Wikipedia talk:Silence and consensus/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Agree

I agree with this. I have done this personally in group settings when asking for an answer for something. It's a lot better than yay or nay as it allows people who want to be part of the process to do so (by being silent) but not necessarily having to cast a vote. Oh, and I think it's consensus by silence, not as silence. Bstone (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. I think this is something that has always been true, just never been said. J Milburn (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Should we assume that thousands of readers agree, or should we all agree? -- SEWilco (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

SEWilco, that's a humorous point. :) But I also agree with the idea. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I like this. In some cases, I've brought up (on talk pages) things along the lines of "I think this needs to be changed/done. If no one disagrees in the next few days, I'll go ahead & make those changes." I've never had problems with it, but, again, they weren't controversial. Perhaps this should be for noncontroversial things only, and only if put in a place where many editors have a chance to see it. нмŵוτн τ 22:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Does everybody but me understand what "this" refers to? Unfree (talk) 10:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This is tricky

It's tough to say what silence means in all cases. Sometimes, it means that the statement was so ridiculous as to not be considered worth responding to. Friday (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea, could add "and the statement is not 'ridiculous'", though ridiculous perhaps is a too direct word? _→AzaToth 19:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps changing it to "relevant statement" would do the trick? _→AzaToth 19:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe. Or maybe we don't worry about those cases very much. If you mistakenly take silence as consensus, and then people start screaming, it'll be pretty obvious that the consensus wasn't really there. Friday (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that you might be justified in saying "Silence is considered consensus... until someone starts shouting." It would be more than tricky if it is suggested that later protests were invalid simply because nobody had said anything previously and the matter now had consensus. Indeed, this may go against the concept that this is a Wiki, anyone can change anything at any time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

And when people start shouting is sometimes too late - not all actions are easy to undo. Anything that involves blocking users needs plenty of time to gather support, unless that user is clearly harmful. Dan Beale-Cocks 15:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This is at most, guidelines, and not policy since we have to use IAR once in a while, as shown above. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hisotrical example

I saw this and LOL, I remember a rather popular saying in my country "silence means agreement"... (coming from the Silent Sejm). Renata (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea

If I propose something or change something, and no concerns are voiced, or action taken about it, it obviously has consensus until someone does raise a concern or take an action. Lawrence Cohen 20:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Better say something...

I better say something or it's a consensus! There is a possibility of overuse. Consider "Silence as apparent consensus" or "Lack of written objections". There wasn't much opposition to Hitler in Germany. Consensus?

Is there a reason for wanting the definition of consensus changed? Archtransit (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it as changing the definition, just clarifying it. I think it has always been assumed that something has consensus unless someone objects to it. J Milburn (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Guideline?

Maybe I'm just an idiot, but what exactly is the procedure for making something a guideline? I can see this potentially being a good guideline to have properly tagged as a guideline. Anyone agree or disagree with me there? J Milburn (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

1/ You tag it as a guideline. 2/ Profit. east.718 at 22:16, January 14, 2008

Hah. Profit. Bstone (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's: 1: Tag it as guideline; 2: ???; 3: PROFIT _→AzaToth 22:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It's now been tagged as an essay but also has the "proposed" tag on it. Those two tags are, in my opinion, incompatible. Essays are as they are. They may be rebutted or refined but they have no binding authority. We need to either bump this back to "guideline" and leave it proposed for now (my preferred solution) or leave it as an essay but remove the proposed tag. Note that most of the objections to the early versions of the page have now been incorporated onto the page itself as qualifiers and conditions. It's quickly becoming a good, nuanced description of the way this aspect of Wikipedia works. Rossami (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Changed to proposed guideline. J Milburn (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I put a supplement tag on it, because supplements are cool. :-) You can use supplement tags for pages that give more in-depth info about an aspect of policy, and you can also use supplement tags to stop people fighting over what kind of tag to use. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem is that supplement doesnt have an definition, and no one know what it really is, thus I oppose it as supplement. _→AzaToth 18:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no

There have been far too many cases where contentious individuals have just repeatedly echoed their arguments over and over again, until people are finally driven off by the sheer exhaustion of dealing with this person, who then turns around claiming silence is consensus. This proposal is wrong in far too many ways. Corvus cornix_talk 22:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be gaiming the system, and is not applicable. Also, silence cannot form new consensus IF there has been clear consensus against it before (that could be added). _→AzaToth 22:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this only applies in areas where there is no prior discussion, and no discussion would be required (policy forming). This is already used in practice for non-controversial changes. If an AFD is relisted multiple times due to lack of comments, I'll interpret that as "no objection to deletion" (though that does not happen often). It happens more frequently to minor changes to policy pages and is basically how the speedy deletion process works. However, once a real discussion starts (or old discussion found), any "silent consensus" pretty much becomes invalid. Mr.Z-man 22:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

By the same token, if I were to make some bold sweeping change unannounced to say, WP:ANI's layout right now, and no one undid that or complained that, WP:SILENCE would apply. Wouldn't it? Lawrence Cohen 22:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently. Corvus cornix_talk 23:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, think about it logically. If Lawrence did make a huge change, and no one reverted it or made any comment, it would be fair to assume that the new revision did have consensus, wouldn't it? J Milburn (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly my simple point. If I renamed WP:ANI to WP:Happy Admins Fun Room and set the background color to be a nice, pleasant pink, and no one objected, and we were still dealing with administrative issues in the pink Fun Room a year from now, my change obviously had consensus. Lawrence Cohen 20:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning: Do not tease or taunt the happy fun admins! -- Kendrick7^talk 21:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The header sums up my views almost perfectly: No, no, no, no, my God, no. This is a loophole waiting to happen. Influential Person X, in defense of (perhaps purposefully obscure) Bad Policy Y: "But nobody complained about it, so that means there was consensus!" Crystallina (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a very old loophole then, since this is just basic common sense about how a wiki works. :-P But wait, the loophole gets closed by Consensus can change (which is actually linked from here!) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus can change, but what happens in the time between the time that change was made and the time someone found out about it and bothered to speak up? Changes to article space, policy text, etc. can all be reverted. Drama can't. Crystallina (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:Corvus cornix. Too much potential here for folks to claim a false consensus - which is already a problem. Dlabtot (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Disagree

In my opinion silence is not consensus, there can not be consensus if there is only 1 voice. This does not mean the change should not go ahead if nobody has shown an opinion in the matter.
Consensus means that several individuals put their ideas together and get the best out of them, and overcome any disagreements. Lack of interest is definitely not a reason for stagnation, silence could in some cases signify agreement, but never consensus. Consensus is achieved collectively. For example take an AfD, if not enough people express their opinion, it gets relisted, not deleted, this is because consensus is the means by which deletion discussion outcome is achieved on wikipedia. I strongly oppose this essay becoming policy, because it contradicts current practice and policy, and I believe it to be incorrect from an intellectual point of view (though this doesn't have much bearing as it's just my opinion and not related to wikipedia).

