Wikipedia talk:Consensus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page. Always remember to keep cool when editing. Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic.

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived. An archive index is available here.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

"Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal." -- Jimmy Wales

Contents 1 Is a FAQ a Policy? 2 Is consensus compromise? 3 RFC: Is Consensus a Compromise/Synthesis of Editors' Opinions or is it Discussion Followed by Majority Preference without Compromise? 4 Ethical 5 see also 6 Reverted edits making consensus "one policy among many" 7 Enforcement policy -> Conduct policy

[edit] Is a FAQ a Policy?

There is a dispute on the status of a "Frequently Asked Questions" page for a Policy: should the FAQ of a Policy be a Policy itself, or a Guideline to the relevant Policy. I've set up an RFC to discuss the issue on the disputed FAQ. The Policy is WP:NPOV and its FAQ is Wikipedia:NPOV/FAQ. All input is definitely welcome! Dreadstar † 00:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Is consensus compromise?

An issue has arisen on how to deal with divergent opinions regarding article content, specifically what does consensus mean: [1] The specifics of the discussion over content itself aren't relative on this specific talk page (I've provided the link to the discussion); I'll provide a brief overview as background to my question. It deals with the image of an inkblot of the Rorschach. Some people feel that image should not be there at all, others feel that it should be hidden, and others feel it should be placed at the top of the page. The latter position seems to be favored by about 70% of the involved parties. My question here isn't about how to use the image, nor am I arguing the merits or drawbacks of either position on this talk page. This is not the place for that. Rather, I am wondering about your opinions about how to approach this problem from the perspective of building consensus. Keeping in mind the following points about consensus (I've added the boldings):

• Wikipedia:What is consensus? "Disputes on Wikipedia are settled by editing and discussion, not voting. Discussion should aim towards building a WP:consensus. Consensus is a group discussion where everyone's opinions are heard and understood, and a solution is created that respects those opinions. Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority. Consensus results in the best solution that the group can achieve at the time. Remember, the root of "consensus" is "consent". This means that even if parties disagree, there is still overall consent to move forward in order to settle the issue. This requires co-operation among editors with different interests and opinions."
• "A consensus can be found by looking for common ground and synthesizing the best solution that the group can achieve at that time.""
• "[2] "Consensus is a broader process where specific points of article content are consiered in terms of the article as a whole, and in terms of the article's place in the encyclopedia, in the hope that editors will negotiate a reasonable balance between competing views, as well as with the practical necessities of writing an encyclopedia and legal and ethical restrictions."

It would seem that the ideal way of approaching this would be to come up with some sort of compromise that would take into account various viewpoints, rather than just go with the majority's preference 100%. In other words, the article should reflect respect for the various viewpoints, a synthesis, the product of negotiation, and a balance beteen competing views taking onto account legal and ethical restrictions. In other words, the article shouldn't simply be the majority's version but should incorproate some input from the minority. Attempts at compromise have been successfully made and the article had been stable with a compromise version for a long time, several months at least. Now, however, there have appeared claims that because the majority cannot be convinced of the minority's opinion, consensus does not mean taking that minority opinion into account at all when it comes to the article content; in other words, no compromise, because the minority cannot convince the majority that it is right. To me, this seems like reducing consensus to a vote, rather than working on a solution all parties can accept which seems to violate what consensus is. Am I wrong here? Any comments would be most appreciated. Respectfully,Faustian (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• For background reading, see Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review. –xeno^talk 03:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not unanimity; in some cases it may mean compromise, in others compromise is inappropriate: not all issues admit of a compromise solution, and not all minority viewpoints deserve any recognition at all. I don't know the details of this case, but if it's true that (as it says at the page xeno links to) two editors have been continually pushing something for two years against consistent opposition, I tend to find that sort of thing harmful and disruptive. There comes a time when consensus must be acknowledged to have been reached, and those who disagree must simply move on to other pastures. I've begun to realise lately that Wikipedia is a wonderful feeding ground for trolls and others who, in wasting their own time on endless beating of dead horses, succeed in making others waste vast amounts of their time too (time that could have been spent improving Wikipedia).--Kotniski (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

As one of the the "two editors" I have to say that the ratio is not 2 versus everybody but rather 1:2; meaning that 1/3 of the editors support one way of doing things and 2/3 support a different way. Although 2 editors have been particuallty active over the years they are far from alone (if they were, it would be a diferent story). As a principle, should we attempt to integrate the positions or not?Faustian (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that sometimes one firm uncompromised position will be the consensus: as in the decision to not accept spoilers in plots. But this still eaves the problem that all decisions need to be looked at occasional: there is a difference between stability of decisions, and irreversibility. I hope we never will have spoilers in plots, in future years, people might feel otherwise, and they have the right to do so. DGG (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

