Misplaced Pages

talk:Consensus: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:50, 18 October 2017 editBrightR (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,257 edits →Survey← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:25, 20 January 2025 edit undoWhatamIdoing (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers122,453 edits Undid revision 1270705021 by 103.200.36.128 (talk)Tag: Undo 
Line 5: Line 5:
|archiveheader = {{atnhead}} |archiveheader = {{atnhead}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K |maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 20 |counter = 24
|algo = old(30d) |algo = old(90d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Consensus/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Consensus/Archive %(counter)d
|minthreadsleft = 1 |minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 2
}}<!-- }}<!--


Line 21: Line 21:


{{cquote|Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal.|author=]}} {{cquote|Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal.|author=]}}
{{AutoArchivingNotice
|small=yes
|age=30
|index=./Archive index
|bot=lowercase sigmabot III
}}


__FORCETOC__
== Levels of consensus ==
The ] section needs to be elaborated. Right now it names essays, WikiProject advice pages, information pages and template documentation pages (which may or may not represent broad community consensus, or one editor's personal opinion) and policies (which ''should'' represent the broadest community consensus). There are a few intermediate levels of consensus that are mentioned in the policy but not in the levels-of-consensus section:
{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"
! Original list (version 0) - 11:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
|-
|
* ]
* ] through silence or editing, which is no consensus when ]
* ], from narrowest to broadest:
** ], in an article talk page or WikiProject talk page
** ], the more supported the better
** ], which ''should'' represent the broadest consensus {{small|(but sometimes {{diff|oldid=790603064|diff=prev|label=short and critical}} or {{diff|oldid=771931949|diff=prev|label=relatively long}} policy changes are made with no discussion and remain simply through implicit consensus, even though people assume they've been thoroughly discussed and accepted)}}
|}
The addition is meant to reduce ] where an editor refuses to acknowledge consensus because they didn't approve it, or because there's no local consensus. ] 11:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"
! Prose (version 1) - 09:36, 20 September 2017
|-
|
;Levels of consensus
{{Anchor|Level of consensus}}
{{Policy shortcut|WP:CONLIMITED|WP:Local consensus|WP:CONLEVEL}}
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. {{tq|i=y|Generally, the scale is as follows, from narrowest to broadest: ] or ], which is no consensus when ]; ], from local consensus, to ], to guidelines, to ], which should represent the broadest consensus.}} For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a ] cannot decide that some generally accepted ] does not apply to articles within its scope. ], ] and ] have not formally been approved by the community through the ], thus have no more status than an ].
|}


== Consensus might become hindrance to truth ==
Changes in italics. ] 09:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC) Alternate bullet-point version below. ] 09:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


When ] was sentenced to death, the consensus was against what he said.
{| class="wikitable collapsible"
! List in its own subsection (version 2) - 23:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
|-
|
;Scale
Though ], the amount of community participation and agreement indicates the level of acceptance of a consensus. Usually, participation follows this rising order:
* ] through silence or editing, which is ] when ]
* ]:
** local consensus, among a small number of contributors regarding one or several ]
** ], among a large number of contributors regarding a general or community-wide issue, which may be represented in ] and ].
|}
Added bullet-point version. ] 09:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
:You have successfully convinced me you are thinking about something worth improving, but it's not entirely clear how you propose to change the existing text. The best way to communicate your ideas might be to just copy the subsection here and edit it the way you like, then post so we can see exactly what you're thinking. Thanks ] (]) 11:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
::Good idea, added. ] 09:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
:::{{Ping|BrightR}} Excellent, I'll take a look in a day or two. Meanwhile, as a housekeeping matter, please consider deleting my comments in this subtread. No need for others to review this now that you updated the original post. ] (]) 15:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
::As long as we are discussing this topic... I would love to see some discussion about where policy related RFCs fit in... these can take place on LOCAL pages (article talk pages, project talk pages, etc), but are not necessarily LOCAL in scope (with wide participation, thus reflecting wide community consensus). One option would be to shift from "local" (focused on the place where the consensus was established) to "limited" (focused on the number of participants). ] (]) 12:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
:::Three things:
:::*Another consideration: The stuff that's in the current Levels of consensus section is really only about the difference between content consensus and policy/guideline consensus and the special nature of consensus needed for policy/guidelines. I'd be extremely loath to change that language or dilute it by inserting inside it material having more to do with general levels of consensus than with policies and guidelines. On the other hand, the current section title is too broad for just policies and guidelines. What if BrightR's material, or something like it, were to be inserted before all the existing material and the existing material (along with the three current shortcuts) were moved into a four-equals subsection just below it named something like "Consensus for policies and guidelines"?
:::*Having said that, I'm not sure just how useful or necessary this change is. I don't think that it's wrong or mistaken (though it probably needs some discussion and tweaking), I'm just not sure what problem it's really seeking to address that's not already adequately addressed here and elsewhere. I like it in one way because it makes clear something that's only kind of implied in this policy right now, but I'm not at all sure how needed it is.
:::*A word of caution: This proposal could by mentioning consensus by silence become very controversial and easily become sidetracked through that detail. Though the concept is, as noted, already here in ] what it ''means'' (especially mechanically, if anything at all), and the degree to which it should be emphasized has caused some heated discussions in the past.
:::Best regards, ] (]) 16:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
::::All very good notes.
::::# No problem.
::::# This is specifically meant to address situations where an editor engages in ] behavior by saying, for example "you don't have consensus ''here''" or "that guideline is just a suggestion, therefore my version should remain until you have consensus," whether or not the current version has any consensus.
::::# I tried to make it clear that consensus by silence is no consensus the moment it's disputed.
::::Hopefully this will make the proposal as uncontroversial as possible. ] 09:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::I'd been thinking about this topic for a while and though I reserve my right to comment further on this section in the future, I think the change is an improvement. I would like to see ''policies and guidelines'' separated to clearly identify that a guideline is not equivalent to a policy. ] (]) 11:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::Updated. It's worth mentioning that the order is not absolute; some RfCs actually have broader support than some guidelines. Parts of some guidelines (and even parts of some policies, couple of examples above) were written by one person and simply stuck, while formal RfCs always have broad exposure. Some talk-page discussions involve a broader subset of the community than some parts of guidelines and policies, too. ] 12:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::It is fuzzy and that was one of the things I've been thinking about, and is why some of the language used causes me some concern; "cannot" (where do IAR and sensible exceptions fit in), "breadth" & "wider" (for exactly the reason you mentioned above, this doesn't necessarily correlate to a 'level' of consensus arrived at by a particular methodology). However, although I've got some ideas, they may never turn into concrete suggestions, so as I said I think what you've suggested is an improvement.] (]) 12:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::::In general all the "cannot" in policies should be replaced with "should not", but maybe that's a semantics discussion for another time. ] 12:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
*The proposed change seems to be covered in the sections above the LOC....is the intent to link to the other sections that explains more?--] (]) 14:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
::Yup. ] 14:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
::oK. ....then I suggest we move the LOC section to before the others....odd to see the intro to the other sections after the sections it mentions.--] (]) 14:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
:::Good idea. What if we were to leave the current section where it is but rename it "Consensus for policies and guidelines" and then put BrightR's material (I really liked the bullet points better, paragraphed text is too dense) in a new section entitled "Levels of consensus" above the existing "Achieving consensus" section? Again, I'm opposed to changing any of the text in the current section. , though the wording of the last bullet point probably still needs some cleanup. Best regards, ] (]) 16:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
::::I like it....but all our templates like {{tl|Information page}} and hundreds of administrative pages like ] link to "Levels of consensus" because of its content about the type of pages. Is there another name we can use because linking to the new section would be very odd for many incoming links. Perhaps call the section an Overview? ] (]) 16:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::Good point. How about "Types of consensus"? Best regards, ] (]) 18:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::Added a bullet-point version, probably the one I'll RfC since it's easier to read. ] 09:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
{{od}}
I returned to load this in my brain, only to find two text boxes in the opening post instead of one. I might be able to decipher the full current proposal reading the subsequent discussion, but.... being a policy page, it will help the final consensus if new comers to the discussion don't have to do that. So as a housekeeping idea... to facilitate discussion... please consider creating a demonstration edit by first changing the policy page, then self reverting and posting the DIFF to the proposal. That would lock it in nice and neat for discussion purposes. If this suggestion appeals to you, I further suggest you name the DIFF anticipating that there may later ones as the ideas are vetted by additional eds. Maybe "DEMO-Ver-01" or equivalent. That way if additional good ideas come along, and the conversation gets convoluted, you can update the proposal with a link to "DEMO-Ver-02", and with proper threading and subsection titling it will be super-simple for people to instantly know what is being proposed and the current status of discussion. ] (]) 11:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
:The RfC will not have two boxes; when this discussion concludes, I'll phrase an RfC neutrally and succinctly ("Should the following subsection be added to ]? ") ] 12:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
::Apologies, if I had sorted out the subsequent discussion I would have learned of your plans to repackage it after initial feedback. Carry on! ] (]) 23:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


Recently someone asked me to gain consensus first even though I cited a strong, universally accepted reference for the material.
;Where do RFC's fit into CONLEVEL?
I mentioned this above, but it really is an unrelated issue from what is being discussed... so I am hiving it off into a separate discussion. CONLEVEL is missing an important item: where do '''RFC'''s fit in? The problem is that RFCs can take place on ''local'' pages, but they can sometimes reflect very ''broad'' community consensus (indeed some RFCs can reflect a ''broader'' consensus than was achieved at the guideline level). Then again, other RCFs reflect consensus of only a few editors. It all depends on the level of participation (not the level of location). Thus, I am not sure ''how'' to account for RFCs, but I think we do need to account for them in some way. ] (]) 12:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
:{{tq|i=y|RCFs reflect consensus of only a few editors. It all depends on the level of participation }} - exactly. It entirely depends on the number of participants and percentage of agreement. An RfC with a million participants and a 50% split between two options is a clear no-consensus, and so any local consensus is better than it. An RfC with 20 participants and 90% agreement is pretty strong, and local consensuses shouldn't be able to override it; if it's reasonable to believe the RfC might not represent the general consensus any more, then a new RfC can be held. ]. ] 14:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
:::The problem is that an RFC held at an article level can result in an outcome that disagrees with something said at the guideline level (this is less common with policy). The RFC then gets dismissed as being a "local consensus" (due to location) when in fact the RFC is hardly "local". ] (]) 14:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
::::The policy page already ] that it's not local ({{tq|i=y|inviting others to participate}}), and in any case whether it's local or "broad" depends on the number of participants and the exposure of the notices of the discussion. I'm getting the feeling this is about the semantics of the word "local" in favor of the word "limited"? In which case, I strongly urge you to avoid quibbling over this, like ]. ] 15:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