Also I don't know who the person who added the so called "working definition" on wikitionary is, but it is pretty obviously original research, and I don't see any further sources claiming consensus can be achieved by an individual alone.

Anyway the way things are relisted on wikipedia if they lack input, makes me think there is no consensus in silence on wikipedia. Jackaranga (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe this should be an option when attempting to make decisions. Bstone (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember that this applies to articles too- someone makes a change, no one reverts or challenges, we have a new consensus. It's not just talking about the bureaucratic stuff- AfD and the like. J Milburn (talk) 09:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Warnock's Dilemma

This proposal seems to me to be addressing a classic case of Warnock's Dilemma, and it unfortunately does not seem to propose a viable solution to the dilemma. While in some cases, it may be that "silence is consensus", I do not think that this should be anymore than an essay—because there are many other counter-examples to that assertion, as detailed in the linked article. --Iamunknown 00:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are the five points:

The post is correct, well-written information that needs no follow-up commentary. There's nothing more to say except "Yeah, what he said."
The post is complete and utter nonsense, and no one wants to waste the energy or bandwidth to even point this out.
No one read the post, for whatever reason.
No one understood the post, but won't ask for clarification, for whatever reason.
No one cares about the post, for whatever reason.

Number two can be adressed by adding "relevant" to "statement", number three is taken care of in "notify all relevant instances". Number four is a bit tricky, but I think it is handled by "consensus can change". For number five, there are no solution, if you activly ignore the discussion, then your chance of beeing heard is void. Thus, number one is the one that is declared are the logical outcome here (at least in my opinion). _→AzaToth 00:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not someone ignores the post for whatever reason is not really an issue. If no one cares about the change then it can be interpreted as consensus through silence. If people ignore the post but then revert the change, they disagree with it and there is no consensus. If people ignore the post and no one does the change, it doesn't really matter. Mr.Z-man 02:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, Toth (I think) misspelled "addressed," "actively," and "being," and I'd like to see a show of hands from the Wikipedia community to determine whether his neologisms ought to be included in the next edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. Anybody who doesn't react within the next few days will go on record as approving of his creative contributions to the rapidly expanding field of linguistics, and if either side wins a majority, anybody who doesn't send a letter to the editors of the dictionary will be judged to agree with whatever those who do send in letters have to say, unless I hear otherwise. (From lots and lots of people.) By the way, if nobody asks what neologisms are, it's obvious that everybody knows, and if I don't answer, it's obvious that I have my reasons. Unfree (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Time

I feel the guideline should make more mention of the time needed to reach consensus by silence. Users have been blocked (or not blocked) for user names after a half hour discussion - and lack of response from editors was taken as consensus for the action. "consensus can change" isn't much use if an editor has been blocked. But, apart from that minor quibble, I support this. Dan Beale-Cocks 13:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am also concerned that time is a huge factor in this policy. If someone is away in Wikipedia (due to blocks or busy in real life or on vacation) and don't have a chance to voice their opinions during the discussion, it's not fair for them because they are not given a chance to challenge the changes even though they look like they are silent throughout the discussion. The similar applies to those who join Wikipedia after the discussion took place. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but as soon as they get back, they can say something, and there no longer is silence, nullifying the consensus. J Milburn (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

By which time a productive editor has been blocked? Dan Beale-Cocks 11:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If you claim "silent consensus" you take all responsibility for your action. If you make a crappy decision before anyone tells you not to, you are fully responsible. If you do it after a bunch of people agree, the blame would be shared. Since we are all volunteers, you can't just say "but no one responded" if you get in trouble for a bad decision - we can't force people to comment. Mr.Z-man 00:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus flowchart

Note that on the consensus flowchart, the wait stage technically can take forever. This page basically just puts that fact into words. Hence I've marked it as a supplement to Wikipedia:Consensus.

Possibly we could make an excerpt from the chart, or (slightly) rework it, to make the effect clearer? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Does the wording in a supplement acts as policy grounding when it's a supplement to an policy? _→AzaToth 23:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by that? --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

i.e. does a supplement act with the same status as the entity it's supplement for. _→AzaToth 17:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No one has actually ever asked that question. I think the answer is in a state of superposition, and no-one really wants to observe the item, in case it settles in an undesirable state. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This section on wikipedia:consensus sort of tries to integrate several insights including this one onto the consensus page. It's not on the live page at the moment, because I'm having a bit of a procedural issues discussion with Kevin Murray. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Um...

Aren't I a case in point that this is a mistaken thesis? Durova^Charge! 02:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, you're looking for WP:WIARM, especially some of the reporting stuff. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Kim, I circulated a report, got no objections, and waited two weeks before acting upon it. What I thought had been consensus was actually, on the part of just about everybody, inattention. At least until afterward. Durova^Charge! 08:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

you did fail to notify all relevant instances. _→AzaToth 14:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That's because that is impossible, Azatoth. The only way to be sure you really had consensus is to do something. If you do something really silly, that's the moment when suddenly everyone starts paying a LOT of attention ;-)

Durova: To sanity check myself: Did you post your report on-wiki the moment you made the block (not before, not after) ? I think I recall you didn't, but is that correct? --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Silence is consensus, but consensus can change as more editors become aware of it. This essay more applies to the on-wiki process of developing content, policy, etc., than to off-wiki doings where consensus works entirely differently. That's because the scale of Wikipedia's editing operations is inconceivably large and requires boldness on the part of its editors, whereas in a small comfy group, silence doesn't necessarily mean "go ahead". The idea here more complements being bold and the BRD cycle than the consensus guideline, in my opinion. Conclusion: use on-wiki mechanisms for consensus, because it's ultimately safer for all involved. Gracenotes^T § 16:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This section on Wikipedia:Consensus sort of tries to integrate several insights including this one onto the consensus page. I'm having a bit of a discussion on procedure with Kevin Murray atm, so it's not on the live page yet. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Silence does not imply consent