In general, in discussing consensus, positions that conflict with WP policy should be discounted. And in this case one side of the argument seems to conflict heavily with the usual interpretation of WP:NOTCENSORED, which is that we write and present articles (a) on the assumption that the reader wants to read and see everything relevant to the topic (b) without regard to what external organisations would like us to write. See eg Talk:Autofellatio#RfC: Should the human image be placed in a drop-down/toggle box. Rd232 ^talk 19:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but what about the importance of negotiating "a reasonable balance between competing views, as well as with the practical necessities of writing an encyclopedia and legal and ethical restrictions." While certainly wikipedia is not bound by external ethical considerations, it is not obligated to ignore them either. Would it be appropriate to try to achieve a balance, in which ethical considerations are taken into account without violating wikipedia prohibitions against censorship?Faustian (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(re Kotniski) Consensus is closer to unanimity than it is to a simple majority. Consensus should be, when at all possible, when the concerns of all editors are addressed as much as is reasonable without tilting the individual points too far one way or another. For some topics of discussion this may not be possible (whether a source is valid for example, or whether a subject is presented with a neutral point of view). For yet others it should be possible to work out compromises (designing templates, proposing changes to the MediaWiki software, etc). But simply saying in a discussion where 100 people support one way of doing things and 101 people support another way that the way endorsed by 101 people has "consensus" is unhelpful. Consensus is not and never should be a simple majority. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

we are discussing consensus in applying WP policy. Therefore, to say we discard opinions not consonant with WP policies does not really help that much. Anyone with experience here can find some among our contradictory policies to yield almost any desired result. In a system where the basic policy is IAR, there are no fixed rules , since improving the encyclopedia can mean anything anyone thinks it should mean. No reader wants to see everything relevant, which in the case of rorschach tests consists of most of modern psychology. And though we disregard what external organizations want us to write or not write, we do not disregard what our editors want to write and not write. (Incidentally, I completely agree with keeping in this illustration. Now, let me ask, should we include all the others in the current standard set?) DGG (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

On the one hand, true. On the other hand, needing to draw on WP:IAR is a simple bright line for limiting interpretation of what policy actually says. Rd232 ^talk 07:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. In the case of the article in question, over the past couple years 1/3 of involved editors have favored taking into account ethical considerations in some way. Do you feel that an effort ought to made to in some way not disgard their opinion?Faustian (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I would imagine all of the involved editors consider their position to be "ethical". Many believe censoring Wikipedia to be highly unethical. And the fact that we have had the stable NOTCENSORED policy for years implies that the consensus among the community as a whole is against this kind of restriction of content. So even if the discussion itself only involved six editors, the consensus among the community as a whole can be presumed to be even stronger. That's why we have policies and guidelines: so that people don't have to be present at every discussion - the community's views on certain issues are presumed to be already known and should be respected.--Kotniski (talk) 08:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Two issues, however. Firstly, there are exceptions when censorship should and does occur. There are no images (I'm talking about legal ones such as drawings) on the Pedophilia page, for instance. Secondly and more importantly, there are gray areas where interpretation of censorship differs. While everyone would agree that banning an image is censorship, is hiding an image (i.e., requiring a click to see it rather than displaying it automatically) censorship? Is having a representation of an image rather than a photograph or scan of it censorship? (for example, most articles on sex positions have pictures, especially of classical art rather than porn photos - see Oral sex or Missionary position) Is image placement - placing an image in a section of the article devoted to that image, instead of in the lead - censorship? I'm thinking of some religious pages where where consenus has been to keep the images but to set them further down the page so that those who do not want to view the images have some forewarning, and can make a choice in the matter (see Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Photo and Talk:Muhammad/images). Some people feel that an image placed further down is no more censored than would be a newspaper article printed on the second rather than front page, making such placement an acceptable compomise between those wanting to censor/hide/use an illustration/etc. and those wanting it out in the open. Others believe that this is consorship because it in some way makes the image not as accessible as it would be otherwise and that as a principal no deference should be given to anything remotely resembling censorship.

This is not, of course, the place to debate what is and is not censorship. Rather, it's a question of consensus. When we have differently held ideas about what is censorship (or even whether or not an exception ought to be made in the censorship rule) held by different editors, would consensus require a good faith effort to integrate or synthesize the various views and opinions on that particular article in some way. Is it appropriate for a 2/3 majority to dismiss the various opinions of a 1/3 minority if the majority feels based on their interpretation of NOTCENSORED policy or other rules that it is their right to do so and that the opinions of the 1/3 regarding NOTCENSORED policy are wrong?Faustian (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if any compromise is possible in the case you mention (either the image is shown in the place it should be for optimum informativeness, or it isn't). Any "compromise" might effectively mean abandoning the no-censorship principle, and thus giving in to the minority just as a reward for their annoying persistence. Personally I think WP should censor itself somewhat more than it does, but not in a case like this - the image isn't even offensive. Let it go, would be my advice (but experience tells me you won't...)--Kotniski (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The position of the minority is not that the image is offensive but that it is harmful, for reasons that are beyond the scope of this page to discuss. And here we are back to the situation in which various editors have different opinions about what constitutes censorship - is placing an image in the section of the article devoted to the image rather than in the lead a form of censorship, or is it not? And is the censorship principal really abandoned when a compromise is made? My position seems to follow Wikipedia:What is consensus? "Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority. Consensus results in the best solution that the group can achieve at the time. Remember, the root of "consensus" is "consent". This means that even if parties disagree, there is still overall consent to move forward in order to settle the issue." By including the controversial image but placing it in a section devoted to it we synthesize the views of those who feel it shouldn't be hidden with those who feel it should or that it should be replaced by a simulation of the actual image (something that is done in the sex position articles). Such a position is actually closer to the majority view (as it should be, because the minority should defer to an extent to the majority when making compromises) without being 100% the majority view, no compromise at all. You seem to feel that my reasoning is incorrect because in your opinion compromises should not be made with positions that are, according to you, clearly wrong to begin with. I see your point. If a majority knows that 2+2 =4 but a minority feels that 2+2 = 8, we shouldn't compromise and declare that 2+2 = 6, which would be the correct approach. Unfortunately opinions involving ethics and what constitutes censorship are not as clear as in mathematics which IMO calls for attempts at compromise and synthesis. I wonder what others think?Faustian (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)On the issue of censorship (I don't have an answer on the consensus problem; I fear there isn't one, which is why beyond a certain size communities adopt some form of democracy or dictatorship): Part of the issue here is differing views of censorship (in general and in specific instances), and differing views of what impact different possible versions of WP censorship policy/custom might have. It would be easier to discuss these things if WP:CENSORED had its own page. It's currently part of WP:NOT and the discussion page for that is a bit overloaded, IMO. Disembrangler (talk) 10:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RFC: Is Consensus a Compromise/Synthesis of Editors' Opinions or is it Discussion Followed by Majority Preference without Compromise?