What if the right number of editors to reach consensus on a certain topic of an article is absent from participating that discussion?
RFC's are a ''tool'' for obtaining consensus (just like ], ], or ]) , not a ''type or level'' of consensus. Depending on how they're "advertised" and where they are used they can either form local consensus or community-wide consensus. The difference between local consensus and wider consensus is the type of place (along, again I would argue, with advertisement) that the RFC occurs. If the RFC happens at ] or ], it's ordinarily local; if it happens at ], it's ordinarily community-wide. The best place to illustrate the distinction is at wiki-projects. Ordinarily, RFC's (and, for that matter, ordinary consensus discussions) at wiki-project talk pages only form local consensus and essay-level standards for those projects (as currently stated at ]), ''but'' with proper advertisement and intent they ''can'' create policy or guidelines. Thus, the ''means'' of obtaining consensus, whether through ordinary discussion or through RFC, isn't the determinant; it's how the RFC is promoted and advertised. To say it a third way: If an RFC at a wiki-project specifically says that it's proposing to create a guideline or policy ''and'' that RFC is, per the ] advertised at places like the ] then it can, indeed, create policy or guidelines. In that case the RFC is community-wide. But if you file an RFC at ] to determine whether chartreuse ponies can be documented through reliable sources, that's local consensus. Best regards, ] (]) 22:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
:Hmm, good point, I'll revise the bullet-point list above. ] 23:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


How does[REDACTED] fight ]? ] (]) 07:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
== Request for Comment - add subsection to WP:Local consensus about consensus levels ==


:@] Please be specific and provide a link to where you were asked to gain consensus. ] ] 10:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
{{rfc|policy|prop|rfcid=329497B}}
::@], please read the notice-box on top of . ] (]) 11:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Should the "scale" subsection below be added to the ] section of ]? ] 10:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
:::You really should have told ] you were posting here. Have you read the page for which is the talk page carefully? ] ] 11:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
{{talkquote|1=
::::As a new editor I was trying to understand the concept of 'consensus during editing' myself first. ] (]) 12:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
'''Scale'''
:::::Well, when discussing the substance of articles, it's not editors that we formally ''rely'' on (so not what's popular to them), although it's still their job to understandably and in summary fashion relate the relevant body of reliable literature, see generally ], so that's what they either have agreement on or need to resolve. ] (]) 15:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Though ], the amount of community participation and agreement indicates the level of acceptance of a consensus. Usually, participation follows this rising order:
:::The editor said "Fails ]" before saying "Please gain consensus for this first." So what the editor is really saying is "I think there is a problem with this edit and I've told you what it is. Your next step is to take it to the talk page to explain why you think I'm wrong and see what other editors think." ] (]) 16:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
* ] through silence or editing, which is ] when ].
::::I don't understand how an editor can simply remove a content and claim that 'there might be a problem explain yourself'. The concept of judicial system is 'innocent until proven guilty'. This can be applied to other things as well.
* ]:
::::It's like accusing someone of theft, and then asking the accused to prove that he did not commit theft. This is irrational.
** Local consensus, among a small number of contributors regarding one or several ].
::::If some editor thinks there might be a problem, and the said content is well cited, shouldn't he use the talk page to prove why he thinks there might be a problem to the said content? ] (]) 06:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
** ], among a large number of contributors regarding a general or community-wide issue, which may be represented in ] and ].
:::::You boldly added content. The other editor boldly removed it, citing ] (not ]).
}}
:::::* What to do if you don't agree with that rationale? Start a discussion, perhaps by {{tl|ping}}ing the other editor and asking why they believe your addition promotes a point of view. Compare ].
See also {{oldid2|801949991|the preliminary discussion of this topic}}. ] 10:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
:::::* What to do about your content during the discussion? See ]. - ] (]) 07:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::Thank you. ] (]) 07:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
:::Turning to your question, the Misplaced Pages goal is to resolve disputes based on the relative strength of the reasons put forth by editors with differing views (and, perhaps, some adjustments to take into account everyone's concern). There is no magic number. - ] (]) 16:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
:Everyone with a new idea that gets lots of opposition thinks themselves Galileo, the vast majority are just wrong. The ] is also a thing.<br>If an editor disagrees with you the first thing is to try discussion on the articles talk page, failing that ] is a useful guide to other options available. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 12:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
::This is true, but I've honestly seen it happen multiple times. Consensus can cause a group to react to scepticism like an immune system spotting a bacterium. ] (]) 13:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
::Your are right. The consensus is used for ], although consensus does not necessarily equate to or imply correctness. ] (]) 11:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)


=== Survey === == WP:NOCONSENSUS ==
*'''Very strong oppose''' - Totally unnecessary attempt to impose on the community one editor's idiosyncratic and inflexible views of what consensus is. ] (]) 20:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' without a clear statement of the claimed underlying problem. There is only ''one'' "consensus", but there are different ways of estimating the consensus position. Experienced editors can often guess what consensus would be from previous cases. An unchallenged edit shows consensus by silence. Agreement among regulars on a talk page indicates local consensus. However if the conclusions from these methods of estimating consensus varies, a wide community discussion is needed for a better measurement. ] (]) 22:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
::This won't change your !vote but everything you said actually supports this addition, which clarifies exactly that. ] 09:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per the law of unintended consequences. Suggest it is placed in a ]. --] (]) 22:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', per others above. ] (]) 22:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': Completely erratic attempt to establish a one editor's view on consensus. ] ] 02:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', appears to be a solution looking for a problem. ] (]) 16:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' when implemented as shown below (i.e. in ). While I share some of the concerns mentioned by the opposes, I think this correctly summarizes the policy and is useful as a summary, since the proposal links to the relevant parts of the policy. Regards, ] (]) 16:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per the views expressed above. I also feel it doesn't correctly preserve or explain the current language of the page. <b><span style="font-family:Oswald;color:black">—</span></b> ] (]) 18:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - there are some highly volatile issues that many editors refuse to partake in...such as politics and religion...many don't want to be "labeled" for expressing their views so they say nothing. I agree with BMK regarding the one editor's views and inflexibility. I also believe that unless the topic is expressly about changing a policy/guideline, consensus to waive it in a particular instance should not override existing PAGs. <sup><font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font>]]</sup> 00:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - splitting hairs by the shades of gray. Yes, consensus is not a vote, end exactly for that reason consensus is established by the ''scope of arguments'', not by scope of participation. If someone wants hierarchy, we have ''']''' escalation process. ] (]) 00:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. Attempts to define, quantitate, or scale consensuses, as a result following a presume question, misconstrue the meaning of consensus. ] involves re-formulating the question to avoid dividing conflicts, and these almost-but-not-quite consensus usually involve a failure to re-examine the question following later input, and thus should be regarded as unconcluded discussions. --] (]) 00:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I appreciate the intention, but I can envision this being misused for wikilawyering. --] (]) 21:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
*I'll be that guy – '''Support'''. Unless I'm completely missing something, this is a perfectly accurate description of how we handle conflicting consensus: global trumps local, and the more participation led to a consensus, the "firmer" that consensus is, in the sense of requiring a higher bar to overturn it later. Right? I really don't understand the wave of opposition here, nor do I see good arguments being made – I mostly see personal sleights and non-sequitur slippery slope arguments, which a sensible closer will ignore. As Bright pointed out, the complete 180 in support from the initial discussion to this one is...very curious. —]<sup>] ]</sup> 13:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
:: If this is what we ''already'' do without this text, is not adding the text ] and liable to provide warriors some other verbiage to weaponize? I have not yet stated a ] because I'm still waiting for someone to explain what problem would be solved by the additional text to make the unknown risks worth it? Open mind here. If you move the discussion part of your comment to the discussion section, {{Ping|swpb}}, please move my reply as well. ] (]) 16:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
:::CREEP is a particular ''type'' of new guidance, concerned with finicky details that should be left to editor discretion; this proposal doesn't resemble that at all. This is making a fundamental standard practice explicit, because leaving it implicit has invited too much re-litigation. I also don't see anything to "weaponize" here, and I think anyone worried about that has the burden to demonstrate what such abuse would look like, because I can't see it: this guidance emphasizes that wider participation carries more weight, which totally ''undermines'' the lone warrior getting their way by browbeating a few users in an obscure discussion. —]<sup>] ]</sup> 18:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
::::Would you our {{Ping|BrightR}} be able to show examples of the "relitigation" this might have prevented or at least helped to resolve?] (]) 19:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
:::::I have about four examples with my own personal involvement (with some of the oppose voters here!) of discussions with arguments of "community consensus doesn't matter because there's no local consensus." To avoid the personal angle, I'll round up some randomly-found "local consensus" examples, but please mind that this issue has no searchable keywords ("consensus" or "local consensus" or "community consensus" give endless results...)
:::::*]
:::::*]
:::::From personal experience, I find it's relatively frequent that an ] would say something in the lines of "''your'' consensus is not binding!" True, consensus is "not binding", but it's still better than non-consensus or not-consensus, and broader consensus is better than local consensus. This is all the proposed addition is saying. ] 05:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' for taking number of contributors as a too exclusive criterion, see my more detailed explanations below. --] (]) 13:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
*'''comment (oppose)''' What would be the main point of classifying RfC's outcomes as "broad", "local", and so on? To know how strongly it is established and how hard would be to change it or to go ] about it. I think we could do that much better if we make past RfCs (and RfC-like) discussions easily available. I am not sure about the exact way but, as an example, talk pages could have a linked index of past RfC's with one liner description of the subject, outcome, and date. While policy pages should have "sources" pointing to the latest discussion(s) about each topic. Currently, almost only "the initiated" know how consensus was reached and with what arguments. And I presume having sources should also apply to policy pages for the very same need of verification. - ] (]) 02:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


Wondering if the old wording was more clear? We seem to have a new generation of editors that have a different interpretation of this policy. That caused us more edit wars than it solves. Nostalgic old man. > <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 20:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
=== Discussion ===