I normally ignore things I disagree with unless they affect me significantly. I recognise other people may feel more strongly about things than me. Believing "silence implies consent" on Wikipedia can get you into serious trouble. Just look at my RfA, where silence in response to my ideas just meant that, over an extended period of time, the powers that be had not checked the official places to post - an old consensus had led to an end of discussions there. So to me, silence just means that the people who don't agree haven't found your post yet. And the longer the silence, the bigger the backlash when the implications of a posting are realised. I thought I'd register my opposition here, rather than trash the article itself, as I understand that strong feelings led to this article. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. This is called Consensus can change. The two concepts complement each other. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between the illusion of consensus and consensus changing. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

But if we don't operate on the assumption that objecting readers will comment, how will anything ever get done on Wikipedia? There is no feasible way to get an affirmative consent from every volunteer on the project for every issue. Nor is it the Wikipedia Way. Will we be wrong sometimes? Of course. But we have to do something or editing stagnates. Rossami (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that is a nice ideal. But in practice, applying this principle will get you slagged off by experienced users who missed your comments. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been here a long time and it hasn't happened to me yet. What has happened is that an apparent consensus reached in isolation gets overturned when its implications get wider visibility. That's not necessarily a bad thing, though. (I've been on both sides of those debates at times.) Most experienced editors successfully assume good faith even while disagreeing with the prior decision. Rossami (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You can get slagged off for random stuff at any time, these days. ;-) Even so can you give an example of where that happened? --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. For example, this edit on the main Wikimedia page concerning video policy, asking for people who wanted to explore how my alternative to the primitive video support available at the time might be useful, got a call for my banning a month later at my RfA. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the point here is that the post was preceded by extensive discussions on relevant talk pages with silence from opposers. I even had to ring the the Office to sort out the flak. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus effectively is the illusion of consensus, though. It's impossible to determine what it is, only to determine what it looks like. Gracenotes^T § 17:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

revert by Slimvirgin

(Kim, please don't make this so absolute; it doesn't reflect what actually goes on).

I'm actually coding on wikis now, and I'm pretty sure that the final version of the page in the database is always determined by the last person to make an edit. Silence is consent is merely one corollary of that fact. That probably doesn't quite cover your concerns, but let's discuss, and see what we end up with. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

My main concern is that "silence implies consent" can lead to real problems on policy pages, so it would be good if the page could make clear that silence is sometimes just silence. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SV. Kim, you are also trying to slip this in, subtly, at Consensus in your proposed new section which states this idea much more definitively than the rest of the policy page. Now you are here. You were reverted, but just ignored SV and reverted back with no meaningful discussion. Where is the consensus? Please self revert and discuss. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

(to SV, KM) I don't believe I was being subtle about it at all. :-) On mediawiki, where consensus can change at any time, your first, last, best, and only indication that your changes have consensus is that they are not changed. Nothing else can provide that information more reliably. 100 people can express consent, and then one person can come along and revert. And that kind of thing actually happens.

Yes, I agree, silence is a terrible criterion at times. But that is how the system is structured. To paraphrase Mark Twain: It is the worst solution, except for all the others.

The best you can do is learn how to work with it. I don't believe that denying the truth is a good way forward, though. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were a practitioner of Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss, but you've been revert warring a lot recently on these pages. Any particular reason for the change? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Bold Revert Discuss is a method to find interested parties, based on the consensus process. That's not what I'm doing here, so I'm not using that method here. I don't believe I have been revert warring, but feel free to show me diffs, so I might know if I've gone all wikipediholic and adminitissy and need a wikibreak ;-) Even so, aren't you changing the subject? *listens* :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Honest, I can stop any time I like!

I don't think diffs are really needed. You know you've been reverting a lot either without discussion, or despite discussion, against multiple editors, and I must admit to not knowing what the subject is that I may be trying to change. Silence often implies consent, yes of course, otherwise nothing would ever get done. Silence always implies consent, no, because the concept is sometimes used -- particularly on policy pages -- to, in effect, blackmail people into endlessly debating stupid points. If they're ignored, they just slip it in, reverting when asked not to change policy without consent, because they insist that the silence implied consent, when in fact it implied that no one could be bothered debating with them. You say you prefer description over prescription, Kim, but it seems to me here that you're trying to write up some Platonic idea of how consensus emerges, when the reality is sadly duller, and more violent. :) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's easy to undo nonsensical policy edits and say, "The change does not reflect consensus." Silence is broken as soon as one person objects. There's no need to debate either. Jehochman ^Talk 22:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

J, I point you to the ongoing discussion at Policy and guidelines, which perfectly illustrates the point that SV is making. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Slimvirgin: Actually, it's not idealistic at all! Jossi recently invited me to demonstrate how I solve conflicts on wikipedia, where I demonstrated quite a large number of concepts from the wikipedia policy pages. If you actually respect how consensus works, you can do amazing things in a very short period of time. I prevented 2 people from leaving wikipedia, mediated, speedy closed an AFD about the page they were working on, and did all sorts of other little things, and basically got everyone working together, and thus (somewhat incidentally) covered a pretty large part of the spectrum. Have a chat with him to hear how it worked out! :-)--Kim Bruning (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

The rewrite completely changes the focus from being about WP:BRD edits on articles to being about comments on talk pages? It's a completely different and meandering essay after the change, and I've reverted it as such. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Implies vs. Is

This comment applies to this version
I feel strongly that silence only implies consent but that it always implies it. I am very uncomfortable with the current wording that says silence is consent. I think that subtly but importantly overstates the case. It's not until the second paragraph that we currently acknowledge that the consent is only presumed.

I also don't think there are any situations where silence "is not" consent. Rather, there are situations where the implication of consent is not sufficient - that in some circumstances, consensus must be explicitly demonstrated. (And the page correctly gives some examples of those situations.)