A user has requested comment on Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and proposals for this section. Within 30 minutes of placing this tag, the page will be added to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies . When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. This tag will automatically be removed after 30 days.

Per Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:What is consensus? in a situation in which 1/3 expressed preference for one way of using an image, and 2/3 expressed a different preference, with respect to consensus do we integrate the opinions or do we consider consensus to mean hearing everyone out but going with the majoritry preference without integrating the minority's opinion? Examples in which synthesis occurred include the pages on Muhammad and Bahá'u'lláh where opinions of those seeking to suppress the images for religious reasons are balanced with opinions of those who want the images in, by placing images of those religious figures lower in the article rather than in the lead. I'm seeking opinions specifically on the nature of consensus...as a way of getting a few more opinions regarding this conversation: Wikipedia talk:Consensus#Is consensus compromise?.Faustian (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Background reading: Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review, Talk:Rorschach test#The discussion, Talk:Rorschach test#Sections subsequent to 2009 consensus review, Wikipedia talk:Consensus#Is consensus compromise?

I've listed 14 editors who feel that the image should be suppressed however 5 of those have not edited in over a year and have very short editing histories. You've then got 6 editors who are acceding to compromise for the sake of compromise, half of those haven't edited in at least a year.

Meanwhile, of the 41 editors who disagree with suppression (not counting those who weighed in at the AN thread), only 8 meet the same metric of inactivity.

So, using these numbers, you have 9+3 vs 33 plus those who weighed in at the AN thread which bring the numbers closer to 75% against suppression of the image. I feel also that wide community support is against suppression of images in general, i.e. I maintain that the community's default position is that the most relevant image available ought appear in the lead of the article. As such, my opinion is that the bar at which we should make an editorial decision counter to the default is higher than 1/4 or 1/3 in favour.

At some point minority viewpoints will necessarily have to realize that they have not convinced the majority of Wikipedia editors of their point of view, especially when they are diametrically opposed.

I feel that I've said all I have to say on the matter. At this point, I'm going to withdraw (however feel free to make any additional clarification requests as necessary). When this RFC has run its course, if an uninvolved admin doesn't show up to make a call, please seek one at WP:AN to determine if the decision reached in my consensus review should be revisited based on what follows. –xeno^talk 14:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Not all of the ones arguing against, say, hiding the image or using a fake image necessarily oppose moving it. The figure of 41 in reference to opposition to placing the image other than in the lead is therefore somewhat misleading. Indeed, when asked for clarification, only 9 of the 41 stated that they insisted on the image being only in the lead. But my RFC here isn't about the issue specifically but about what Consensus means, is it try to convince the majoritry, and if not go with the imajority, or ironing out a compromise?Faustian (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts can also be found in the discussion above, on this page. My impression is that this is about one editor obsessively beating a now extremely dead horse, and it would be better not to participate further.--Kotniski (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Your impression is incorrect, as it is two or three editors quite active on one side (I am not event hemost active one) and perhaps six on the other.Faustian (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to enmphasiz that the question is about consensus in general, not just about this particular case. It could apply to the Muhammad article just as well. I hope people don't get distracted by the Rorschach stuff.Faustian (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes Kotniski. It is 3 people, not 1, obsessively beating a now extremely dead horse. The smell is getting rather bad. Perhaps they will believe this venue when they are told that consensus has gone against them, though I don't hold my breath as several independent parties have now confirmed this consensus and that has not convinced them.

Faustian, saying this is not about the dispute at Rorschach seems a little bit disingenuous considering the context, the state of the consensus there is clearly the topic of this discussion. Chillum 13:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

