consensus discussion can be invalid because someone didn't follow the correct process ("This was not posted at the right noticeboard"... "The discussion was closed before 30 days passed"... etc.) Not all of the processes are spelled out in Policy... We have many unwritten procedures on wikipedia (conventions that are not necessarily outlined in policy). Sometimes these complaints are petty... essentially wikilawyering attempts to undo a consensus that the complainers didn't like. These can be ignored. But sometimes the complainer is right and the consensus should be overturned. It depends on the complaint. Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the nomenclature, there seems to persist the issue that the remedies would be difficult to calibrate and prone to the same sets of errors as the root offense. Thus, these ideas founder by offering only to multiply difficulties instead of paring them. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought was going on, but, instead of trying to draft failure-prone methods, let's develop something that can work. What I was developing was a name for something. That "something" already happens. To deny it a name is to sweep it under the rug, which is of no help when it presents itself anyway. I still don't understand why giving it a name is a bad idea. We have names for a variety of incurable diseases and this problem is not incurable.
Unwritten procedures are not generally a good idea, as they're practically an invitation to arbitrariness and inconsistency of application. Experimentation is good but when an experiment succeeds and sometimes when it fails a procedure that was discovered or invented through that result should be reduced to writing and posted in an appropriate policy, guideline, or essay.
The option to ignore a consensus already exists. All of the underlying offenses (e.g., sockpuppetry abuse) are already defined, subject to more being defined in the future. That editors will be offended at the characterization of a consensus as bad is not significantly different than that they will be offended at the characterization of a posting as the result of, e.g., abusive sockpuppetry (for example, when an editor posted that certain editors seemed to be sock puppets another editor deleted the comment rather than reply substantively or answer with a denial except in the edit summary, and that deletion may have been a sign of being offended).
I understand the belief that if we just all smile all problems will be solved (maybe that's not your belief but it's common and relevant). Smiling helps a majority of times but not always. We need tools for when trying to achieve consensus is not enough because someone else is violative.
I suggest you tighten your essay to make it more practicable. If you have suggestions for tightening mine, please suggest them. A name in itself does not cause unenforceability.
Yes, I was essentially giving a name to "something that already happens" as well... (we often deal with complaints that a consensus should be overturned because someone has not followed some procedure... now we have the name "procedurally flawed consensus" that we can use when discussing them). What isn't codified (and actually can not be codified) is what happens when there is a procedurally flawed consensus occurs.... because that depends on which specific procedure was not followed. Blueboar (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blueboar, I am not sure I fully understand this:
"Serious violations of Wikipedia policy should be brought to the attention of administrators for possible administrative action".
If you meant violations by individual editors, this sentence is redundant (serious violations should be brought to attention of administrators irrespective to what your essay says). May be you meant the attempts of some group of editors to build consensus that violates the principles of our policy? --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I mean serious violations of wikipedia policy (by an individual or a group). Yes it is redundant, but its an essay, so it is OK to be redundant. Besides, it balances the other side of the coin (petty violations of minor procedures should essentially be discounted and ignored). Blueboar (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure it is totally redundant. Sometimes, a group of users may achieve a local consensus that directly and seriously violates our policy. Since talk page discussion that leads to such consensus, and individual behaviour of each user are in formal compliance with the policy (everyone is free to express his opinion during talk page discussions), there is no formal reason to bring individual behaviour to the attention of admins. However, the action of the group is much serious violation, and I think that should be clearly articulated in the essay (or even added to the policy).--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to edit the essay. And perhaps further discussion of it belongs on the essay's talk page, not here. I am not (at this time) proposing that we add a link to it, so there really isn't a reason to talk about it in such depth on this page. Blueboar (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a "group" "violates" anything depends on whether or not "they" agree with "your" "version" of something. Too many editors invoke policy to push their fringe POV, particularly when opposed by numerous editors. We don't want to fall into content by administrative fiat. I have seen too many administrators fall prey to this sort of reasoning. Uninformed is not the same as neutrality. Coming up with 99 reasons why consensus is not consensus is why people leave WP. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re people "Coming up with 99 reasons why consensus is not consensus"... a good point. I have reworked to note that a complaint of procedural flaws, if petty enough, can backfire upon the complainer. (a very petty complaint can be deemed disruptive and, in extreme cases, can result in administrative action against the complainer.) Blueboar (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the user at 192.251.134.5 may be making a larger point, one with which I strongly disagree, namely that article consensus should be determinative or even that an editor should be alone in deciding what gets into an article or not. Although I've seen abuse, too, the system largely works well, a system in which individual editors' decisions can be checked through page consensus and page consensus can be checked through more-encompassing processes aiding consistency. Decisions that would have been helpful to some part of society but are rejected for Wikipedia can usually find a home somewhere else on the Internet.
I agree that uninformed is not neutrality.
This discussion may be continued, but it should not be here. If it's about consensus generally, it should be in a new topic on this page with a more appropriate topic title. If it's about any of the essays, it should be on that essay's talk page. Relevant passages from this topic can be copied there for continuity, if desired.