What's wrong with the wording that "silence implies consent"? Rossami (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with that; I'm happy with any wording that's as far from "Sometimes, silence maybe kinda sorta implies consent I guess maybe under circumstances just as possibly the following.... " as possible. If the central idea here is just going to be gutted, there's no point to having this page. Would it maybe be better to keep this as an essay so it can actually say something useful? -- Kendrick7^talk 23:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree substantially with Rossami, but I think we should be careful because we don't want to give a license for people to covertly construct process pages and then claim consensus for the status quo when they are discovered months later. This I have seen and the root of my concern. I tweaked yesterday's version this moring with [1], but I could be happy with [2] prior to my edit. "silence implies consent" is a bit strong for my taste. I like "silence may imply consent under reasonable circumstances" and then discuss what is reasonable. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

there shouldn't me a "may". _→AzaToth 23:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd concede that point to ""silence implies consent under reasonable circumstances" --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if its reasonable to write anything in project space while operating under a pervasive fear of how our words might be WP:GAMEd by bad faith editors. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Essay or proposal

I will support this moving forward as either an essay or a proposal, but not under a custom tag as a supplement to a policy page. If it supplements a policy page, then it is policy and should be proposed advertised and have consensus evaluated. As an essay it is the persaonl opinions of the authors, not more or less. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

A supplement is not officially policy. There is no consensus for that. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is the concept of a supplement page described? I am familiar with policies, guidelines, and essays as clearly described at the Policy and guideline page (unless you changed that too). --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The concept exists in the way that the supplement template is applied, and how supplement pages are viewed. It is a relatively new concept, so there is currently little other documentation. You will have to discern consensus for yourself. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't buy that. A new concept, sounds like an end run around processes. Why not just work with people and if you don't get your way move past it. Let's let it go for now and let others see if they can make some progress without our input. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"A new concept, sounds like an end run around processes." Excellent. You might be starting to get it. O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers! I still want that IPA. --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Template talk:Supplement has been in use since about August 2007.

{{Essay}} is more suited for this page. Newbyguesses - Talk 03:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

The notion “silence is consent” is overly strong, if not simply wrong, and it should not be recognized in any way that may be read as official (as a supplement, or a guideline). Abstention, whether due to indecision, lack of care, lack of time to properly consider or whatever, should never be counted as either agreement or disagreement. If you feel that the lurkers are in silent agreement, then call a poll (“that we are all agreed”) to encourage them to contribute something. Whenever I’ve seen this done, I’ve not seen the lurkers come out in overwhelming agreement.

I note that the page begins by asserting the fallacy in the first sentence, and then backpedals thereafter. On careful reading, it does not assert what at first glance it appears to assert.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Your view of our editing process flies in the face of a large number of established policies and traditions at Wikipedia. See, for example, meta:Voting is evil which tells us that we should that we should not poll except in very specific circumstances and only after considering all the negative side-effects and meta:Don't vote on everything which explicitly tells us not to clutter up the page with endorsements of a position when the emerging consensus is clear. Rossami (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Rossami, your response is exceedingly imprecise. I have said nothing about our editing processes. I have not contested anything said in the meta essays. Do you dispute anything I actually wrote? I do say that polling, where and when used, has illustrated that silence does not imply consent. I was not advocating reckless voting to prove consensus exists where you would assert that silence implies it. I do, however, dispute as an underlying fallacy that “Wikipedia operates by consensus”. Mostly wikipedia works by contributors going about doing things that they do, with other contributors leaving them to it. In this non-contested work, things are done based on trust, not consensus. This effort here is silliness, insisting that consensus is behind everything, and if there is no evidence of consensus, well the silence per se means that there’s consensus. This is fallacy upon fallacy. I’d be happy to ignore it as harmless, but it is starting to intrude into Wikipedia:Consensus, which I consider to be actually important. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Trust is an important element in the normal wikipedia editing process, I agree. Lack of trust is what causes people to revert and hold the talk page for ransom, I guess. <scratches head>. Is there anything more we can write about that that isn't mentioned at assume good faith yet? Also, it'd be nice to see a synthesis document somewhere at some point. Some more also, perhaps we need to split out wiki-editing from consensus, as they seem to be a bit jumbled together at the moment. See also below, for comments about de-facto ...errr... facts. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"Whenever I’ve seen this done, I’ve not seen the lurkers come out in overwhelming agreement. ". And you never will: I'd hypothesize that you will always find a ~50/50 division (or, by induction: this has always happened in those situations so far). Unless people actually take time to consider an issue, and discuss it and negotiate on it, they will tend to act somewhat randomly.

Note that opposing is irrelevant. Silence is consent is a corollary of how wiki-editing works. You can only know that a version of a page did not have consensus, because a page that does not have consensus will be changed. There is no similar way to know if a page *does* actually and truely have consensus, because you might miss one dissenter at some point, or someone might come along much later and dissent then.

So all you can do is assume that a page has consensus, until it is proved otherwise. You could compare this a bit to how scientific theories work: You can pretty much be certain that they are flawed, but you assume they are true, until they are falsified. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC) scientific theories do start out being tested a lot by the person who proposed them, so that they don't get embarrassed by having their theory falsified even before it gets published. The scientific method is a bit more rigorous upfront than wiki-editing is.

No, a theory doesn’t deserve to be called a theory unless it has already made predictions beyond its assumptions. Before that, they are merely hypotheses. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I’d be happy with “you can assume that the page has consensus in the absence of objections”, but “silence is consensus” in black and white goes too far. After three weeks of silence, someone changes something. The change is objected on the basis that there was silence, therefore there was consensus. Policies, guidelines and supplements will be quoted in brief, so individual sentences, especially key sentences like the one I dispute, need care. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess you have a point. You have no choice but to assume that your changes have consensus, especially if no one has made any further changes for quite some time. Once again, the only thing that you can observe as a fact is when you do not have consensus. If someone, anyone changes the page, then only at that moment (not before, not after), can you be absolutely certain that your version of the page did not have consensus. This is also discussed at WP:CCC, which was written to explain how things proceed in contingencies as you discuss. That page (now paragraph) has been edited and worn down over time, so it might be a good idea to revisit it, to make the language clearer and stronger. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, a scientist would never assume that a theory is true until falsified. That would actually be a fallacy of negative proof. In the real world, the burden always falls on the person(s) making the claim, not on those opposing it. Ignoring that, the initial assertion of this page is entirely incorrect. When a consensus is not reached, the default policy is "status quo". This policy effectively interprets a non-consensus as a consensus to change.

The problems with that assertion are numerous. But the biggest problem is the shift in burden. If I make a change, and fail to notify anyone of that change, and claim consensus by silence, the burden is shifted to those opposing my change. While this abuses the spirit of this proposed policy, it certainly doesn't abuse it as written. Kim's changes to the proposal actually make it considerably more apt to abuse than the prior versions. That aside, neither version is acceptable for the reasons I've already explained. As such, I oppose any attempt to implement this as anything more than an essay. Justin ^chat 22:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what I am saying is that you can be almost certain that all scientific theories are false, at least, if evaluated in purely boolean terms. They are certainly falsifiable, and the chance for a scientific theory to be falsified over time is very high indeed. At times, scientists have treated theories that were already falsified as being true (such as where Newtons theories incorrectly predict the orbit of mercury, but they were still used, and are even still in use today) . But that might be getting too far into philosophy of science. Right now we're discussing how to best document how wikipedia works. :-)

What this page attempts to do is describe what was already implemented in code, when mediawiki was first commissioned. If it is an inaccurate description, perhaps we can improve on it.