And the other side has what - 6 people also quite active? I'm here becuse I want to iron out what the consensus is on what consensus means. Let's seperate that from the issue of the Rorschach. This isn't about saying bad things about editors' supposed misbehavior ("bad editors - beating a dead horse") but about wikipedia policy. I want to confirm what wikipedia policy is with respect to consensus - is it compromise and integrating various opionions when constructing the article, or is it hearing everyone out and then going with the majority opinion without input from the minority in terms of how the article looks? Lets's not make this about me as an editor. Faustian (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus should be regarding which existing guidelines and policies are applicable. Consensus, as I understand it, has nothing to do with what x/y number of editors believe should be in the text, directly. The existing guidelines and policies reflect 'Consensus', this means that discussions regarding article material are discussions regarding how 'Community Consensus' (as specified in guidelines and policies) are best served in the article in question. I believe that editors come here with an understanding of the definition of consensus which is not wholly compatible with what consensus means within wikipedia. Material reflects consensus when it lives up to the requirements of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV as well as ancillary strictures such as WP:BLP etc. consensus has absolutely nothing to do with how many of the editors on the article say WP:ILIKEIT. As such, there should rarely be compromise, a compromise would constitute WP:IAR. Unomi (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)If 10 editors repeat the same arguments that are not based in a sound interpretation of policy then 1 editor who is able to argue that their position is in conflict with policy then that 1 editor reflects wider consensus. Obviously ensuring that the article reflects this consensus can quickly become a WP:CIRCUS. Unomi (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Clearly, it seems that no compromise is necessary when doing so violates WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and other policies. Now, what about if there is a difference of opinion between editors in which the above principles are not violated? In that case what in your opinion would constitute consensus?Faustian (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a better question to ask is; how does consensus speak to a situation where the two sides are diametrically opposed? –xeno^talk 15:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Or when one side wants to compromise and one side refuses?Faustian (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)In practice what happens is that the idea that something violates those aforementioned principles is cast in doubt. In these cases there are the noticeboards: WP:NPOVN, WP:RSN and others. These boards *should* be able to help, sometimes though, involved editors will pontificate on those boards, perhaps trying to overwhelm the (often) neutral voices of the people who serve the boards on a full-time basis. I would say that the ideal solution, when faced with a situation where none of those policies are violated, would be to calmly discuss the changes and have involved editors articulate their position; Sometimes 'compromise' becomes a truly richer synthesis. I think the most important thing is to try to defuse adversarial communication; once editors become entrenched it can take a lot of work to restore a cooperative atmosphere. Early use of WP:MEDCAB can be invaluable as they are often levelheaded and genuinely interested in fostering an atmosphere that can defuse the tension. Often you will find that those most vocal adherents of untenable positions slink away in the face of persistent external input. Unomi (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. What about cases where the aforementioned principles are not the focus of the arguments?Faustian (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

While my consensus review covered the whole 4-year-long debate, I also can't help but overlook the fact that the most recent RFC focused on the issue of "Lead" or "Not lead". These are diametrically opposed. There can be no compromise between these two positions. And, the majority, as well as common practice, falls squarely on the "place the most relevant image in the lead" side - in my humble opinion. –xeno^talk 17:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, ultimately when one side refuses to compromise we inevitably end up in a situation where the choices are diamterically opposed. If one side would prefer 10 of X and another side prefers 0 of X, and the latter refuses to compromise with a 5 or 3 even 1 of X, we eventually end up with a binary choice of either 1 of X or 0 of X. But in the wider context, however, there are plenty of compromise options available if one is willing to compromise. In my opinion we ought to weigh the numbers preferring each side when synthesizing the various opinions.Faustian (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What about those who seek to show all of the inkblots? Should we compromise and only show half? Chillum 20:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep this focussed on the issue of consensus, not inkblots, and keep the latter issues on the Rorshcach talk page...however it woould seem that we ought to weigh various opinions depending on how many people support them in good faith. So if 3 people prefer 10 of X and 9 people prefer 0 of X, perhaps 2 of X would be a good compromise.Faustian (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Here's something I just posted on WP:NOT. You did ASK for comment, and this is mine:

  Sigh. No large organization of human beings makes decisions by the process that WP calls “consensus.” No government does, and the United Nations does not. The Supreme Court does not. Juries are small bodies, and even they deadlock, so consensus is not a realistically achievable goal for all cases even at this small size (and in any case, juries operate by repeated internal polling, so “consensus” for juries means only universal polling agreement, and is not the same thing as the term is used on Wikipedia). Nor do any professional societies or large businesses with boards of directors operate by consensus. (Nor does WMF itself in its own board-level decision-making, if you’re looking for denial-of-reality). Nor (more internally for en.wiki) does ArbCom. Going back to the “real” world, nor does the military, or any large academic organization, either publicly or privately funded. Not the American Bar Association or the American Medical Society or the United Association of Plumbers and Pipe-fitters. If you have some large organization of human beings which you think operates by consensus, state your example.

  What about Wikipedia? Well, it doesn’t actually operate by consensus, except in very small decisions involving two or three and never more than a handful of editors. It wants to. That is its ideal. Some people think it does. However, I’ve been here for 3+ years and seen many a large edit war during my 14,000 edits (see WP:LAME if you like this kind of thing; though these are mostly not things I've been directly involved in). Here, in any case, is what I see happening when many people are involved in any issue: 1) there is a lot of arguing, 2) this goes on until most people on one side are exhausted and give up, leaving the diehards. 3) These square off to see which side has the most wiki-juice (number of involved administrators and their supporters). Then the side with the most juice makes the changes it wants, and if 4) the other side reverts, they are accused of editwaring, breaking “consensus” and become subject to the many sacred accusations which have names like SOCK, CIVIL, COI, AGF, 3RR, EDITWAR, and so on. This gives some involved administrator a reason to block them, so they can no longer participate in the argument. Going to dispute resolution or RFC only results in more arguing of the same type. The worst edit wars where nobody can see to block enough of one side to settle the issue, go to ArbCom where consensus is not the mechanism, but rather arbitrators vote, and more often than not, disputants are topic banned, or banned altogether. That is not consensus. So that’s what REALLY happens on Wikipedia-- it's NOT a consensus, much of the time. SBHarris 23:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Sadly your comments seem quite realistic. And naturally, since experts on any given topic are going to be the minority, theirs are the opinions that most often get trampled. But it's no reason to stop trying, at least for a stubborn person such as myself : ). Still, even though we know true consensus doesn't always happen, I'd like to iron out what it maeans and try (even if it's a Quixotic effort) to reach it.Faustian (talk) 01:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sbharris, that's how every "consensus" on wikipedia works as far as I can tell. People just camp an article, shoot down anyone who doesn't agree with them and never let anything change because there isn't "consensus" (i.e. their approval). When other people get exhausted, they leave the debate and now the campers cite the "previous consensus" to newer people. Basically, wikipedia rewards people for stubbornness and hide behind the "consensus" (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)).