Blueboar, I think that the issues raised in your essay are important, and the link to this essay should be added to the policy (when you will finish to work on it). In connection to that, I think we should talk about this essay seriously.
Re "Too many editors invoke policy to push their fringe POV, particularly when opposed by numerous editors." That is correct. However, consider an opposite situation.
An editor A proposed to use some source X in the article Y to support of some general statement. The users B, C, and D objected to that, and the user E argued that the source X expresses just author's own opinion.
A user A asked the question about the source XonWP:RSN, and the community verdict was that the source X is a top quality source, and it is quite relevant to the article Y.
A user A returned to article's Y talk page, described the results of the RSN discussion, and insisted the source Y to be added to the article, but the users B-E opposed. Attempted RfC gave no (or minimal) fresh input, because all discussion was dominated by B-E.
The situation described by me is not artificial, it is quite common for low importance articles. In connection to that, don't you find "consensus" achieved on the talk page is procedurally flawed? Has the user A been engaged in wikilawyering or POV pushing? IMO, the answers are "yes" and "no", accordingly. I myself faced the situations when a small group of users appeared to be able to create some consensus about certain topics in low traffic articles, but their attempt to push the same idea in high traffic article (i.e. in the mother article) as a rule fail.
In connection to that, I have the following question. The users B-E clearly violate our policy, which clearly define which sources are reliable, and which are not. Moreover, they ignored the community verdict. Therefore, although their behaviour was formally in accordance with our rules (they just participated in the talk page discussion), their collective violation of the policy lead to removal (or not-inclusion) of good quality content to the article. I think, we need some tools to identify such activity, to counteract it, and, if necessary, to punish it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep it simple. When too many people with different views edit the same article on a controversial subject, they will never agree about anything of importance. Do not waste your time; go edit something else. My very best wishes (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Following your logic, it is impossible to create a good WP article on controversial topics, which is nonsense. Your advice encourages good users to abandon areas of controversy, so this your advice is hardly constructive.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure you follow my logic. No, it is entirely possible to create good article on controversial subject, but only if it is edited by people who have a similar view on the subject. They may have a similar view because they know the subject, even though it is controversial... My very best wishes (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul Siebert, your use of examples in the abstract would create administrative procedures which editors could then use to game the system claiming "policy" is on their side. Any such discussion cannot be had without reference to specific sources and subjects. I don't see the benefit to creating scenarios which editors can then leverage in the future to push their POV claiming administrative fiat as opposed to addressing concerns regarding their proposed content.
!Blusboar, the more we attempt to create procedures the more we move away from the spirit of a collaborative environment. We should spend more time on how to actually write a good article, not how to optimize our wrangling--which would be an oxymoron. Just my personal perspective. VєсrumЬа ►TALK04:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would also suggest that "procedurally flawed consensus" is itself an oxymoron. You either have consensus or you don't. Whether or not someone has a legitimate gripe or is wikilawyering can only be determined by sources and content, on which WP is administratively agnostic. Again, just one opinion. VєсrumЬа ►TALK04:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The statement "[y]ou either have consensus or you don't" begs the question of what to call and do with a so-called consensus that looks like a consensus but isn't one, such as when a bunch of sock puppets for one editor claim a majority that doesn't really exist, creating a consensus that doesn't really exist. A consensus that doesn't really exist shouldn't be relied on.
With the thought that sources and content are all that should matter is probably how most of us start editing, but Wikipedia is edited by people and they can make the same assertion with a result that we're in conflict, thus a need for consensus or other systems for resolving disputes. Suggestions for refining the system of consensus or the other systems are useful.
Walking away from an article because of adverse controversy is one way of coping but not the only way. That choice is up to each editor and Wikipedia may benefit or lose either way. We have policies and guidelines against trying to drive editors away in order to achieve certain results with articles, so that walking away should be less necessary.
Paul... I can see how the situation in your example (above) is a concern... but I don't think you are describing a "procedurally flawed consensus". What procedure is not being followed? Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nick... Re: "a bunch of sock puppets for one editor claim a majority that doesn't really exist"... I agree that this is a false consensus, but I am not sure it is a procedurally flawed consensus. What procedure is not being followed? Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think, the policies that have been violated here are WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DEMOCRACY. The former says "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised". A concern of the editor A (that a reliable and relevant source X must be used in the article Y) is the proper concern, whereas counter-arguments from the group of users B-E is not, so the normal procedure for achievement of consensus has been violated there. The latter policy says that "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system," however, in that situation the opinion of the users B-E prevailed only due to their numeral superiority, which also is a violation: their arguments, which are based on zero evidences, shouldn't be taken into account at all, as if no counter-arguments have been provided. Therefore, I see a double violation of procedure here.