If you make a change to a wiki-page, and no one opposes that change (by making an edit, or a revert), then the state is unknown. As you cannot proceed otherwise, you will simply have to assume it has consensus, no matter how problematic it is. I think that it is certainly important to realize that the assumption is problematic. The very second someone opposes you, at that moment in time you have certainty that in fact you did not have consensus, (as also explained in consensus can change).

Only the latter (the loss of consensus) is objectively observable. In the former case when you are in an unknown state, it would be impossible to proceed. For pragmatic purposes, you must assume that you have consensus. If you do not do so, then wikipedia would not be (/have been) able to grow by even a single page.

Does this cover all your concerns?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Kim, please don't change article headings which other editors have started (and commented under). Your change seemed to imply that those of us under the header support the idea with more emphasis on WP:CCC. I wrote a comment under oppose because I oppose this as a policy.

However, your modifications are really redundant. The page as it stands now is a short version of WP:BRD. However, there are two major differences that actually make this essay worse off than WP:BRD. First, you wikilinked the phrase "someone comes along and objects", to WP:CCC. WP:CCC isn't about one person objecting. It's about consensus changing. In other words, this policy still shifts the burden of consensus on to those who opposed the change in the first place. The second problem, is the implication that the longer something exists, the better evidence that consensus exists. By that logic, I can make major edits to a policy over a holiday weekend, and if no one notices for a week or two, I can argue that the silence implicated consensus.

WP:BRD is a good essay, which describes a good method for arriving at consensus. This essay takes it too far, by effectively giving someone that makes a change without consensus, the benefit of consensus. That's a bad precedent to set, so I still have to oppose. Justin ^chat 01:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a vote. <sigh> time to start the newsgroup alt.proposal.template.die.die.die

I figure that headers are not comments, and are supposed to summarize comments below them as accurately as possible. <scratches head> But that's not what we're talking about now so I'll concede that point today.

The page describes a mechanism under which wikipedia works. The reason that this page seems to have much in common with BRD, is because BRD shows how to use wiki-editing mechanisms in one particular creative way. This page describes one such mechanism, but is not itself BRD. (Note also that BRD is not intended as a method to arrive at consensus. It is merely a way to restart the normal consensus process.)

What CCC says, or is supposed to say, is that if even a single person comes along and objects, there is no longer any consensus, no matter how long a page appears to have had consensus before that point. If the person is clearly nuts, their objections won't last long, of course, but in all other cases, their objections must be listened to, and a compromise must be sought.

The reason something that has been present for a long time is more likely to have consensus, is because the longer something has been present, the more people are likely to have seen it. This is a purely statistical statement. If someone makes an edit over a holiday weekend, it is less likely that many people will have seen it, so such an edit is less likely to have consensus.

Story: At one point in time, when I was still young and naive, (and grass was greener and admins were real admins, ... etc etc), just before accepting a nomination for adminship, I decided that I should be naughty at least once, before being locked in the golden cage. O:-)

So I actually went and edited or created a slightly silly page (it was a long time ago, the details are fuzzy in memory :-P ), and declared on applicable forums that it would become policy in n amount of time (I believe it was 72 hours :-) ). No one objected in that amount of time, so in my then still naive thinking, I obviously had consensus to proceed. (although in the back of my mind, I knew that I was actually being just a bit naughty ;-) ) And thus I made the edit to make it policy.

Now, if you've been reading my edits to this page, you can probably already guess what happened immediately after that. ;-)

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Outcome: That's right: not one, but several editors showed up on the talk page, and gently explained with some amount of humor to their tone, that of course they understood *exactly* what I was up to, I wasn't going to get away with it, and of course the page wasn't policy, because there was no consensus for it.

And that's just the example I remember the most fondly, as this kind of occurrence is actually fairly common, I think. :-)

So if you're saying that the description as stated on this page isn't accurate yet, because it implies that this situation wouldn't occur, then perhaps we're missing some essential element. <scratches head>

Do you have any ideas? --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with wikis is that you cannot get affirmation for an edit, only disaffermation. Hmm, let me try to rephrase. (take a look in a sec, and tell me if this is an improvement) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so now I've edited and put a lot more weight to Consensus Can Change, though I'm not entirely happy with how it turned out:

Now I think we have some amount of redundancy with CCC, and also the actual concept we're talking about (having to assume silence ~=consensus because there's no other way to tell) has become somewhat snowed under. Anyone else want to give things a shot? --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"Things will be fine"

"Most of the time, you will find that it's fine to assume consensus, even if just for now, as it's more important to keep editing and cooperating smoothly in good faith as much as possible."

Meh, I wrote this, but I'm not happy with the wording. I'm just trying to get across that on most pages with few editors, you'll be mostly fine. How can this be worded better? --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps something like this?:

"For most of the times, bureacrasy is not helpful for bringing the encyclopedia forward. Usually the implied consensus is more than enough to keep editing and cooperation go smoothly forward." _→AzaToth 00:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

My support

This is an excellent guideline. Often I encounter trolls who revert new edits (because of personal bias?) but refuse to provide any reason for their reversions other than "it violates consensus". This guideline will help evoke reasonable discussion from them. Well done. (although the original idea seems to be devolving) Bensaccount (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if we can manage to do both. :-) Any ideas? --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(for example that you have notified all relevant forums)

Oh dear. There is no on-wiki documentation about this particular issue at all yet. I'll provide a bit here.

Limits to the wiki system

Many traditional forms of governance have evolved automatic hard limits, which prevent any part of such governance structure from having more human-human interactions than are hypothetically possible to maintain. see: Dunbar's number.

There has been no research on how many natural human-human interactions are feasible on wikipedia, but it is hypothesized that this number will be smaller online than it is in the real world, due to all kinds of signals not being transmitted over the medium. That is to say: Some number considerably lower than 150 people.

It turns out that most pages are edited by no more than some 30 people. The last time we did measurements, there were only about 1000 pages that had over 150 people editing them, and we figured that those would have to be the pathological cases (out of ~ 1 million pages total) . In short, most pages are edited by a sufficiently small number of people, so that the innate human social ability is sufficient to ensure that everyone cooperates adequately.

inviting too many people considered harmful

If you invite too many people at once, they will all try to provide input at once, and the number of interactions between people will grow larger than can be sustained over one single page. Innate human social ability will fail, people will be unable to stay on track, and the process will fall apart.