it's almost impossible for a organization without top=down control to work in any other manner. The people who care most about the issues and stick with them will dominate the decisions. How else could it possibly be? The main reason it succeeds here to a tolerable level is because of the size--for any issue, there are likely to be a number of different people. Thus the smaller WPs are much more subject to extended POV editing. Most of the things wrong with decision making here would be solved by more general participation. And that is possible because we are relatively open to newcomers to discussions, because we explicitly reject outside status as a factor--that's perhaps the other main reason we succeed in actually producing something useful. DGG (talk) 03:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I overstated myself because of the frustration I've been having. What I'm talking about is the relationship between Ownership and consensus. Consensus is one of the favourite weapons of owners, since when they've driven everyone else off, they'll consider it creation of a consensus (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)).

Yes, it happens a good deal. It is more likely to happen the smaller the number of interested people in the first place. But, what do you think we can possibly do about it? Are we to appoint dictators? DGG (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Like Jimbo, you mean? Is dictator what you call CEOs and department heads? Is there any large-scale enterprise that has succeeded in the history of humanity, where special people weren't in charge of making final decisions? Does WMF itself work by consensus, or does it have a CEO and board of directors?

This stuff is not just to fulfill legal obligations for corporations. The secret Manhattan Project had its Oppenheimer and Groves, and needed them. NASA went to the moon with people like Von Braun, James Webb, Gene Kranz, and many other names you may or may not know-- but with whom the buck stopped. WP is presently "the nuclear reactor where anyone can push buttons." The only reason it even halfway works is that the many meltdowns are virtual ones, and the radiotoxity rarely reaches the real world [Though not completely-- there was one guy who was detained at an airport because his Wiki BLP had been altered by a vandal to say he was wanted as suspected terrorist, and the doofus emigration person did a google web search on him and came up with (guess what?) his wikipedia entry on top].

So no, I'm not suggesting that WP do things any diffenently that any military, academic, government, scientific or business institution does them. I'm simply suggesting that it stop pretending it doesn't! Right now, small numbers of people with extra power on WP actually DO "own" and control final content in most WP articles. But their names aren't out in the open where you can see an organizational diagram. In fact, many of them are anonymous as far as real world identities. That doesn't change the reality of how this place works.

No, WP has NOT discovered some brand-new way for human beings to get stuff done, ever in the history of the world. What it HAS done is use the (already invented) wiki to allow collaborative rapid volunteer editing of certain kinds of content for an encyclopedia. The more difficult epistemological and governance problems, however, have NOT been solved. The present situation is some mad combination of World of Warcraft and historical Japanese feudalism-- warlords, vassals, samurai, peasants, political intrigue, and all. SBHarris 05:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You've got a rather huge False Dilemma there, DGG. The opposite of wikipedia consensus policy is not dictatorship. (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

The overwhelming volume of comments can detract from consensus building, too. New and original ideas have been ignored in the Rorschach discussion because comments come too fast and furious. The chronological order of laying down of thoughts is not always conducive to allowing others into the fray. It's not conducive to reasoned discourse. Better would be a separate, point by point, discussion. Perhaps this could be done with separate pages with separate watch functions so we can be notified when someone adds a comment to a particular argument? We need to give others equal time. Perhaps we could program a limit to the pace, say 500 words per page per day? This could be a hard limit or a simple warning to slow down and share the road with others. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ethical

I have just removed the word "ethical" from the policy. It was added on March 23, 2009 by User:Ludwigs2 and as far as I can tell, there was no discussion regarding ethical obligations, just some conversation about the expansive edit in general. This has expanded the scope of the policy far too much and brought a subjective term into the mix. See also Talk:Rorschach test#To be honest... –xeno^talk 07:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Every little group has its own ethics, and that word in the policy has already been attempted to be used to enforce such outside ethics. If you are Muslim it is not ethical to show an image of the prophet, if you are a psychologist it is not ethical to reveal information about certain psychological subjects, if you are a militant vegan then it is unethical to say anything favorable about the meat industry. We have our own ethics, we call them policy and the common sense reactions of our editors. Beyond that we have legal counsel. Chillum 13:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

the reason I phrased it as 'legal and ethical' rather than merely 'legal' was to draw people away from wikilawyering into actual discussion of principles. the fact that ethics is a subjective term is a good thing: it forces people to discuss what is and is not ethical in a given situation, rather than trying to shout each other down over what is and is not allowed (which is what you get when you put too much focus on legalities). I think the policy is much healthier with the term added.