:It seems to me that closers must be more active in this, its no use just saying it's Nocon, go ahead and sort it out. OK, in some cases it can be very clear but often it won't be so clear, as in the case that has prompted this question here. ] (]) 21:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Can you be a bit more explicit about how it would be added? As I've said before, I can't support anything which doesn't preserve the current language. If this is an ''addition'' to the current language, I'll be able to support it; if it replaces the current language, then I'll oppose it; it it modifies the current language then my position will vary based upon exactly how it does so. Best regards, ] (]) 16:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
::I do agree with this point..... if someone's closing an RFC they should not tell people just to go ahead and have another RFC. If bold edits are contested and RCF are inconclusive...... those that edit wars in the contested content should be dealt with accordingly not rewarded with the content be included with experience editor having to deal with consequences.<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 21:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
*<small>'''Since this is a proposed change which affects the entire community, I have added a link to it on ]. ] (]) 20:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)'''</small>
::I think in this case it is clear; an edit in place for just six weeks doesn't become the status quo.
{{talkquote|1=
<small>''The first two paragraphs below already exist in the policy. The proposal would add the text in the "scale" subsection.'' <small>This note added by me.] (]) 16:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)</small></small> ::If it had been a few months, then things might be ambiguous, but that isn't the case here - six weeks is just too short. ] (]) 21:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Part of the problem is that we seem to have forgotten how to reach compromises. ] (]) 21:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
'''Levels of consensus'''<!--level 3 header-->
::::], aka NOCONSENSUS, does not belong in this policy. No consensus is not a strategy for achieving consensus. No consensus belongs in ] and ].
::::- ] (]) 22:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::I like the idea of putting it in ]. Also, I think the rather dubious bit about ] usually applying after the discussion is over should probably just get lost on during the trip to that page. ] (]) 16:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::That’s two of us, with a silent audience. ] (]) 23:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Three of us, really, though how does one progress such a thing? ] (]) 17:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Either we do it, and see if BRD will identify a Very Interested Person™, or we have an Official Discussion™ (RFC or otherwise). ] (]) 00:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Any day now maybe. ] (]) 01:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I'll get grief if I bold edit that, it's a policy page, so I guess an RFC.
::::::::::Here? (Editing policy is also a policy page).
::::::::::Question " Should Misplaced Pages:Consensus#No consensus after discussion be moved to Misplaced Pages:Closing discussions? (and/or Editing policy).
::::::::::with this convo as RFCbefore. ] (]) 09:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I think a split/merge discussion is the usual format. I've started a separate sub-section at ]. ] (]) 23:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::Not entirely opposed to moving it, but I think some form of it needs to be retained in policy, and if not here then at ]. Otherwise, the guidance may be viewed as a demotion of sorts at an informational page. --] (]) 16:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Quite happy for the details to be examined (impartially). If there's some volunteers. ] (]) 22:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
The post close discussions/editing have not achieved any consensus either and I have opened an RFC to try and settle the matter. ] (]) 09:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)


:You have opened an RFC to try and settle the matter? Where? ] (]) 11:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a ] cannot decide that some generally accepted ] does not apply to articles within its scope. ], ] and ] have not formally been approved by the community through the ], thus have no more status than an ].
::]. ] (]) 11:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:Years ago, ] used to talk about the importance of "the wiki way" in identifying consensus, which is to say: If an edit sticks, it probably has some level of consensus. It might be a shaky, tenuous, temporary weakling of a consensus, but it's enough of a consensus that other editors don't feel obliged to instantly revert the edit. This may be difficult to achieve on hot-button issues (or if someone has outside influences, such as a paid editor or a volunteer for a political campaign), but that's the goal: to find something that the other 'side' won't revert. ] (]) 16:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
::I miss Kim. He was very wise.
::What I read him as expressing is what is now called BRD and SILENCE. What I have deduced is that BRD is good for rapid development, and was more often appropriate in 2004 than 2024. Now, different to then, it is much better, expected, almost demanded, that there be a talk page record of consultation. Number of Watchers is no longer meaningful, and a quiet bold edit on a quiet page can be reverted as undiscussed even years later. ] (]) 01:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Nothing should be reverted "as undiscussed." Editors should provide a substantive rationale. For more on this topic, see ]. - ] (]) 00:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)


:{{u|Moxy}}, just for clarification, what exactly is this "{{tq|different interpretation}}" you're referring to? Here's that predates some of the recent tinkering. Is that the "old wording" you had in mind, and if so, what about this version seems more clear? Presentation, phrasing, or both?{{pb}}FWIW, was the last revision I paid attention to. I now see that some mini-subheadings have since been added along with a bullet covering ]s. While well-intentioned, I think these unnecessarily crowd an already cluttered NOCON that's struggling to be concise. --] (]) 03:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to ] than to other types of pages. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community. As a result, editors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change. Changes may be made without prior discussion, but they are subject to a high level of scrutiny. The community is more likely to accept edits to policy if they are made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others.
::. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 09:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Ah, well that's taking it way back! Is it more clear though? I suppose it depends on how the RfC is worded. The "proposed change" could be in reference to the bold edit added a year ago...or...it could be in reference to the recent effort to remove it. I suspect that's why additional verbiage was added later on. Unfortunately, as we've seen, it hasn't really gotten us any closer to solving the underlying issue of determining when a bold edit achieves some level of consensus without discussion. --] (]) 10:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)


=== Moving NOCON to CLOSE ===
'''Scale'''<!--level 4 header-->
As suggested above, let's move ] over to ], where it will have more immediate relevance. No changes to the wording/facts/etc. in the section are suggested – just a simple move of these words out of this page and over to the more closely related page. What do you think? ] (]) 23:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
: Will you propose to move the last sentence of ] to CLOSE as well? ] (]) 15:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
::I haven't thought about it, but I think we should deal with one thing at a time. ] (]) 17:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Sounds like a plan! Let's deal with the ONUS sentence first. - ] (]) 18:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
::::This question was already asked three weeks ago, so it's too late to do something else "first". ] (]) 21:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
::NOCON and the last sentence of ONUS are yin and yang. You can't make this change without changing the balance between the two. I '''oppose''' moving only one into CLOSE. - ] (]) 00:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
:::That's interesting to know, but not very clear. Do you think it would ultimately be best for NOCON and ONUS both to get moved to the other page, or do you think it would be best for neither to move? ] (]) 00:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
::::''Note: I am only talking about the last sentence in ONUS.''
::::I think it would be best for NOCON and ONUS to be reconciled and put in one place. CLOSE is probably the best, but it is not a policy or guideline. And that is the primary problem with putting only NOCON in CLOSE, it leaves ONUS as the only policy statement on the issue.
::::On the other hand, good luck getting community consensus on reconciling NOCON and ONUS. - ] (]) 15:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Neither NOCON nor ONUS belong in WP:Consensus.
:::I think both belong primarily in ]. I have no issue with ONUS remaining described in WP:V, but NOCON should be no more than a pointer to WP:EP.
:::With both nested in WP:EP, both can be mentioned in ]. Both are true regardless of whether there has been a formal discussion to be formally closed. ] (]) 13:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
:Apart from the seeming logic of such a move, the thing that interests me most is whether it will result in closers paying more attention to it in their closes. Do you think? ] (]) 16:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
::I have no idea if it will affect closer behavior, or if it might affect "closee" behavior (e.g., fewer close challenges, close challenges that are better explained, etc.). ] (]) 17:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
:WP:CLOSE is not policy, so moving NOCON over there would just remove it from policy, which I do not think would be a good idea (when there's no consensus, there needs to be ''an'' answer, whatever it may be, to the question of what to do). I've thought before that it'd be good to have some sort of guideline on closing (like ] but not just for deletion), but as long as WP:CLOSE is a mere "information page" I would oppose this. ] (]) 03:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
::@], NOCON doesn't (and isn't supposed to) say anything that doesn't appear elsewhere.
::So, e.g., if the dispute is over BLPs, then you can currently say "Well, NOCON is a ] ''policy'', and it says that WP:BLP says that contentious matter gets removed if there's no consensus", but you could just as easily say – and probably ought to be saying – "WP:BLP is a core content policy, and it says that contentious matter gets removed when editors don't agree that it's adequately sourced".
::You'd lose nothing any maybe even gain something by citing the policy that is most relevant. ] (]) 05:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
::Extraordinary Writ, thanks for a good observation. I oppose making WP:NOCON a non-policy. ] (]) 13:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
:::I wish that I'd never started NOCON.
:::Okay, guys, let's try this again from the top. Here's the facts:
:::# BLP says we remove contentious matter unless editors agree that it's well-sourced. This encompasses ''both'' "we have a consensus that it's badly sourced" ''and'' "we don't have a consensus that it is well-sourced".
:::# BLP is a policy. {{pixiedust|A policy}}, but BLP is definitely, absolutely, indisputably a policy. It's even one of our ].
:::# Some years ago, I added a little copy/summary of the BLP rules to this page. This little copy did not create or change any rules.
:::Now the question for @] and @]: If we removed NOCON, would you:
:::* Still be able to remove badly sourced contentious matter when editors can't form a consensus that it's well-sourced, because the BLP policy requires this action, ''or''
:::* Have no idea what to do, because the BLP policy isn't enough all by itself, and you need to be able to cite ''two'' policies to get the badly sourced material removed?
:::If you pick the latter, then please tell me what we would actually lose by "only" having the BLP policy as an official policy that requires this. ] (]) 17:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Well, and not just in BLPs, the problem remains that the version in the article is presumed to have consensus, including that it belongs in the article for all the right reasons (sourcing/npov/nor/noncvio). So if there is no consensus, its presence in the article misrepresents a consensus that does not exist. -- ] (]) 20:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::I don't think that's true. The version in the article might be ''presumed'' to have consensus up until the consensus was disputed, but NOCON is about when that presumption has just been proven false. You literally cannot have a presumed consensus in the article when the discussion just ended as no consensus; it is an X-and-not-X situation. ] (]) 06:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::What you just said, is another way of saying what I said, if it's in the article it has consensus. ] (]) 11:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Right, the issue is usually about how long it has been in the article in relation to it being contested. ] (]) 12:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::@], if it's
::::::::* in the article, and
::::::::* an RFC just closed saying that "there is no consensus about whether this should be in the article",
::::::::then "if it's in the article it has consensus" is a false statement, right? ] (]) 17:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Nope. Practice has it that it depends how recently the material was added and the NOCON means nocon for inclusion or exclusion and then if it was there for long enough, it has consensus pending any possible further discussion to resolve the nocon discussion one way or another. Of course this leads to altercations and I think closers ought to at least opine, if not decide, on such matters in their closes (and discussion openers should ask them to opine as well). ] (]) 17:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I also think that it's helpful, for the minority of discussions that get formally summarized, for the closers to express an opinion on what to do next.
::::::::::I wonder if you have thought about the distinction between "There is no consensus either way, and that means we keep/remove/undo/whatever" (=what I've been saying for years) and "There is no consensus either way, and that means this version has consensus" (=what you appear to be saying here). ] (]) 17:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I'm not saying that, I'm saying it depends, on when it was added and possibly some other things too (eg conlevel). As for your first version, that's what I want the closers to do, although they are more likely to opine than decide. What they tend to do now is say nothing and leave it to editors to figure it out. ] (]) 18:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::And this to me would be an inconsistency and an overall issue that requires guidance. Concur with Selfstudier.{{pb}}No consensus to ''keep'' is also no consensus to ''remove''. If something is:
::::::::::::#Verifiable
::::::::::::#Has been in place a reasonable amount of time
::::::::::::#Within an article with a reasonable amount of traffic
::::::::::::#Was subject to discussion including a reasonable amount of participants
::::::::::::Then a stalemate should result in retaining the disputed content...for now. Relegating this advice to an essay demotes it. -- ] (]) 18:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The statement that "No consensus to ''keep'' is also no consensus to ''remove''" is not literally true. When you have a consensus to remove, you also have "no consensus to keep". I realize this sounds pedantic, but this kind of P&G content really needs to be as wikilawyer-resistant as we can make it.
:::::::::::::I really wish editors would quit fixating on the idea of additions and removals, when the real question may be something like "Shall we have ==This== section or ==That== section first?"
:::::::::::::@], the ] takes a default position of retaining information (though it cares about whether Misplaced Pages retains information, rather than whether any given article retains the information). Removing this particular sentence from ''this'' policy would not actually make it impossible for you to claim that A Policy™ Requires the outcome you prefer. ] (]) 20:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Best thing is to get the principle right, get it done and then wikilawyer it. Trying to wikilawyer it first just results in nothing getting done. ] (]) 20:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::When a proposal to take action results in "no consensus", then logically the proposed action is not taken. What happens next depends. The conditions I listed count for something, and in applicable situations, they can be enough to tip the "no consensus" balanced scale in favor of retaining disputed content. It seems most that participate in these discussions agree with that sentiment. Where we seem to differ or want more clarification (or where the wikilawyering sets in) is in regard to ''reasonable amount''; how is that determined?
::::::::::::::To your point: "When you have a consensus to remove, you also have {{tq|no consensus to keep}}".{{pb}}I don't see it this way. When you have a consensus to take action one way, then you equally have a consensus against taking action the opposite way. So if you have a "consensus to remove", then you have a "consensus against keeping". You shouldn't phrase this as "no consensus to keep". I prefer to preserve "no consensus" for situations that represent outcomes of inaction, or stalemates. --] (]) 04:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::They are certainly contrary, and some may just will to see it as consensus version, nonetheless. -- ] (]) 17:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::When you have a decision that there is no consensus for a change, then that change does not have consensus. There may be no consensus about what to do instead, but there is no consensus.
::::::::::This is important for policies to get right, because the alternative is that we reward edit warring to keep ] out of the article during a discussion (which would actually be a violation of the ] essay, which I recommend actually reading, because it's one of those ] shortcuts that gets cited for the opposite of what it actually says).
::::::::::What we want is:
::::::::::* Alice changes something. (NB: Not necessarily ''adding'' anything. Maybe she just moved a sentence from one section to another.)
::::::::::* Bob dislikes it and changes the article again. (NB: Not necessarily ''reverting'' Alice's edit. Maybe he rearranged a few more sentences, or added some explanatory text in an attempt to make Alice's change be less bad.)
::::::::::* The discussion about what to do closes as "no consensus either way".
::::::::::* The decisions about what to do next are ''not'' prejudiced in favor of Bob's version just because "It's in the article so it has consensus".
::::::::::What we ''don't'' want is:
::::::::::* Alice changes something.
::::::::::* Bob dislikes it but decides not to risk an edit war.
::::::::::* The discussion about what to do closes as "no consensus either way".
::::::::::* The decisions about what to do next are prejudiced in favor of Alice's version just because "It's in the article so it has consensus".
::::::::::If anything, we want to reward editors for using restraint. ] (]) 17:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Which means, that where the discussion is in respect to core content policies (besides in some cases of BLP or CVIO), it results in the article remaining in internal doubt with respect to policy compliance, but external (or on-its-face) certitude with respect to policy compliance. Which is often important for article creation and improvement because we replicate articles in-form across the pedia, by editors going, that's done there, I'll replicate in kind or use it, here. And we believe it also matters to the quality, we provide readers to rely on. ] (]) 14:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::I don't know what you mean by {{xt|the article remaining in internal doubt with respect to policy compliance, but external (or on-its-face) certitude with respect to policy compliance}}. Does this mean "No consensus means there actually is no consensus, but we'll pretend, for the sake of convenience, that there is a consensus for some version or another"? ] (]) 03:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Is {{tq|When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit}} written down in policy anywhere else? That's the part I'm most concerned about (and the main reason why most people cite NOCON, I think). You're of course right that the BLP wording (and everything else) is just a summary of other policy, and I indeed don't really care about those parts of NOCON—although if we're going to state the general rule, we probably need to cross-reference the exceptions too. ] (]) 21:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::That's a statement of statistical fact. It is not a rule and doesn't tell you what to do in any given situation. "If BLP, remove it" is a policy requirement. "Yeah, looking at a bunch of these, I see this pattern" is not a policy requirement. ] (]) 06:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::I suppose you're right, and if anything my confusion only proves your point that something needs to change. I do think this page has to say ''something'' about no consensus (which is presumably why you wrote NOCON to begin with), so I would prefer a rewrite to a full-scale move, though obviously the wording is very difficult. (Prefacing each bullet point with "According to WP:EXAMPLE..." might help somewhat.) That said, although NOCON has somehow come to symbolize the objections to ONUS, getting rid of the symbol won't get rid of the conflict or the deep-seated objections: the central problem remains ] that there was never consensus for in the first place. ] (]) 09:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Or we could say that the problem is edit, by a now-indeffed editor, which was not only discussed but actively objected to. The same editor the statement about BLPs and insisted for that . ] (]) 17:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)