Wikipedia has no innate upper bound on the number of people who can attempt to work on a same issue at the same time. You have to control the number of people working on a problem at the same time somehow. One way is to keep the rate of invitations down to a manageable level. Another method is to not make invitations at all, and rely on word-of-mouth (which is actually surprisingly effective). Everyone who has an interest in the topic will eventually be heard, truly heard, in this way, and that's what we want :-).

So if you decided to visit many forums: go to 1 forum first, and invite a number of people. Form a consensus among those people first. This will also allow these people to act as a group somewhat. Once you have agreement, a small number of members of this group go to the next forum, and once again invite, and so forth...

This way, with a bit of luck, you will stay under the "Dunbar limit" , and make sure that everyone is truly heard, with much light, and little heat being generated. Big spectacular free-for-alls with 100s of editors on one page look really cool, but typically has very little effect, and leaves people feeling disenfranchised.

Input?

So that's the reason I removed the text between parentheses. It's a tad too simplistic, and it becomes more and more unwise as wikipedia grows.

Do others agree, disagree? (Also, we probably want to write some documentation on this topic at some time)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't focus on article editing directly, but more general, i.e. for an eventual problematic block, relevant forum could be WP:ANI etc. _→AzaToth 03:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, <scratches head> --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal process is deprecated

We have had long arguments with proponents of the proposal process, and so far they have provided no statistically significant evidence that their preferred process works at all. Pages describing the proposal process have been redirected, and all references to these pages are slowly being removed.

I am now seeing people place comments like support or oppose here, which is silly, let me explain why.

Wikipedia guidance is descriptive, not prescriptive.

When you're describing things, you can't support or oppose the description.For instance, you could no more support or oppose the sky being blue: "I would like to see it purple with green polkadots today".

What you can do is disagree, of course. "Sometimes, the sky is actually grey, you know, and at least half the time, it is black". It's a different kind of argument. But it is infinitely more productive, and you end up with a useful compromise.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What pages? -- Kendrick7^talk 05:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. ;-)--Kim Bruning (talk) 06:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC) if you're looking for a slightly more elucidation than that ;-) : Wikipedia:How to create policy, which currently redirects to a different page. It might be tricky to find the original content, as there are several redirect chains.

found it! : [3] --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the proposal process is doing fine. It is not as though we have stopped making new policies. While policy is to be descriptive of practice it should also be in the form of clear rules. This page is written in an advisory form, its very style of prose reveals that. It gives advice that is not the sort of thing that can even be enforced. And while many Wikipedians perform these techniques that is just one way that Wikipedians do things. One of the reasons most proposed policies fail is because the community does not want a whole bunch of rules it does not really need. _{(1 == 2)}^Until 16:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to resurrect the proposal system, please follow all the links and check previous discussions first though. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that proposals rarely make it through as policies is proof that the proposal system works. I'm guessing your point is that you'd rather those of us against this becoming a guideline or policy compromise. The problem (at least for me), is that I'm opposed to the fundamental goal of this proposal. It's not a matter of disagreeing with content, I disagree with the goal. Hence my use of the word "oppose". I "oppose" this becoming a policy for the reasons I've already stated. Compromise is an excellent goal, but it isn't always achievable. Justin ^chat 17:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that I have rarely had an anvil fall on my head is proof that my anvil-repelling-charm works. ;-) Also, Please check the links above.

While we might not agree on the reasons, do we agree that the proposal tag can be removed? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't exactly my point. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy... so the fewer policies and rules the better. Hence, it's a good thing that proposals rarely become policies. That being said, I agree, the essay tag is more appropriate. Justin ^chat 21:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a good thing you can just assume there are none then. :-) But while proposals don't become policies or guidelines, many pages that are not proposed *do* become policies and guidelines. It is specifically proposals that almost never lead to guidelines or policies. The "good thing" argument is a red herring, you see. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

When I offered my support I meant I support the work of those people who took the time to describe this in the project namespace because it makes it easier to inform newcomers or trolls who are unfamiliar about how consensus is arrived at. Bensaccount (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

An issue

If anything, I think this should be a guideline, not a policy. First, if you can't get affirmation for an edit, you're supposed to move through various WP:Dispute resolution steps, right? So I think that maybe the guideline should address silence in terms of article talk page discussions and things like RfCs. I would say that this would work for articles outside of particular hot-button topics like anything not related to, oh, abortion or religion. I've run across a number of editors' comments about how they don't want to wade into particular disputes or RfCs. I think this is because certain topics tend to draw unwanted and antagonistic attention. Personally, I find silence to be a problem in these contexts, not an indication of consensus. How do people feel about a few lines about how silence does not necessarily constitute consensus in these contexts? Phyesalis (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine essay, not build like a policy

While this may be a fine essay, it cannot be a guideline or policy because the ideas here are advisory, and opinion based. It does not set out rules or guidelines to be followed, but gives out general advice that encourages discretion, much of which is mirrored in WP:BOLD. We want to minimize the rules we have, which is why we have wonderful essays that let us convey our wisdom without overburdening ourselves with rules. Good essay, I cannot support it being a guideline or essay. _{(1 == 2)}^Until 16:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Which part of the text is an opinion? Let's remove that as quickly as possible. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this policy 100%. There are too many editors doing a rhetorical drive-by shooting of POV-pushing on articles. They won't discuss their edits, although they'll revert. Engaging them is tedious and repeatedly reverting their edits leads to people being blocked. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Which policy? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Policy proposal. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the first sentence is opinion to start with, I get affirmation often. I have made changes to policies both through boldness and after discussion and had them stick and become consensus and many are still there today. It is not just that this page contains opinion, it also is not a set of rules to follow, so what would it even mean to call it policy? It says it is okay to do assume consensus if there is no response, fine, it says that you should be careful if your action could effect others negatively, fine. But these aren't rules, they are good advice. WP:BOLD(which is an existing guideline) seems to cover much of this anyways.