but, whatever... the fact that Xeno has confused ethics (which is a realm of philosophical investigation) with ethical obligations (by which I assume he means some form of absolute moral code, the way Chillum used it) tells me that any debate on the issue will be fruitless: it's just going to disappear down some pedantic rabbit hole, which will accomplish nothing except to frustrate everyone involved. it's a minor point, and I just don't care enough to care. --Ludwigs2 00:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you help us sort out how the word ethical in this policy informs the present case discussion I linked above? –xeno^talk 02:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

sure, that's easy. the claim (as far as I can see) is that showing depictions of Rorschach ink blots will provide potential patients with information about the material they shouldn't have, which might change their responses if they are given the Rorschach test, which might lower the validity of the test and lead to poor diagnoses or misdiagnoses, with various potentially dire consequences. that is probably a valid ethical concern, but it's not really a concern that psychoanalysts share, for the following reasons:

1. any interpretative analytic tool has to take into account the possibility that the client is not telling the truth or is actively faking a particular diagnosis.
2. every interpretive analytic tool has a half-life dependent on its absorption into popular culture, and has to change periodically to account for the new meanings that get attached to it. (e.g. almost every average person in modern culture 'knows' what a cigar means in Freudian analysis, and so Freudian analysts know that a cigar no longer means what it meant in Freud's day,and interpret it entirely differently).
3. If the psychological community was sufficiently concerned about the dissemination of these images, they wouldn't worry about controlling the old images, they would generate and test a new set of images, test and evaluate them, and distribute them to professionals under the guarantee that they not be distributed (which for all we know the psychoanalytic community has already done).

In short, the potential issues with Rorschach tests are well-known to the professionals who use them, and no professional worth his/her salt is going to rely on the test in a way that will endanger a client. your ethical concerns are well-meaning, but not really grounded in fact. now if in fact the RT was a heavily relied on test with definitive diagnostic value, and if in fact there was an effort on the part of psychologists to prevent the images from being presented to the public, then we would probably have to refrain from publishing the images on ethical grounds (not because of the risk to clients, but because we would have to respect the professional opinion that the images should remain private; we are not in a position to evaluate either). but it's not, and there isn't; you would have to find some way of convincing me (and others) that there is something more substantive here than a loose, non-professional opinion.

honestly, almost everyone is good-hearted enough not to want to cause harm, and if you can convince people that something is going to cause some harm most people will see the ethics in not doing it. but you have to give a convincing case that harm might be caused. you haven't given such a convincing case here, and yet you insist that others agree with you regardless, and when they don't you come to the conclusion that the problem lies with the concept of ethics itself and try to remove it from the conversation. which is exactly the problem. Ethics is something that people have to agree on, which takes discussion and consideration; insisting that people respect an ethic that they don't agree with - particularly when the grounds for your ethical position are as thin as this - isn't really ethics at all, it's borderline ideology. --Ludwigs2 07:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Some comments (and I will try to be brief, as this is not the Rorschach page): The Rorschach is not used only by analysts; indeed 80% of clinicial psychologists in assessment practice use it, only a small minority of whom are analysts. Generating a new set of images is not so easy. It would require decades of studies to get to the point where the Rorschach is now. This would also, of course, entail disgarding decades worth of good research - which is still ongoing - into the patterns of people's perceptions in response to the current images. Recently some interesting scales have been created and replicated that differentiate psychopathic from nonpsychopathic criminals. You are correct that good professionals will take into account the fact that due to exposure the results will be corrupted a bit. But this doesn't make that corruption okay. As for not wanting to cause harm, one of the more vocal proponents of including the images was candid enough to admit: ""...let's assume that, indeed, the test will be invalidated by this page and that that will cause the death of some 15 year olds. We really shouldn't care (in our capacity as wikipedians) how many 15 year olds commit suicide because of this article; preventing the suicide of 15 year olds is not part of the mission goals, nor any consensus approved guideline I can remember. What IS our goal, however, is to create the best articles possible."Faustian (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Faustian, and I add one more thing to his rebuttal. Ludwig, you said that you would respect the professional opinion of psychologists and that "we would probably have to refrain from publishing the images on ethical grounds if there was an effort on their part to protect the images." This is, in fact, the case. the preamble and section 9.11 of the American Psychology Association (APA) code of ethics makes a formal authoritative statement asking for help in maintaining the security of test material and "stimuli." and offering to help "educate... the public regarding ethical standards of the discipline [of psychology]." So, yes, there does indeed exist an ethical code of conduct. The question is should Wikipedia apply this ethic to our own code of conduct. I believe it should. So does Faustian. If you'd like to join us and help change the consensus, then please join us. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

it wasn't my intention to decide this particular issue, and I'm sorry if it came off that way. instead, my intention was to point out that most people are naturally inclined to be ethical about things, and all they need is to be convinced that this course or that course is the ethical one. to that extent, consensus and ethics are intertwined: ethical considerations will naturally arise and naturally be satisfied in a consensus building process. for example, I am happy to entertain the idea that displaying these images might cause harm, but I'm simply not convinced by unrealistically hyperbolic statements about adolescent suicides, or by claims that the display of images that are already widely available on the web will have a significant impact. sorry, but as it stands it's just not a convincing argument that there is a real ethical dilemma. you don't need to convince me here (because I'm really not concerned with the outcome - doesn't matter to me whether the images get used or not), but on the talk page you are either going to have to get stronger arguments for your position, or you're going to have to start softening your tone and looking for compromise positions, otherwise you will never find consensus on that page.