=== Moving NOCON to Editing Policy ===
Though ], the amount of community participation and agreement indicates the level of acceptance of a consensus. Usually, participation follows this rising order:
:No, my first belief, and my long term gut feel, and my latest reading, is that NOCON belongs in ]. Nest there, it can be better referred to from ]. - ] (]) 13:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
* ] through silence or editing, which is ] when ].
::<s>There is a conflict between NOCON and the last sentence of ONUS. If you demote NOCON to an essay then you are picking sides in that conflict. Is that an intended or unintended consequence of your support for "move only NOCON"? - ] (]) 15:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)</s>
* ]:
:::It's not demoting NOCON to an essay if moved to Editing policy? ] (]) 15:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
** Local consensus, among a small number of contributors regarding one or several ].
::::Oh, OK, you struck it. ] (]) 15:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
** ], among a large number of contributors regarding a general or community-wide issue, which may be represented in ] and ].
::And move the last sentence of ONUS there as well? - ] (]) 15:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
}}
:::Moving that last sentence out of VNOT essentially removes ONUS from WP:V. That's a big change and something we may want to shelve for now. Obviously, it's a hot button topic with editors on both sides of the fence: ].{{pb}}Policies occasionally provide some brief overlapping coverage, and this would be one such area where it can exist. If editors feel VNOT is not the right place for it, the proper approach might be to flesh out the changes at WP:EP following the NOCON move, bring the policy up to date following discussion, and then decide if ONUS needs revisited. We may find more consensus at that point to remove it from VNOT and/or rephrase accordingly, but now doesn't seem like the time. -- ] (]) 18:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
:] 09:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
::::That sounds like a plan. ] (]) 18:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
*One thing is missing... we need some discussion of RFCs would fit into all this. The problem, of course, is that an RFC may get a small turnout or a large turnout... and yet an RFC is considered an "official" reflection of consensus (and is a recommended step in ]). ] (]) 17:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
:::::That plan would require editors to agree to move NOCON out of this page. ] (]) 20:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Pinging ], ], and ] who participated in the preliminary discussion. Strange how the preliminary discussion had almost complete agreement and now the RfC has almost complete opposition, and even people whose survey rationale supports the addition, oppose it. ] 09:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
::::::Yep, fine by me and since it's to another policy page, less objectionable for some people, I would think. And we can still leave some sort of summary here pointing to there, that's doable as well, right? ] (]) 21:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
::Suggest you put the first two paragraphs in a grey box and add a title bar to the whole thing that says ''<ins>Existing</ins> text in grey box, proposed new text in green box.'' I'm not convinced everyone realizes the first two paragraphs are ''already'' part of the policy.] (]) 10:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC) Also, I share others concerns how this new text will possibly be fodder for arguments where one side may try to frame the debate around he levels in this scale. Do you think that might happen? Is this supposed to be a tool to help resolve disputes? As a said in the protracted discussion I hadn't studiend the wall of text, though I'm sure there were lots of good points made by many. I was waiting for the distillation in this RFC. I kinda expected a new-and-improved succinct explanation what problem this is trying to solve, but all I see is the naked proposal. As it stands, I'd have to oppose, but you haven't provided your reasons yet. In 50 words or less if possible, why? ] (]) 11:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
::::::Consider me on board if some form of NOCON is staying in policy, just being relocated. Don't think I would support a move to an essay, however. I understand the principle behind NOCON already loosely exists in WP:EP from the comments above, but I think the reason for its existence is that it needs to be spelled out; editors need something to point to. -- ] (]) 22:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
:::The problem, as stated before very succinctly, is editors who try to enforce local consensus (or local no-consensus) in the face of broader consensus. To take the Daily Mail example, it's like an editor insisting on using the Daily Mail as a source inappropriately despite broad community consensus that it should not be used. What's more, I don't know if anything I can say can sway any of the oppose not-voters because some of them explicitly repeat what the addition says and yet vote against it: "{{tq|i=y|An unchallenged edit shows consensus by silence. Agreement among regulars on a talk page indicates local consensus. However if the conclusions from these methods of estimating consensus varies, a wide community discussion is needed for a better measurement.}} '''Oppose'''." When someone says almost word-for-word what the proposal says, and yet opposes it, I get the feeling this proposal is not being weighed on its merits... Then there are oppose not-votes that say "look at a the ''Daily Mail'' consensus, which was among a limited number of participants" - technically I guess "a hundred" (30 oppose, 68 support, plus several comments and several more closing admins) is limited... anyway I find that the not-votes here are very much divorced from reality. ] 15:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
:::::::The main reason it exists is because I thought it would be convenient to have a handy summary of all the different rules about what to do when a discussion has a no-consensus result that are scattered about in various policies, guidelines, and procedural pages.
::::When people go "meta" (by discussing the discussion instead of the merits) I quickly lose interest. ] (]) 16:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
:::::::Boy, was I wrong. ] (]) 05:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::That's because the proposal is so simple and the rationale is so brief that explaining it takes one or two sentences. It's the replies that I find utterly inconsistent and demonstrably wrong. ] 10:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
::::::::You've weathered a lot of storms in these here parts! ;){{pb}}It ''is'' handy, or at least it should be, since as you say it was meant to gather in one place several ''rules'' that are scattered about on various pages. Despite the number of editors here that may indicate otherwise (which in the grand scheme of things is still a small sampling of Misplaced Pages's overall user base), NOCON is needed in some form. You were onto something all those years ago. ] (]) 07:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' – "number of contributors" is the wrong entrance to make this discrimination. Compare the RfC that outruled ''Daily Mail'' as a general-use RS (limited number of participants, nonetheless a clear decision); Compare high participation discussions where the majority "wins" with a small margin (may be defined as consensus, but not a "broad" one); Compare Gamergate-related decisions (often high numbers of participants ushered in from elsewhere: despite their numbers they didn't weigh on these decisions); etc. --] (]) 12:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::I think the biggest mistake was not predicting the shift towards revering The Policies™ (may their words endure forever). If I had, the collection probably would have ended up on its own page. Compare, e.g., ], which is a handy list of all the times policy requires in inline citation, and yet is not on a policy page, and ], which is a bulleted list summarizing the common characteristics of ], and yet is no less effective for not being on a guideline page. But this one, especially when people twist "this usually happens" into "The Policy™ Requires this", has been a mistake.
::::::Disagree, keeping with a very strong opposition to the proposal. --] (]) 10:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::I read decades ago that towards the end of the Roman empire, the tax laws would be written in gold ink on purple vellum, proclaimed with great ceremony, and then ignored by the people who were supposed to be paying the taxes. I would like Misplaced Pages to take the opposite approach to its policies: They are not statutes. They are not sacred. They are a handy summary of reality. And when they diverge from reality, we should fix them. ] (]) 17:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
::The wording specifically and explicitly mentions that consensus is not a vote... The mention of the Daily Mail example is particularly puzzling since . And even if you discount all those presumably no-consensus discussions, the ] was made among a very large number of editors. Not that it'll change your not-vote, but you both mischaracterize what the suggested addition explicitly states, and you mischaracterize the very examples you provided. ] 15:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
::I '''support''' moving NOCON to EDITING POLICY (being sure to leave a link to NOCON in CONSENSUS). - ] (]) 16:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Re. ''Daily Mail'' "discussed hundreds of times by countless editors before a final decision was made" – yet, after the decision was made commentators outside Misplaced Pages wondered how come that such a small percentage of Misplaced Pages editors can make a decision that applies to Misplaced Pages as a whole. To which was replied that these outside commentators didn't understand how Misplaced Pages's decision procedures work (read: no clue about the ] policy). Let's not give such outside commentators ammunition to torch Misplaced Pages's decision procedures. So, no, can't accept this proposal, also because of what you point out now: it seems internally inconsistent with the current policy ("not a vote" includes, indeed, not counting the overall number of participants). --] (]) 15:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
*I'm fine ('''support''') with moving to EDITING POLICY. ] (]) 19:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
::::How can what non-participants think have any bearing on Misplaced Pages policy? How can you call a consensus among 100+ editors (with about 2/3 supporters, 1/3 opposers) "limited"? "not-vote" doesn't mean that the number of supporters and opposers doesn't matter. It means that ''a discussion has to take place'', and it's perfectly fine to hold a straw poll after a discussion has taken place, see this very RfC or the ''Daily Mail'' RfC, and in fact pretty much any community-wide discussion. See ]. This addition does ''nothing'' to encourage more voting or not-voting. It collects existing wording from ] and arranges them from the narrowest consensus to the broadest consensus, in order to emphasize that a local consensus cannot override broader community consensus.
*'''Support''' per discussion above.] (]) 08:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
::::*Wording that already exists in ]:
So three folks and the proponent support this move and no one opposes it. Time to make the move? (Adding text to Consensus that points to it.) - ] (]) 07:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::**'''Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.'''