Placing my opinion to one side for a moment, if you want this to become policy then it will need some advertising at perhaps WP:VPP because policies, unlike most content here "have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard that all users should follow". _{(1 == 2)}^Until 02:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? Have you ever gotten what you thought was affirmation for an edit, did the edit, and then gotten yourself reverted? --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

People revert for all sorts of reasons, sometimes there are some who agree and others who don't. If I get reverted then there either needs to be a greater consensus or the person who reverted me is ignoring the consensus. Not an issue that comes up so often as to be a problem for me. But I am sure I get affirmation often and that I have had success in changing policy. _{(1 == 2)}^Until 04:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If you were reverted, your change obviously did not have the agreement of all the interested parties (consensus), at that point in time. Do you agree? --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This is getting more and more hypothetical. Of course if someone disagrees then it is not agreed by all parties, that is a logical conclusion. Not sure what that has to do with the topic. _{(1 == 2)}^Until 15:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If what I'm saying is correct, then every entry on Special:Recentchanges (barring -possibly- new page creation) is an example of this situation. That's not very hypothetical, and in fact rather common, I think ;-)

So you thought you had consensus upfront. But you discovered that you did not have consensus. We agree. Do you agree that this only occurred after the moment you actually made the edit? --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

What's the point of this? I'm all for the Socratic Method, but I'm interesting in how this applies to making the current proposal policy? WP:BRD already covers the idea of being bold, and reverted (ie, lack of consensus). Again, the only real difference I see is that this policy suggests being bold outside of the article namespace. I'm just not sure why this needs to be a rule? If I make a proposal, and no one comments, I then implement the proposal, and no one edits it, then we can assume no one cares. If someone does revert it, clearly they do care, and discussion ensues. These two combined make up WP:BOLD and WP:BRD. So I'm not sure why we need a policy that combines WP:BRD (an essay with good advice) and WP:BOLD which is a guideline. It simply doesn't make sense that "good advice" should be a policy. Justin ^chat 20:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This page does not suggest anything, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not quite sure who put the proposed policy tag on, as that's just silly. I removed it and got reverted. But no one seems to be able to explain why that revert was made.

Yet again, what this page describes is an aspect of how a wiki works. Yet again, this is not BRD. Yet again, BRD is not a normal editing method. Yet again, BRD uses certain wiki-features (such as this one). Just because BRD *applies* something, does not mean that that something needn't be described separately at some point. In fact, it's pretty important to describe everything explicitly. Everything that isn't documented tends to get forgotten over time.

I'm getting deja-vu. Why is this repeating over and over, Are people actually reading any previous discussion on this page? I'm confused over that. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Gaming the system

This page worries me, because it can be misconstrued as giving carte blanche to POV editors wishing to WP:GAME the system. I have had recent difficulties with a notion of "tacit consensus" with a certain editor (who I will not mention). One of the things this editor tried to do was to raise an objection on the talk page. Others would respond to his objection, and then this editor would reiterate things he/she had already said. If, by the end of the thread, no new objections were raised, the editor would proclaim that he/she had "won" the debate, and that "tacit" consensus existed. (The axiom "Silence implies consensus" was invoked in supporting this sort of behavior.)

I would suggest some clarification about what "Silence implies consensus" is not. One thing that the above experience suggests is that silence implies consensus does not mean that the editor to get the last word in has consensus. Silly rabbit (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been in debates like that. Some people keep posting until everyone has gone away. One debate was on whether nuclear power is renewable energy. Everyone thinks it isn't except one editor and, apparently, President Bush. Eventually, he got it included - only to have it removed by every new editor who comes by. A slight exaggeration, but the point is that things often get fixed automatically (ie by new people) if they are wrong. Also, how many change their mind but don't admit it, instead remaining silent? Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I share Silly rabbit’s worry. "Silence implies consensus" is too much and could easily be abused. However, the page now only says “all you can do is assume that silence implies consensus, and act like there is a true consensus about the edit.”

On threads: This page should only be read to apply to pages, not to talk discussions. If you give up complaining about something on the page, then you’ve acquiesced. However, talk page discussions per se can be ignored. If on a talk page, someone is flogging a dead horse, or endlessly repeated defeated arguments, or has gone far off topic, then it is appropriate that they are ignored. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That's covered at WP:CONSENSUS. Basically consensus can change. You simply point out to the person that while they may indeed have represented consensus at that very second, it rather appears that consensus has changed, and that you are happy to continue discussing the issue. Jimbo once said something somewhere along the lines of, it doesn't matter what the issue is, just keep pushing the policies at them. If people are attempting to game, do not play the game. Just use the policies in the spirit they are intended. On Wikipedia you don't actually need much more than the five pillars, because everything is contained within that. Every dispute simply boils down to finding a compromise which satisfies most people and helps build the encyclopedia. People who refuse to collaborate on those terms will eventually find they can not collaborate on this project. Gaming the system only works when other people play. Hiding T 10:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree that referring to consensus can change resolves everything. While it's true it implies editors can't hide behind the fact there was consensus and refuse further discussion, it also implies there was consensus which in some cased there clearly wasn't Nil Einne (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

"Should"

Wikipedia guidance is descriptive, not prescriptive.

Words such as "should" or "must" are good indicators that you're trying to be prescriptive, so try to avoid them.

While we're on the topic, another red flag on guidance pages is the word "unilateral" (didn't spot it here yet). Most of the time someone uses "Unilateral", it indicates that they have some issue with our guideline on being BOLD.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This oft repeated “descriptive, not prescriptive” is dubious rhetoric. (I think you actually wanted to say “guidance should be descriptive, not prescriptive.”!) Guidelines sometimes do, and ought to be ably to prescribe a desirable practice. Of course, even if prescribed, such practice must be described. The two are not mutually exclusive.

However, I agree that naked prescription, prescription without justification or rationale, which typically involves the words “should” or “must” is bad. If one “should”/ “must”, then it is better to demonstrate why one “should”/ “must”, rather than just say so. I agree with your conclusion, but disagree with your reasoning:

Words such as "should" or "must" are good indicators that you're ~~trying to be prescriptive~~ skipping the logical justification for your recommendation, so try to avoid them.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Descriptive, not prescriptive, is not only dubious. It's just plain false, and I think is based on a misunderstanding of the word prescriptive. The policies and guidelines are both descriptive and prescriptive. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We've been writing from a descriptive perspective for a long time. If you've been making prescriptive style alterations based on your perceptions, that could be a problem. --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

From WP:5P: "All articles must follow our no original research policy, and editors must strive for verifiable accuracy". This sounds prescriptive to me. The descriptions are linked. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" in bold, is also effectively a prescription.