that's all I care to say on the issue. --Ludwigs2 20:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ethics are too debatable and non-standardized (i.e., lacking in consensus) to be included there, and we have already seen people try to justify ignoring clear consensus based upon bizarre claims that the decision is not ethical. Having it there serves no practical purpose and turns out to be just something for people to wikilawyer over. DreamGuy (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Not all ethical considerations are "too debatable." That's what compromise is for. There will always arise situations that no one has foreseen or bothered to write down. That's why we need ethics in our consensus discussions. I think it falls to WP:consensus, to serve as a forum for such situations. This is the value of consensus. It is a robust activity. The Swiss government executive branch functions well enough by it. (no single president) Perhaps we can, too. But perhaps not, if we are not able to bring ethical considerations into our discussions. Believe me, there are those who would like to remove all subjective thought from our actions. The desire for certainty is great in all walks of life, and especially in Wikipedia. It's fervent and prone to extremism. There are many who would like to be told what to do. Make it easy for me, please. Authoritarianism, throughout history and in much of today, is the most common form of government. Other forms of government (republics, representative democracy, consensus boards) can be messy. The pursuit of certainty, though admirable, will always fall short, simply because sometimes, there are no easy answers. It is at such times that we must make an ethical judgment. This need not be an individual activity. It can also be done in collaboration with others using consensus. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

When people form consensus they will no doubt use their own ethics in making that consensus. Listing ethics as necessary for forming consensus is just a wide open door for people to ignore consensus by calling whatever they disagree with as unethical. It was rightly removed, and no amount of ignoring consensus can get it back. DreamGuy (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If by "ignoring consensus" you mean that they will continue to engage in civil discourse, then yes, ethical arguments can do that. But as the project page says, consensus can change over time. It is not immutable. What we need to do is become more comfortable with this and not wish for certain and definitive statements. Trust the process. As President Obama reminded me yesterday about what Martin Luther King called "the arc of the moral universe: It's long, but it bends toward justice." Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus can change, sure, but the arguments have been made on an article in which the consensus was overwhelming and very recently made -- as you well know, being active on that page. I trust the process, it's the people looking to ignore the process by adding weasel words to a policy in order to wikilawyer when they don't have consensus who need to trust and respect the process. DreamGuy (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

1/3 wanting one thing, 2/3 another thing and refusing to compromise with the 1/3 at all, with no agreement, is not consensus. It's just majority rule which consensus is not.Faustian (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

So because the side that disagrees with you can't get a completely unanimous decision because you disagree with them, you want to ignore what the strong majority of the people say and do whatever you say? That's wikilawyering at its most absurd. DreamGuy (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] see also

Warnock's Dilemma as further reading? 79.101.174.192 (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting article but the relation to this page is a bit of a stretch. Maybe at WP:Silence is consensus as a contra. –xeno^talk 13:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted edits making consensus "one policy among many"

I do believe that wikipedia is run by consensus, not by policy. A system where procedures, processes and policies have primacy is called a bureaucracy. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a bureaucracy. Nor should it be. Bureaucracies have an exceedingly short internet half-life. :-P

--Kim Bruning (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts: Wikipedia works (idealy perhaps) by consensus, as documented by various policies. Those policies are upheld by consensus, even the policies imposed from outside the community. Policies are maintained and interpreted by consensus. Consensus is informed by the policy text. Consensus and policy don't really compare well. I think this could lead to the prescriptive/descriptive flawed ideology. Policies tend to be prescriptive (perhaps they describe behaviour that will be enforced if you deviate). The consensus policy is not prescriptive. As a descriptive document, it's pretty weak, too. Dunno. In any case, the recent changes sound like philosophising, and do little in the way of meaningfully changing the message of the page to the intended audience. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

According to you, what is the message of the page to the intended audience? And who is the intended audience? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean this message "This page documents an official English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted ..." To me, it means "this is a rule, obey it or there'll be trouble". The intended audience? I think it is the relative newcomer, especially the lead section. Specific points below may be relevant to experienced wikipedians. I worry that leading wikipedians seem to editing as a means of high-level communication with each other. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

@Chillum: NPOV , NOR, and V do NOT supersede consensus. I am especially surprised to see NPOV in the list, because the only way to achive NPOV is *through* consensus. (NPOV and the consensus system are complementary, and they were not just randomly thrown together when wikipedia was founded) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

See Chillum's comments on this here. I must admit, I found myself agreeing with much of what he said. –xeno^talk 17:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

He's putting the cart before the horse. An NPOV article does not magically come into existence fully formed by a miracle.

Instead, we have to work hard on it. And we need to cooperate. Chillum appears to be using "NPOV" as a battlecry here. That's a lose-lose proposition.

If he wants to win the day, he is going to have to use good negotiation skills to move forward and form a solid consensus on exactly where that Neutral position actually lies. It is no coincidence that the NPOV position often lies close to the consensus of those present. It's similar to the reason why statistical sampling works.

Now; if we wish to have actual Neutral, Verifiable and well Researched articles, we cannot magically make them appear. That's impossible. Instead, we need to follow processes, so that we can reach our objective step by step. To ensure that our objective is obtained, we need to ensure that our processes have primacy.

Never confuse the ends with the means. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the way Ward 3000 and yourself are actually going about things there. In fact, you're even figuring ways to ensure that both wikipedia's ethics and psychologists' ethics are met at the same time. This is more likely to result in a neutral and verifiable article.