::::**'''Misplaced Pages has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of pages. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community.'''
:This proposal is now open for active discussion at ]. - ] (]) 00:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::**'''Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Misplaced Pages. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus.'''

::::**'''If an edit is challenged, or is likely to be challenged, editors should use talk pages to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia.'''
== Consensus-based (not correctness-based) ==
::::All this ''already exists'' in the policy and the proposed addition merely collects it all into one place, in order to avoid editors who insist that their local implicit consensus (or lack of consensus) overrides broader community consensus. Imagine, if you will, that I collected all these existing policy snippets and put them in a section called "local consensus" that reads ]. And then I get really weird oppose not-votes like "this is one editor's view" (which apparently is already part of Misplaced Pages policy, albeit spread across four or five sections), or "you can't use the phrase 'number of contributors' because of what people outside Misplaced Pages think of the Daily Mail consensus, which was limited" (to about a hundred participants, which is a very large discussion by Misplaced Pages scale), or an oppose not-vote that repeats the proposal almost word-for-word and yet opposes it...{{pb}}This is already part of the policy, I'm simply trying to make it more accessible so editors would not insist that their local-consensus/local-no-consensus overrides broader community consensus. ] 16:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The definition of consensus involves opinions or decisions that are generally accepted within a group, without explicitly addressing correctness. Consensus does not necessarily equate to or imply correctness. Even if the majority agrees on a certain viewpoint, it may still be incorrect. Sometimes, the correct viewpoint of a minority may be overlooked by the majority, but this does not affect its correctness. This means that while consensus plays an important role in the editing process of Misplaced Pages, it is not always directly linked to correctness
:::::::None of what you quote above has the slightest indication that all of a sudden starting to count participants in a discussion ("...number of contributors..." as the proposal has it, as an instrument to compare "levels of consensus") has any merit. Keeping to my, in the mean while '''very strong''', oppose. --] (]) 16:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

::::::::It's already in the policy: '''Many of these discussions will involve polls of one sort or another; but as consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting''' which parallels {{tq|i=y|Though consensus is not a vote, the amount of community participation and agreement indicates the level of acceptance of a consensus}}; and '''Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.''' which parallels {{tq|i=y|Local consensus, among a small number of contributors}} and {{tq|i=y|Broader community consensus, among a large number of contributors}}. '''polls voting'''—{{tq|i=y|consensus is not a vote}}; '''limited group'''—{{tq|i=y|small number}}; '''wider scale'''—{{tq|i=y|large number}}. The proposal is not encouraging voting. It discourages local consensus (among a ''limited group'', which is a ''small number'' of editors) used to override broader community consensus (which has a ''wider scale'', which means a ''large number'' of editors). It's already in the policy. The proposal is collecting it into one place. ] 16:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I guess that Misplaced Pages uses a consensus-based decision-making process rather than a correctness-based one for good reasons. Determining absolute correctness can be challenging, especially in areas where there is ongoing debate or where information is subject to interpretation. Consensus allows Misplaced Pages to function effectively even in the face of uncertainty or differing opinions.
:::::::::"wider scale" does not (necessarily) mean "large(r) number of contributors". Some "wider scale" consensus procedures (e.g. ]) do not necessarily imply a larger number of participants. They can be even less numerous to come to a "wider scale" decision. --] (]) 16:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
--] (]) 01:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Can you show me a single example of consensus that was reached on a "wider scale" with ''less'' participants? Logically, it's inescapable that the second you involve ''more'' people, you have a ''larger number of people'' involved... By appealing to DRN you involve ''more'' editors... ] 10:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