I've just realised that the cases described in the Sham consensus essay and in your essay are sometimes hard to separate. In connection to that, do you think it is needed to separate your and Nick's essays? What do you think about combining them together?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me give an example of a recent debate where the issue was "flawed procedure"... There is a question as to the best title for a page... so an RFC was held... a consensus formed and the page was moved... but an editor objected to the move on the grounds that "this wasn't posted to WP:RM". The objector conceded that a consensus had formed at the RFC, but felt it should be overturned because discussion took place on the article talk page instead of at WP:RM... ie a given procedure was not followed. Blueboar (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you mean such cases, don't you think it would be better just to list possible violations of the procedure (I think, to avoid petty criticism and wikilawyering we need to create an exhaustive list) and add it directly to the policy as a separate subsection? Obviously, this list will not be long, so I see no problem in that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The list might be short or very long, depending on which meaning of procedure the essay author intends. It might include all policies and guidelines and some, most, or arguably all essays. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start. (I propose all of you to expand the examples):
Wrong venue (posting RfC, RM etc at wrong page)
Vote counting (when a closing admin counts votes without analyzing strength of arguments)
RfC or AfD closure by a user having a vested interest in the topic.
Ignoring the opinion of WP community (for example, the results of RSN, NPOVN discussions, etc) during the discussion on local talk pages.
(post your examples here...)
To make it short and complete would require editing the essay first and adding the short list there, not into Wikipedia:Consensus. If we add it to this policy and miss some, which is the controlling authority would be an open question every time there's a dispute. If a policy or a guideline is amended and this list is not, this list has to be ignored, which leads to confusion and wikilawyering. And should, say, WP:BRD, which is an essay with wide support, be included? Fix the framework first. (I'll likely be back online in a day or two.) Nick Levinson (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. What I propose is to write an essay, but to keep in mind an opportunity that it will be added to the policy when it will be completed. Do you have any other examples of PFC to add to the list?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That, unfortunately, leaves all the framework problems unsolved, which means I wouldn't know whether to spend a lot of time compiling a short list or far more time compiling a long list. Time is needed in order to go through the texts of all of the relevant sources, whether they're the procedural policies or all policies, guidelines, essays, and ArbCom decisions. Then, maintenance is needed, requiring that someone (I'm not volunteering) monitor all edits to all of those sources for changes that might affect the list in your new essay, and there are a few changes almost every day just to those that I already watchlist. May I suggest posting your current essay draft or revision (either in the Wikipedia namespace or in your talk space, as you prefer) and then expanding the list in it? The draft could reveal, for example, what you mean by procedure. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would be against adding a list of procedural flaws to the essay... the point of the essay is not to define what a "procedural flaw" is... the point is 1) to request that when there is a complaint about some procedure not being followed, everyone take it seriously (ie not simply dismiss it out of hand)... and 2) to warn editors that in some cases, complaining about procedural flaws can be seen as petty wikilawyering... which is disruptive (and can even result in sanctions against those making the complaint). Blueboar (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How many procedural flaws that deserve serious attention are theoretically possible, in you opinion? I cannot imagine anything but the examples 1-4 listed above (maybe, even a fourth example does not 100% fit). Let's try to add more examples, and that would help us to understand if the essays is really useful.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added one more example of the procedural flaw. If you have any ideas, please, continue. That may be useful regardless of the essay we are discussing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please define procedure or else I don't know what to include or exclude. If your list is complete, then it is far too inadequate. Compare the list of examples in Wikipedia:Wrongful consensus#Examples, which has seven, not just four, and it's not exhaustive nor intended to be. If your list is meant to be exhaustive and is added to this policy as binding and limiting of the remedy to that list of four or so, it will effectively remove many policies from being policies and guidelines and ArbCom decisions will be unenforceable as precedent. As such, the change to this policy will lack the needed consensus of most policy and guideline pages and I don't think ArbCom will agree, either. For example, by effectively amending another policy, which this proposed list would, the consensus supporting that policy will probably need to agree, apart from agreement by consensus on this policy. That's a lot of consensuses that have to agree. You may want to start lining them up. You may have your work cut out for you. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC) (Added clarification: 17:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]
@Nick... You may be confused... I don't think anyone is suggesting that we discuss the concept of "procedurally flawed consensus" in this policy. We were talking about an essay that I wrote. Hell, I have not even proposed that we add my essay to the see also. I was simply seeking feedback on it. Blueboar (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not confused. An editor wrote, supra, "[w]hat I propose is to write an essay, but to keep in mind an opportunity that it will be added to the policy when it will be completed.". Nick Levinson (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blueboar, your essay describes the situations when procedure was not duly followed during determination of consensus. As far as I understand your explanations, this essay deals with strictly formal things, i.e. about the situations when one cannot and should not apply common sense, but should follow some strict formal rules instead. If that is the case, the essay should not talk about some loosely defined things, and I see no reasons why we cannot:
enumerate all possible procedure violations that may have significant impact on consensus determination;
when the list will be complete, add it directly to the policy.
By doing that we will achieve exactly what your essay is intended for: to avoid situations when consensus is being determined with significant procedure violations, and to rule out a possibility of wikilawyering by making frivolous complaints about minor procedure violations.
I don't think why cannot we do that: our policy is rather simple, so it would hardly be difficult to identify all possible types of procedure violations.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"doesn't help"
"It doesn't help to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want."