From WP:NPOV: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV)"

From WP:N: "The topic of an article should be notable"

Wikipedia policy, guidelines and other summaries are, in these cases, apparently prescriptive. Does Kim contend that they should not be prescriptive? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that writing them in a prescriptive fashion is not the greatest idea of all time, since new people then believe that wikipedia is rules-based, and don't understand that these ideas are all just basically rough guidelines as to what the best course of action might be in any particular circumstance. --Kim Bruning (talk) 07:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for the heads up, it looks like a lot of crap got added since the first revision. Care to help me clean that out? --Kim Bruning (talk) 07:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You see, bald statements without motivation are pretty useless in modern western society in general, but in a consensus system, they are worse than useless, because they deny people the ability to reason or negotiate about them. When people can't discuss things, they tend to fight about them instead.

Kim, I think you've misunderstood. We may write descriptively, but the page once written is prescriptive. We are saying to new people: "This is what we do. Please do it too." SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I have known all these years, we're telling folks "please write an encyclopedia, and here are some ways that have worked in the past". It used to be that it was obvious that wikipedia was run by consensus and negotiation, so I guess the whole "descriptive not prescriptive" was obvious, and taken as a given. --Kim Bruning (talk) 07:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"Prescriptive" just means "recommended." It doesn't mean "mandatory." If I prescribe something, I'm saying it's a good idea. That's what "here are some ways that have worked in the past" means too.

You're setting up a false dichotomy with the whole "descriptive not prescriptive" thing. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well the idea is to describe what works, not make up stuff and tell people what to do. It's sort of the policy version of WP:V and [{WP:NOR]] ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, and in choosing to describe what works, you are prescribing. You're saying "here are the best practices," "here are what the good editors and well-behaved admins do," "here are the things the community likes," the things that work, the things we say "hurrah" to. This is a prescriptivist vocabulary.

If you said: "Here are a bunch of things Wikipedians regularly do," the policies would be purely descriptive and would read very differently.

As soon as you say: "Here are the things Wikipedians do that tend to work well," you are prescribing. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If that's a prescription, what's a description? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A policy that was description without prescription would be something like, "Here are things Wikipedians do regularly: they revert a lot, they curse each other, they fall out, they take each other to ArbCom, they POV push, and they often don't care about sources. On the other hand, some Wikipedians don't do any these things. We're not saying one way or the other which is better. You do what you want." SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. At the same time, we can also describe what happens to people who POV push, and we can describe what happens to people who don't. People can make up their minds about the consequences themselves, right? --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so we have two descriptions:

1. Drivers who regularly ignore red lights are often injured, killed, their cars smashed up, their families and friends injured or killed, their insurance rates hiked up, and if they make it out alive, they often end up in jail, where they're despised by all.

2. Drivers who wait for the lights to change to green are often safe on the road, they stay healthy, their families and friends thrive, their insurance rates are low, and they grow to become rich, happy, much-loved old men who die peacefully in their sleep.

You are saying that neither of these is prescriptive, right? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Where are you going with this? *listens* --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This has got silly. I think I can understand what Kim means, and he is right, its just that he misexplains it. Where he says "prescriptive" he means the "tendency to authoritatively dictate new rules without explanation or justification". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the misexplaining part. But yes. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've always thought should was fine but must was bad, because should means it can be otherwise but we'd like it not to be, whereas must means it cannot be otherwise. Must is definitive and proscriptive, should is probabilistic and aspirational and therefore descriptive. Should is not a good indicator that someone is trying to be prescriptive, it is a good indicator that someone is trying to be descriptive. I'm also amused that we are being given lists of words that we need to try and avoid. Sounds proscriptive. Hiding T 16:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

:-P Make it: List of words that could be indicative? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Unanimous consent

"Silence and consensus" seems similar to the concept of unanimous consent in deliberative assemblies, which is, perhaps, the opposite of the concept of a second. Under the former, silence means that the motion is adopted. Under the latter, silence means that the motion dies. I presume that "silence and consensus" applies mainly to article content edits and not to, e.g., policy proposals or AfDs. Although I suppose if you edit a policy page and no one changes it, that suggests the existence of a consensus (or perhaps no one noticed the change). Sarsaparilla (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It applies everywhere, to differing degrees. Wikipedia is a consensus system, not a parliamentary system--Kim Bruning (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal and return of paragraph

Kim removed what I think to be an important paragraph, which begins with: "In the case of policy pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected." I returned it becasue I think it is very important to make it clear that policy pages require a higher level participation. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that sentence is important. The paragraph may be in the wrong place though, since the essay is not written to highest standard at this time in my opinion. I think this essay is helpful, and that some editors may be able to improve it with some attention. See how that goes; in the meantime the paragraph is reasonable, it could be expressed better. (soFixit, lol) --NewbyG (talk) 01:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Covered?

The phrase "using material covered by" ought to be replaced by one expressing whether the policy encourages or disparages the usage. It's very confusing as it stands. Unfree (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Qui tacit

If it's Latin, it must be true, but I'd like to point out that I don't consider myself involved in this discussion and disagree with the idea that consensus is what you all are talking about. Silence is merely an unreliable indication that the sleeper doesn't always snore, and there can be no way to seek consensus without seeking consensus. Unfree (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

adding another essay

I've created Wikipedia:What is consensus? to help the community understand what is a pretty tricky and nuanced concept. Consensus is definitely an art, and not a science. Feel free to chime in with comments. Feel free to WP:BOLDly change the essay I've created, although I might politely ask that you try to keep it in the same basic spirit I've tried to put forward. Randomran (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Nutshell

The nutshell I replaced ("If you disagree, the onus is on you to say so") doesn't really reflect the point of the essay, which is to warn people that just because nobody has spoken up against whatever argument they might be making doesn't mean that there isn't opposition. I don't care what the exact wording is myself, but it really needs to be focused on those who assume consensus, not the dissenters. howcheng {chat} 17:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I read this essay as saying that silence implies consent, with qualifications, and it seems like you are saying the qualifications are the only point of the essay. But the first, second, third and fourth paragraphs are saying that silence implies consent, and then in the fifth and sixth paragraphs we get into the qualifications. That's why I tried to write a more balanced nutshell - you can presume silence implies consent, but this can be overridden because people can change their minds, or because others came late to the discussion. SmokeyJoe reverted my version to the earlier one, but that version is less clear, and makes the idea sound more absolute than it really is. Do you support my version at all? Fletcher (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that worked for me. However, someone else just came by and wiped out the nutshell at all, so perhaps this whole thread is moot. :) howcheng {chat} 18:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I like the statement "If you disagree, the onus is on you to say so". It gives a simple and clear message, I think, to those who think that something has consensus because no one else is objecting, and so they don’t raise their objection. However, it wasn’t me who moved it to the nutshell. When I reverted the nutshell change, it was because the newer versions were confusing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)