:::::::::::Nah, again, not necessarily. E.g. an editor takes a content dispute to ANI, with multiple editors commenting, after which it is decided it should go elsewhere as a content dispute: wherever it is taken the new consensus may emerge with less participants in the discussion. So, no, your proposal is principally flawed on this point. --] (]) 10:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
:] triggered my above comments. ] (]) 11:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{tq|i=y|new consensus may emerge with less participants in the discussion}} - but it's not a ''broader'' consensus, it's just ''a'' consensus. The proposal doesn't say "new consensus HAS TO HAVE MORE PARTICIPANTS". It says that a broader consensus is usually among a large number of participants. You're somehow interpreting that as "any consensus has to have a larger number of participants than the previous consensus". No. The proposal doesn't say that. ] 10:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
::We're not the ones to ''correct''. We are the ones to report the sources. ] – ] (]) 13:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::It can surely be a ''broader'' consensus: in the example above, the ANI discussion may have yielded a 4 against 2 consensus on the content matter, while in the subsequent discussion on a more appropriate content noticeboard, with 5, in the end they all agree on the prior minority viewpoint: by all means a "broader" consensus, although there was one participant less. --] (]) 10:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
::The thing to remember when Galileo is mentioned is the ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
*Lets consider the following scenario.... a dispute arises at an article over whether X should be considered an exception to guideline Y. An RFC is filed to resolve this dispute. 50 editors respond to the RFC, with 44 saying "Yes, make an exception" and 6 saying "No, don't". I think most would agree that there is a clear consensus for making the exception.
::Consensus doesn't imply correctnes or truth, but it does show the best understanding that the community has in a certain situation. If editors don't think the outcome was correct they should look to the strength of their arguments. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:Now, let's assume that the dispute is subsequently taken to the relevant guideline talk page or noticeboard... where only 5 editors discuss, but unanimously say "No... don't make an exception". A clear counter-consensus for Not making an exception.
::Very few things are simply objectively correct or incorrect. (]) and in those cases I'd guess that wp:consensus would go with the accurate side if there was even a debate. Most discussions have much more complex attributes such varying values, differing definitions of "correct"/ "incorrect", varying meaning of words, tilting article by inclusion/exclusion, selecting which of Misplaced Pages's vague and overlapping rules to apply, conflicting POV objectives (each self-defined as the only "correct" one) etc. "Sources" alone also does not settle it, you can always find a source that has the same POV as you. WP:Consensus is generally our way of making those decisions. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 14:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:So here's the question: Which discussion reflects the consensus of the "broader community"? The far larger one formed on the "local" article page... or the far smaller one at the "non-local" guideline page? ] (]) 11:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
:::You are right. Therefore, I believe that the quality of arguments aimed at forming consensus should be more related to their persuasive power rather than their correctness. Furthermore, I think that the quality of arguments for consensus can be measured by the level of support they receive within the group. ] (]) 17:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
::"Where" the consensus is reached is not an exclusive criterion either. The RfC OP may have been tendentiously worded, The RfC may have been inappropriately canvassed, etc.; In the second discussion the fact that the discussion was going on may have been insufficiently announced, its section title may have been misleading about its true objective, the editors of the article where the preceding RfC was held may have been unaware that the second discussion was targeting that article specifically (then they can still claim a local exception was possible and agreed upon), it may have been left unmentioned that a preceding RfC already determined consensus on the matter (so that the new discussion is in fact a ] determination), it may have been closed too soon, etc...
::::This is already how consensus works, by editors policy based arguements. The second part though comes to close to ], consensus building shouldn't be a popularity contest. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 09:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::No, all these attempts at defining consensus levels by a too limited set of "countables" are going nowhere. The wider a discussion is announced with a clear presentation of the discussion at hand, without being rigged in any way (no socking, inappropriate canvassing, etc, etc..), the more it is presumed to be representative of the editor community as a whole. The larger the part of the editing community that *had an opportunity to participate* the broader a consensus generally is (although also there, there are exceptions: does an ArbCom decision establish a "broader" consensus than an ANI discussion with more participants? Yet, ANI decisions can be taken to ArbCom if a participant doesn't agree with the outcome at ANI...).
::OP has added the following section to an essay: ].
::It happens that I arrive at a discussion about an issue about which I have no strong views. The option which I would probably favour most has about 60% support. In such event I might decide not to participate in the discussion (really, when that is the situation I usually don't): does that mean that the outcome of the discussion would have a less "broad" consensus? I would support the outcome, whatever that outcome is (I had the opportunity to participate), wouldn't I? That means that a broader part of the community supports the consensus, which makes the consensus broader without my participation in the actual !vote. --] (]) 13:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
::Anyways, I personally find the argument "Misplaced Pages should reflect the truth" to be pretty weaksauce. It's not that we don't want to reflect the truth, it's that any project this big which values "the truth" will have a pretty tough time governing itself. The reason policies like consensus exists is to make a decision-making process that actually works. It's going to be so worthless when you want to create a decision-making system that follows from "correctness". There's a whole philosophy of that I don't think I'm qualified enough to get into.
:::{{tq|i=y|by all means a "broader" consensus}} ArbCom is explicitly not part of the Misplaced Pages consensus process, but even if it ''were'', what you are describing is a ''new'' consensus, not a broader consensus. If 4 people agree on a topic, and then a marginally larger or smaller group (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, no need to exactly quantify, but on a similar ''scale'') later come to a different agreement on the topic, it's merely a new consensus, not a broader consensus. But regardless this is the third time you bring up an irrelevant "counterpoint" since ArbCom is not part of the Misplaced Pages consensus process—]. ] 02:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
::There is also the idea that even if my viewpoint disagrees with the consensus, I can still sit in peace knowing I am "right" if I would write things like this. I personally don't think that is a good mindset. What matters most, I think, is justification. How you present your justification matters, just as the justification itself. There will be people who won't accept your justification. That's fine, not because you'd think you are "right", but because you believe you've made a valid effort in getting what ''you'' think is right to others.
:::{{tq|i=y|does that mean that the outcome of the discussion would have a less "broad" consensus?}} the RfC is not remotely worded in the way you suggest ("a consensus with n+1 people is broader than a consensus with n people"). While a broader consensus will have more participants, a consensus with more participants is not necessarily broader. This "n vs n+1" attitude does not exist in the text, you are forcing it where it doesn't exist. Take this existing wording: '''The goal of a consensus-building discussion is to resolve disputes in a way that reflects Misplaced Pages's goals and policies while angering as few contributors as possible.''' Now imagine someone raising, like you, an objection to this on the grounds that "if consensus A angers 60% of people, and consensus B angers 60%+1 people, then this policy implies A the true consensus." Of course not. Consensus is not a vote. And the suggested addition to policy literally starts with a link to ]. ] 02:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
::OP has also created an essay titled ] and is about why they think how {{tq|level of support in the community}} is important. ActivelyDisinterested was quick to spot that {{tq|consensus building shouldn't be a popularity contest}}. But hey. There's a reason why OP has ] for an admin on zhwiki to be desysopped, after they have themselves been blocked by said admin citing numerous reasons (one of which is misinterpretation of the consensus policy by suggesting that it is majority rule), then trying to get people to become an angry mob with said admin "abusing blocks".
::It's unclear to me why in the request for de-adminship, OP's misquote of a third-party admin that they believed the block "isn't justified to be indef" as "isn't justified" still hasn't been corrected. My hunch is that they are less interested in the "truth" than playing with it as in populist politics. <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x]</span>→∞ (]) 10:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I do not agree with your interpretation of my intention and will leave these points for other users to comment on, as I believe you may have misunderstood my intention due to your comments:{{tq|"There is also the idea that even if my viewpoint disagrees with the consensus, I can still sit in peace knowing I am "right" if I would write things like this"}}, and {{ tq|"My hunch is that they are less interested in the "truth" than playing with it as in populist politics."}} My essays and above comments were triggered by reading ] as I mentioned earlier.
:::In my essays(], ]), I argue that it is more important for Misplaced Pages to reflect the collective agreement of its contributors rather than striving solely for objective truth. This reflects my belief that Misplaced Pages should prioritize representing consensus over absolute truth..
:::In my essays(], ]), I also oppose majority voting and fully support the consensus-building approach. The key idea is as follows: {{tq|The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view}} can be understood as follows: regardless of whether an argument initially represents a minority or majority opinion, a high-quality argument with greater persuasive power is more likely to be unanimously agreed upon or accepted by the majority in the process of forming consensus. In the process of forming consensus, the final method to determine whether consensus has been reached must be through understanding the level of support within the community, as this aligns with the meaning of consensus. Hopefully, my ] provides a better explanation. ] (]) 14:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
"Truth" is a bad word to use because it has two completely different common meanings:
#Accurate / Accuracy
#Word commonly used in unsubstantiated or wild claims. E.G. "The truth about aliens at Area 51" "The truth about our alleged moon landings" "The truth about microchips in Covid vaccines"
A part of why we got rid of "Verifiability not truth" was because it denigrates/deprecates the pursuit of accuracy (in those cases where objective fact exists) by using a word with a second common meaning of #2 <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 14:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:25, 20 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Consensus page.
Shortcut
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. 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.
? view · edit Frequently asked questions

Q: When was WP:CONEXCEPT, which says that editors at the English Misplaced Pages do not get to overrule the Wikimedia Foundation on issues like server load, software and legal issues, first added?

A: It was added in January 2007 by User:Circeus, after a brief discussion on the talk page in the context of whether this page should be a policy rather than a guideline. It has been discussed and amended many times since then, e.g., here, here, and here.


“ Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal. ”
— Jimmy Wales


Consensus might become hindrance to truth

When Galileo was sentenced to death, the consensus was against what he said.

Recently someone asked me to gain consensus first even though I cited a strong, universally accepted reference for the material.

What if the right number of editors to reach consensus on a certain topic of an article is absent from participating that discussion?

How does[REDACTED] fight fallacy of popular opinions? Kawrno Baba (talk) 07:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Kawrno Baba Please be specific and provide a link to where you were asked to gain consensus. Doug Weller talk 10:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
@Doug Weller, please read the notice-box on top of here. Kawrno Baba (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
You really should have told User talk:StarkReport you were posting here. Have you read the page for which is the talk page carefully? Doug Weller talk 11:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
As a new editor I was trying to understand the concept of 'consensus during editing' myself first. Kawrno Baba (talk) 12:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Well, when discussing the substance of articles, it's not editors that we formally rely on (so not what's popular to them), although it's still their job to understandably and in summary fashion relate the relevant body of reliable literature, see generally WP:DUE, so that's what they either have agreement on or need to resolve. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
The editor said "Fails WP:NPOV" before saying "Please gain consensus for this first." So what the editor is really saying is "I think there is a problem with this edit and I've told you what it is. Your next step is to take it to the talk page to explain why you think I'm wrong and see what other editors think." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand how an editor can simply remove a content and claim that 'there might be a problem explain yourself'. The concept of judicial system is 'innocent until proven guilty'. This can be applied to other things as well.
It's like accusing someone of theft, and then asking the accused to prove that he did not commit theft. This is irrational.
If some editor thinks there might be a problem, and the said content is well cited, shouldn't he use the talk page to prove why he thinks there might be a problem to the said content? Kawrno Baba (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
You boldly added content. The other editor boldly removed it, citing WP:NPOV (not WP:V).
Thank you. Kawrno Baba (talk) 07:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Turning to your question, the Misplaced Pages goal is to resolve disputes based on the relative strength of the reasons put forth by editors with differing views (and, perhaps, some adjustments to take into account everyone's concern). There is no magic number. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Everyone with a new idea that gets lots of opposition thinks themselves Galileo, the vast majority are just wrong. The Galileo fallacy is also a thing.
If an editor disagrees with you the first thing is to try discussion on the articles talk page, failing that WP:Dispute resolution is a useful guide to other options available. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
This is true, but I've honestly seen it happen multiple times. Consensus can cause a group to react to scepticism like an immune system spotting a bacterium. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Your are right. The consensus is used for good reason, although consensus does not necessarily equate to or imply correctness. Gluo88 (talk) 11:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOCONSENSUS

Wondering if the old wording was more clear? We seem to have a new generation of editors that have a different interpretation of this policy. That caused us more edit wars than it solves. Nostalgic old man. > Moxy🍁 20:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that closers must be more active in this, its no use just saying it's Nocon, go ahead and sort it out. OK, in some cases it can be very clear but often it won't be so clear, as in the case that has prompted this question here. Selfstudier (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
I do agree with this point..... if someone's closing an RFC they should not tell people just to go ahead and have another RFC. If bold edits are contested and RCF are inconclusive...... those that edit wars in the contested content should be dealt with accordingly not rewarded with the content be included with experience editor having to deal with consequences.Moxy🍁 21:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
I think in this case it is clear; an edit in place for just six weeks doesn't become the status quo.
If it had been a few months, then things might be ambiguous, but that isn't the case here - six weeks is just too short. BilledMammal (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that we seem to have forgotten how to reach compromises. Blueboar (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Consensus#No consensus after discussion, aka NOCONSENSUS, does not belong in this policy. No consensus is not a strategy for achieving consensus. No consensus belongs in WP:Editing policy and WP:Closing discussions.
- SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
I like the idea of putting it in Misplaced Pages:Closing discussions. Also, I think the rather dubious bit about WP:STATUSQUO usually applying after the discussion is over should probably just get lost on during the trip to that page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
That’s two of us, with a silent audience. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Three of us, really, though how does one progress such a thing? Selfstudier (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Either we do it, and see if BRD will identify a Very Interested Person™, or we have an Official Discussion™ (RFC or otherwise). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Any day now maybe. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
I'll get grief if I bold edit that, it's a policy page, so I guess an RFC.
Here? (Editing policy is also a policy page).
Question " Should Misplaced Pages:Consensus#No consensus after discussion be moved to Misplaced Pages:Closing discussions? (and/or Editing policy).
with this convo as RFCbefore. Selfstudier (talk) 09:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
I think a split/merge discussion is the usual format. I've started a separate sub-section at Misplaced Pages talk:Consensus#Moving NOCON to CLOSE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Not entirely opposed to moving it, but I think some form of it needs to be retained in policy, and if not here then at WP:EP. Otherwise, the guidance may be viewed as a demotion of sorts at an informational page. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Quite happy for the details to be examined (impartially). If there's some volunteers. Selfstudier (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The post close discussions/editing have not achieved any consensus either and I have opened an RFC to try and settle the matter. Selfstudier (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