In contrast, Chillums original position where he tries to exclude psychologists eventually leads to a biased article, because the position of the psychological field cannot be accurately ascertained (because he would chase away all the professionals).

In short, he was claiming to want a neutral, verifiable article, but his actions at the time were preventing the article from reaching that state. I think he started to chill out a bit later on though. ;-)

Incidentally, his position on including or excluding the Rorschach test has little to do with the 3 core Article-writing values, IMHO. It has to do with opposition to censorship. While an admirable goal in-and-of itself, he should go about this in a neutral and considerate manner, taking into account the positions of his peers, as befits a wikipedian.

Once again, if he now continues to do so, I have no doubt that he will be able to ensure both that the article remains uncensored, and that our core values are upheld.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

What on Earth are you talking about? Can you show me exactly what led you to accuse me of attempting to exclude psychologists? I have not obeyed their commands, but that is not an attempt to exclude. Perhaps I have misunderstood you. This is way off topic here, reply on my talk page if you please. Chillum 02:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Kim Bruning is talking about how including the Rorschach images violates neutrality by actively engaging in the dispute. If the article weren't so directly involved in the dispute, it would be easier to argue WP:NPOV. As it stands, including the images forces all the editors to take a non-neutral position in the dispute, either for or against. That's not a good situation, is it? It's why the issue is taking so long to resolve. And it's why it's spilling over into this talk page. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus cannot override the core elements of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP for example, so it's inaccurate to say "NPOV , NOR, and V do NOT supersede consensus"; certainly superficial or ancillary elements of those policies can be overridden by consensus, but the core elements cannot be superseded by consensus. To say that “the only way to achive NPOV is *through* consensus” is not only false, it is also a red-herring, one still cannot override NPOV by consensus. Dreadstar † 21:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This is sounding like a debate on angels on the head of a needle. Clear and accepted wp:consensus throughout the project is that WP:NPOV and WP:BLP are essential to the continued development of the project. For evidence, look at the lack of substance of controversy at the NPOV recent history and the BLP recent history, as per Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. What is the question that this debate addresses? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You're just repeating the claim, but are not providing additional reasoning. If we don't write an NPOV article by means of consensus, then what means are used to write an NPOV article (or in fact, any article?) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV is mandated by Jimbo, so I'm not repeating any claims, I'm repeating fact. The means to writing an NPOV article are outlined in our content policies, the core of which are non-negotiable. The real point is that Consensus cannot override core NPOV policy, not this red herring that somehow the ability to write an NPOV article is only due to consensus, that's a false trail. Dreadstar † 22:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that we shouldn't try to claim one policy is more important than another. NPOV is inviolable as policy, but frequently can only be interpreted by consensus. Sunray (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that an answer can be sought in that direction. We could divide policies into what we want, and how to get there. NPOV is what we want, and consensus is how to get there. That way they don't bite each other. Fair enough?

However, I would like to be very careful: NPOV and the "wiki process", which on this wiki we define on WP:CONSENSUS, are both meta:founding principles, but V and NOR are not.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 23:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Somewhere, did I once read that WP:V and WP:NOR exist as method to ensure WP:NPOV? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

If you did, you had better correct your source. For instance: wikinews has no WP:NOR, but still manages to maintain NPOV. Some other wikipedia's actually don't have WP:V either yet, and those also manage to retain NPOV. Historically, the english wikipedia was able to maintain NPOV without NOR *or* V.

This is understandable: NOR stops kooks from adding crazy things to the wiki, while verifiability improves the reliability of articles; neither of which have much to do with NPOV per-se. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

A consensus to violate our neutral point of view, disregard verifiability, or engage in original research is not valid and should be discarded as such. Consensus is not the end all be all of the Wikipedia universe. We can't come to a consensus to say that Jesus is the only path to God, we can't decide to claim the Earth is only 6000 years old without any proof, and we cannot by consensus decide to publish a new variant of the theory of relativity we came up with one day after school. We are an encyclopedia first, consensus is merely a tool to help up create an encyclopedia. Contrary to Kim's belief consensus does not always lead to neutrality, sometimes a strongly bias consensus(particularly in nationalist and religious debates) needs to be overridden in the interests of neutrality.

By the way this is not just my opinion, but a long standing part of policy. From WP:NPOV: "Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Chillum 02:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not so much "a tool", but is a method, or a criterion for evaluation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose it is. Chillum 02:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with letting consensus be the first step, and letting policy dictate in the event of a dispute? If everyone can agree on an ethical point of view, and I contend that there are some ethical situations that we can all agree on, (See

1. talk:Rorschach_test#Argument Con #1 - It may harm a psychologist's ability to protect the welfare of his/her patient. and
2. It may harm David Rohde's welfare during his captivity.

then consensus should be sufficient, shouldn't it? Or is the goal here to make policies that foresee every possible situation? That's a nice goal, but I don't think it's very realistic. It's a big world out there. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

@Chillum: To meatball:NameTheConflict, I think you're skipping over a rather significant part of the NPOV quote there: " The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. "

That's a fairly significant part of the sentence you're ignoring there. Do you know what principles are actually meant? Especially when we take into account the fact that those principles cannot be superseded on-wiki, that's kind of important. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Enforcement policy -> Conduct policy

Please see WT:LOP#Quick thought. - Dank (push to talk) 20:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)