You have opened an RFC to try and settle the matter? Where? SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Genocide of indigenous peoples#RFC Palestine. Selfstudier (talk) 11:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Years ago, Kim Bruning used to talk about the importance of "the wiki way" in identifying consensus, which is to say: If an edit sticks, it probably has some level of consensus. It might be a shaky, tenuous, temporary weakling of a consensus, but it's enough of a consensus that other editors don't feel obliged to instantly revert the edit. This may be difficult to achieve on hot-button issues (or if someone has outside influences, such as a paid editor or a volunteer for a political campaign), but that's the goal: to find something that the other 'side' won't revert. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
I miss Kim. He was very wise.
What I read him as expressing is what is now called BRD and SILENCE. What I have deduced is that BRD is good for rapid development, and was more often appropriate in 2004 than 2024. Now, different to then, it is much better, expected, almost demanded, that there be a talk page record of consultation. Number of Watchers is no longer meaningful, and a quiet bold edit on a quiet page can be reverted as undiscussed even years later. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Nothing should be reverted "as undiscussed." Editors should provide a substantive rationale. For more on this topic, see wp:DRNC. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Moxy, just for clarification, what exactly is this "different interpretation" you're referring to? Here's a version from 2017 that predates some of the recent tinkering. Is that the "old wording" you had in mind, and if so, what about this version seems more clear? Presentation, phrasing, or both?FWIW, this version was the last revision I paid attention to. I now see that some mini-subheadings have since been added along with a bullet covering FfDs. While well-intentioned, I think these unnecessarily crowd an already cluttered NOCON that's struggling to be concise. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
more clear here. Moxy🍁 09:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Ah, well that's taking it way back! Is it more clear though? I suppose it depends on how the RfC is worded. The "proposed change" could be in reference to the bold edit added a year ago...or...it could be in reference to the recent effort to remove it. I suspect that's why additional verbiage was added later on. Unfortunately, as we've seen, it hasn't really gotten us any closer to solving the underlying issue of determining when a bold edit achieves some level of consensus without discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Moving NOCON to CLOSE

As suggested above, let's move WP:NOCON over to WP:CLOSE, where it will have more immediate relevance. No changes to the wording/facts/etc. in the section are suggested – just a simple move of these words out of this page and over to the more closely related page. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Will you propose to move the last sentence of WP:ONUS to CLOSE as well? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
I haven't thought about it, but I think we should deal with one thing at a time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan! Let's deal with the ONUS sentence first. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
This question was already asked three weeks ago, so it's too late to do something else "first". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
NOCON and the last sentence of ONUS are yin and yang. You can't make this change without changing the balance between the two. I oppose moving only one into CLOSE. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
That's interesting to know, but not very clear. Do you think it would ultimately be best for NOCON and ONUS both to get moved to the other page, or do you think it would be best for neither to move? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Note: I am only talking about the last sentence in ONUS.
I think it would be best for NOCON and ONUS to be reconciled and put in one place. CLOSE is probably the best, but it is not a policy or guideline. And that is the primary problem with putting only NOCON in CLOSE, it leaves ONUS as the only policy statement on the issue.
On the other hand, good luck getting community consensus on reconciling NOCON and ONUS. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Neither NOCON nor ONUS belong in WP:Consensus.
I think both belong primarily in WP:Editing policy. I have no issue with ONUS remaining described in WP:V, but NOCON should be no more than a pointer to WP:EP.
With both nested in WP:EP, both can be mentioned in WP:CLOSE. Both are true regardless of whether there has been a formal discussion to be formally closed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Apart from the seeming logic of such a move, the thing that interests me most is whether it will result in closers paying more attention to it in their closes. Do you think? Selfstudier (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
I have no idea if it will affect closer behavior, or if it might affect "closee" behavior (e.g., fewer close challenges, close challenges that are better explained, etc.). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
WP:CLOSE is not policy, so moving NOCON over there would just remove it from policy, which I do not think would be a good idea (when there's no consensus, there needs to be an answer, whatever it may be, to the question of what to do). I've thought before that it'd be good to have some sort of guideline on closing (like WP:DGFA but not just for deletion), but as long as WP:CLOSE is a mere "information page" I would oppose this. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
@Extraordinary Writ, NOCON doesn't (and isn't supposed to) say anything that doesn't appear elsewhere.
So, e.g., if the dispute is over BLPs, then you can currently say "Well, NOCON is a policy, and it says that WP:BLP says that contentious matter gets removed if there's no consensus", but you could just as easily say – and probably ought to be saying – "WP:BLP is a core content policy, and it says that contentious matter gets removed when editors don't agree that it's adequately sourced".
You'd lose nothing any maybe even gain something by citing the policy that is most relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Extraordinary Writ, thanks for a good observation. I oppose making WP:NOCON a non-policy. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
I wish that I'd never started NOCON.
Okay, guys, let's try this again from the top. Here's the facts:
  1. BLP says we remove contentious matter unless editors agree that it's well-sourced. This encompasses both "we have a consensus that it's badly sourced" and "we don't have a consensus that it is well-sourced".
  2. BLP is a policy.  A policy is not magic pixie dust, but BLP is definitely, absolutely, indisputably a policy. It's even one of our Misplaced Pages:Core content policies.
  3. Some years ago, I added a little copy/summary of the BLP rules to this page. This little copy did not create or change any rules.
Now the question for @Extraordinary Writ and @Peter Gulutzan: If we removed NOCON, would you:
  • Still be able to remove badly sourced contentious matter when editors can't form a consensus that it's well-sourced, because the BLP policy requires this action, or
  • Have no idea what to do, because the BLP policy isn't enough all by itself, and you need to be able to cite two policies to get the badly sourced material removed?
If you pick the latter, then please tell me what we would actually lose by "only" having the BLP policy as an official policy that requires this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Well, and not just in BLPs, the problem remains that the version in the article is presumed to have consensus, including that it belongs in the article for all the right reasons (sourcing/npov/nor/noncvio). So if there is no consensus, its presence in the article misrepresents a consensus that does not exist. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that's true. The version in the article might be presumed to have consensus up until the consensus was disputed, but NOCON is about when that presumption has just been proven false. You literally cannot have a presumed consensus in the article when the discussion just ended as no consensus; it is an X-and-not-X situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
What you just said, is another way of saying what I said, if it's in the article it has consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Right, the issue is usually about how long it has been in the article in relation to it being contested. Selfstudier (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker, if it's
  • in the article, and
  • an RFC just closed saying that "there is no consensus about whether this should be in the article",
then "if it's in the article it has consensus" is a false statement, right? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Nope. Practice has it that it depends how recently the material was added and the NOCON means nocon for inclusion or exclusion and then if it was there for long enough, it has consensus pending any possible further discussion to resolve the nocon discussion one way or another. Of course this leads to altercations and I think closers ought to at least opine, if not decide, on such matters in their closes (and discussion openers should ask them to opine as well). Selfstudier (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
I also think that it's helpful, for the minority of discussions that get formally summarized, for the closers to express an opinion on what to do next.
I wonder if you have thought about the distinction between "There is no consensus either way, and that means we keep/remove/undo/whatever" (=what I've been saying for years) and "There is no consensus either way, and that means this version has consensus" (=what you appear to be saying here). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm not saying that, I'm saying it depends, on when it was added and possibly some other things too (eg conlevel). As for your first version, that's what I want the closers to do, although they are more likely to opine than decide. What they tend to do now is say nothing and leave it to editors to figure it out. Selfstudier (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
And this to me would be an inconsistency and an overall issue that requires guidance. Concur with Selfstudier.No consensus to keep is also no consensus to remove. If something is:
  1. Verifiable
  2. Has been in place a reasonable amount of time
  3. Within an article with a reasonable amount of traffic
  4. Was subject to discussion including a reasonable amount of participants
Then a stalemate should result in retaining the disputed content...for now. Relegating this advice to an essay demotes it. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
The statement that "No consensus to keep is also no consensus to remove" is not literally true. When you have a consensus to remove, you also have "no consensus to keep". I realize this sounds pedantic, but this kind of P&G content really needs to be as wikilawyer-resistant as we can make it.
I really wish editors would quit fixating on the idea of additions and removals, when the real question may be something like "Shall we have ==This== section or ==That== section first?"
@GoneIn60, the Misplaced Pages:Editing policy takes a default position of retaining information (though it cares about whether Misplaced Pages retains information, rather than whether any given article retains the information). Removing this particular sentence from this policy would not actually make it impossible for you to claim that A Policy™ Requires the outcome you prefer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Best thing is to get the principle right, get it done and then wikilawyer it. Trying to wikilawyer it first just results in nothing getting done. Selfstudier (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
When a proposal to take action results in "no consensus", then logically the proposed action is not taken. What happens next depends. The conditions I listed count for something, and in applicable situations, they can be enough to tip the "no consensus" balanced scale in favor of retaining disputed content. It seems most that participate in these discussions agree with that sentiment. Where we seem to differ or want more clarification (or where the wikilawyering sets in) is in regard to reasonable amount; how is that determined?
To your point: "When you have a consensus to remove, you also have no consensus to keep".I don't see it this way. When you have a consensus to take action one way, then you equally have a consensus against taking action the opposite way. So if you have a "consensus to remove", then you have a "consensus against keeping". You shouldn't phrase this as "no consensus to keep". I prefer to preserve "no consensus" for situations that represent outcomes of inaction, or stalemates. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
They are certainly contrary, and some may just will to see it as consensus version, nonetheless. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
When you have a decision that there is no consensus for a change, then that change does not have consensus. There may be no consensus about what to do instead, but there is no consensus.
This is important for policies to get right, because the alternative is that we reward edit warring to keep m:The Wrong Version out of the article during a discussion (which would actually be a violation of the WP:QUO essay, which I recommend actually reading, because it's one of those WP:UPPERCASE shortcuts that gets cited for the opposite of what it actually says).
What we want is:
  • Alice changes something. (NB: Not necessarily adding anything. Maybe she just moved a sentence from one section to another.)
  • Bob dislikes it and changes the article again. (NB: Not necessarily reverting Alice's edit. Maybe he rearranged a few more sentences, or added some explanatory text in an attempt to make Alice's change be less bad.)
  • The discussion about what to do closes as "no consensus either way".
  • The decisions about what to do next are not prejudiced in favor of Bob's version just because "It's in the article so it has consensus".
What we don't want is:
  • Alice changes something.
  • Bob dislikes it but decides not to risk an edit war.
  • The discussion about what to do closes as "no consensus either way".
  • The decisions about what to do next are prejudiced in favor of Alice's version just because "It's in the article so it has consensus".
If anything, we want to reward editors for using restraint. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Which means, that where the discussion is in respect to core content policies (besides in some cases of BLP or CVIO), it results in the article remaining in internal doubt with respect to policy compliance, but external (or on-its-face) certitude with respect to policy compliance. Which is often important for article creation and improvement because we replicate articles in-form across the pedia, by editors going, that's done there, I'll replicate in kind or use it, here. And we believe it also matters to the quality, we provide readers to rely on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by the article remaining in internal doubt with respect to policy compliance, but external (or on-its-face) certitude with respect to policy compliance. Does this mean "No consensus means there actually is no consensus, but we'll pretend, for the sake of convenience, that there is a consensus for some version or another"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Is When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit written down in policy anywhere else? That's the part I'm most concerned about (and the main reason why most people cite NOCON, I think). You're of course right that the BLP wording (and everything else) is just a summary of other policy, and I indeed don't really care about those parts of NOCON—although if we're going to state the general rule, we probably need to cross-reference the exceptions too. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
That's a statement of statistical fact. It is not a rule and doesn't tell you what to do in any given situation. "If BLP, remove it" is a policy requirement. "Yeah, looking at a bunch of these, I see this pattern" is not a policy requirement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
I suppose you're right, and if anything my confusion only proves your point that something needs to change. I do think this page has to say something about no consensus (which is presumably why you wrote NOCON to begin with), so I would prefer a rewrite to a full-scale move, though obviously the wording is very difficult. (Prefacing each bullet point with "According to WP:EXAMPLE..." might help somewhat.) That said, although NOCON has somehow come to symbolize the objections to ONUS, getting rid of the symbol won't get rid of the conflict or the deep-seated objections: the central problem remains one undiscussed 2014 edit that there was never consensus for in the first place. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Or we could say that the problem is another edit, by a now-indeffed editor, which was not only discussed but actively objected to. The same editor repeatedly removed the statement about BLPs and insisted for years that "no consensus means no change". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Moving NOCON to Editing Policy

No, my first belief, and my long term gut feel, and my latest reading, is that NOCON belongs in WP:Editing policy. Nest there, it can be better referred to from WP:CLOSE. - SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
There is a conflict between NOCON and the last sentence of ONUS. If you demote NOCON to an essay then you are picking sides in that conflict. Is that an intended or unintended consequence of your support for "move only NOCON"? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
It's not demoting NOCON to an essay if moved to Editing policy? Selfstudier (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Oh, OK, you struck it. Selfstudier (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
And move the last sentence of ONUS there as well? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Moving that last sentence out of VNOT essentially removes ONUS from WP:V. That's a big change and something we may want to shelve for now. Obviously, it's a hot button topic with editors on both sides of the fence: WT:Verifiability/Archive 80#ONUS - a different idea.Policies occasionally provide some brief overlapping coverage, and this would be one such area where it can exist. If editors feel VNOT is not the right place for it, the proper approach might be to flesh out the changes at WP:EP following the NOCON move, bring the policy up to date following discussion, and then decide if ONUS needs revisited. We may find more consensus at that point to remove it from VNOT and/or rephrase accordingly, but now doesn't seem like the time. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
That sounds like a plan. Selfstudier (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
That plan would require editors to agree to move NOCON out of this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Yep, fine by me and since it's to another policy page, less objectionable for some people, I would think. And we can still leave some sort of summary here pointing to there, that's doable as well, right? Selfstudier (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Consider me on board if some form of NOCON is staying in policy, just being relocated. Don't think I would support a move to an essay, however. I understand the principle behind NOCON already loosely exists in WP:EP from the comments above, but I think the reason for its existence is that it needs to be spelled out; editors need something to point to. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
The main reason it exists is because I thought it would be convenient to have a handy summary of all the different rules about what to do when a discussion has a no-consensus result that are scattered about in various policies, guidelines, and procedural pages.
Boy, was I wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
You've weathered a lot of storms in these here parts! ;)It is handy, or at least it should be, since as you say it was meant to gather in one place several rules that are scattered about on various pages. Despite the number of editors here that may indicate otherwise (which in the grand scheme of things is still a small sampling of Misplaced Pages's overall user base), NOCON is needed in some form. You were onto something all those years ago. GoneIn60 (talk) 07:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
I think the biggest mistake was not predicting the shift towards revering The Policies™ (may their words endure forever). If I had, the collection probably would have ended up on its own page. Compare, e.g., WP:MINREF, which is a handy list of all the times policy requires in inline citation, and yet is not on a policy page, and WP:NOTGOODSOURCE, which is a bulleted list summarizing the common characteristics of WP:Reliable sources, and yet is no less effective for not being on a guideline page. But this one, especially when people twist "this usually happens" into "The Policy™ Requires this", has been a mistake.
I read decades ago that towards the end of the Roman empire, the tax laws would be written in gold ink on purple vellum, proclaimed with great ceremony, and then ignored by the people who were supposed to be paying the taxes. I would like Misplaced Pages to take the opposite approach to its policies: They are not statutes. They are not sacred. They are a handy summary of reality. And when they diverge from reality, we should fix them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
I support moving NOCON to EDITING POLICY (being sure to leave a link to NOCON in CONSENSUS). - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

So three folks and the proponent support this move and no one opposes it. Time to make the move? (Adding text to Consensus that points to it.) - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 07:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

This proposal is now open for active discussion at wt:Editing_policy#Move_NOCON_to_this_page?. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Consensus-based (not correctness-based)

The definition of consensus involves opinions or decisions that are generally accepted within a group, without explicitly addressing correctness. Consensus does not necessarily equate to or imply correctness. Even if the majority agrees on a certain viewpoint, it may still be incorrect. Sometimes, the correct viewpoint of a minority may be overlooked by the majority, but this does not affect its correctness. This means that while consensus plays an important role in the editing process of Misplaced Pages, it is not always directly linked to correctness

I guess that Misplaced Pages uses a consensus-based decision-making process rather than a correctness-based one for good reasons. Determining absolute correctness can be challenging, especially in areas where there is ongoing debate or where information is subject to interpretation. Consensus allows Misplaced Pages to function effectively even in the face of uncertainty or differing opinions. --Gluo88 (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Consensus#Consensus_might_become_hindrance_to_truth triggered my above comments. Gluo88 (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
We're not the ones to correct. We are the ones to report the sources. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS – The Grid (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
The thing to remember when Galileo is mentioned is the Galileo gambit. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Consensus doesn't imply correctnes or truth, but it does show the best understanding that the community has in a certain situation. If editors don't think the outcome was correct they should look to the strength of their arguments. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Very few things are simply objectively correct or incorrect. (WP:Accuracy) and in those cases I'd guess that wp:consensus would go with the accurate side if there was even a debate. Most discussions have much more complex attributes such varying values, differing definitions of "correct"/ "incorrect", varying meaning of words, tilting article by inclusion/exclusion, selecting which of Misplaced Pages's vague and overlapping rules to apply, conflicting POV objectives (each self-defined as the only "correct" one) etc. "Sources" alone also does not settle it, you can always find a source that has the same POV as you. WP:Consensus is generally our way of making those decisions. North8000 (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
You are right. Therefore, I believe that the quality of arguments aimed at forming consensus should be more related to their persuasive power rather than their correctness. Furthermore, I think that the quality of arguments for consensus can be measured by the level of support they receive within the group. Gluo88 (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
This is already how consensus works, by editors policy based arguements. The second part though comes to close to WP:NOTAVOTE, consensus building shouldn't be a popularity contest. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
OP has added the following section to an essay: Misplaced Pages:What is consensus?#Not necessarily equate to or imply correctness.
Anyways, I personally find the argument "Misplaced Pages should reflect the truth" to be pretty weaksauce. It's not that we don't want to reflect the truth, it's that any project this big which values "the truth" will have a pretty tough time governing itself. The reason policies like consensus exists is to make a decision-making process that actually works. It's going to be so worthless when you want to create a decision-making system that follows from "correctness". There's a whole philosophy of that I don't think I'm qualified enough to get into.
There is also the idea that even if my viewpoint disagrees with the consensus, I can still sit in peace knowing I am "right" if I would write things like this. I personally don't think that is a good mindset. What matters most, I think, is justification. How you present your justification matters, just as the justification itself. There will be people who won't accept your justification. That's fine, not because you'd think you are "right", but because you believe you've made a valid effort in getting what you think is right to others.
OP has also created an essay titled Misplaced Pages:What are High-Quality Arguments for Forming Consensus? and is about why they think how level of support in the community is important. ActivelyDisinterested was quick to spot that consensus building shouldn't be a popularity contest. But hey. There's a reason why OP has asked for an admin on zhwiki to be desysopped, after they have themselves been blocked by said admin citing numerous reasons (one of which is misinterpretation of the consensus policy by suggesting that it is majority rule), then trying to get people to become an angry mob with said admin "abusing blocks".
It's unclear to me why in the request for de-adminship, OP's misquote of a third-party admin that they believed the block "isn't justified to be indef" as "isn't justified" still hasn't been corrected. My hunch is that they are less interested in the "truth" than playing with it as in populist politics. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I do not agree with your interpretation of my intention and will leave these points for other users to comment on, as I believe you may have misunderstood my intention due to your comments:"There is also the idea that even if my viewpoint disagrees with the consensus, I can still sit in peace knowing I am "right" if I would write things like this", and "My hunch is that they are less interested in the "truth" than playing with it as in populist politics." My essays and above comments were triggered by reading Wikipedia_talk:Consensus#Consensus_might_become_hindrance_to_truth as I mentioned earlier.
In my essays(1, 2), I argue that it is more important for Misplaced Pages to reflect the collective agreement of its contributors rather than striving solely for objective truth. This reflects my belief that Misplaced Pages should prioritize representing consensus over absolute truth..
In my essays(1, 2), I also oppose majority voting and fully support the consensus-building approach. The key idea is as follows: The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view can be understood as follows: regardless of whether an argument initially represents a minority or majority opinion, a high-quality argument with greater persuasive power is more likely to be unanimously agreed upon or accepted by the majority in the process of forming consensus. In the process of forming consensus, the final method to determine whether consensus has been reached must be through understanding the level of support within the community, as this aligns with the meaning of consensus. Hopefully, my essay provides a better explanation. Gluo88 (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

"Truth" is a bad word to use because it has two completely different common meanings:

  1. Accurate / Accuracy
  2. Word commonly used in unsubstantiated or wild claims. E.G. "The truth about aliens at Area 51" "The truth about our alleged moon landings" "The truth about microchips in Covid vaccines"

A part of why we got rid of "Verifiability not truth" was because it denigrates/deprecates the pursuit of accuracy (in those cases where objective fact exists) by using a word with a second common meaning of #2 North8000 (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Consensus: Difference between revisions Add topic