Wikipedia:Consensus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page documents an official English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that should normally be followed by all editors. Any edit to this page should reflect consensus. If in doubt, consider discussing changes on the talk page.

Shortcuts: WP:CON WP:CONS

This page in a nutshell: Consensus is about how editors work with others. Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. Policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it.

Consensus is part of a range of policies on how editors work with others, and part of the Fourth pillar of Wikipedia code of conduct. Editors typically reach a consensus as a natural and inherent product of wiki-editing; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to leave the page as it is or change it. Silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. In the case of policies and guidelines, Wikipedia expects a higher standard of participation and consensus than on other pages.

[edit] Reasonable consensus-building

Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can happen through discussion, editing, or more often, a combination of the two. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality - remaining neutral in our actions in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on.

Several processes can attract editors to resolve differences:

• Third Opinions involve a neutral third party in a dispute among two editors
• Mediation involves a neutral third party in a dispute among multiple editors
• Requests for Comment invites greater participation
• Village pump invites greater participation
• Wikiquette alerts offer perspective on impolite or other difficult communications
• Resolving disputes offers other options

[edit] How consensus emerges during the editing process

When an edit is made, other editors have these options: accept the edit, change the edit, or revert the edit. These options may be discussed if necessary.

See also: Wikipedia:Editing policy

Someone edits a page, and then viewers of the page have three options: accept the edit, change the edit, or revert the edit. Articles go through many iterations of consensus to achieve a neutral and readable product. If other editors do not immediately accept your ideas, think of a reasonable change that might integrate your ideas with others and make an edit, or discuss those ideas. You can do this at the talk page, as an edit summary, or as a note to others at a user talk page or other widely read pages, such as the Village pump.

Edit summaries are useful, and should contain a summary of the change made to the article by the edit, or an explanation of why the editor made the change. A short summary is better than no summary. If the reason for an edit is not clear, editors are more likely to revert it, especially when someone inserts or deletes material. To give longer explanations, use the Talk page and put in the edit summary "see Talk".

Edit wars lead to page protection rather than improvements to the article.

[edit] Use of the talk page

See also: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

Be bold in editing; you can also use the talk page to discuss improvements to the article, and to form a consensus concerning the editing of the page. Wikipedia expects changes to policies and guidelines to achieve more participation and consensus than other pages. In cases where consensus is difficult, independent or more experienced editors may need to join the discussion. If edit wars or disruptive editing impede the editing of a page, or if consensus is impossible, formal dispute resolution is available.

[edit] Consensus can change

Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and changes are sometimes reasonable.

Wikipedia remains flexible because new people may bring fresh ideas, growing may evolve new needs, people may change their minds over time when new things come up, and we may find a better way to do things.

A representative group may make a decision on behalf of the community as a whole. More often, people document changes to existing procedures at some arbitrary time after the fact.

[edit] Participating in community discussions

Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal. —Jimbo Wales

Community discussion takes place on various pages: noticeboards such as at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; or pages such as Requests for comment and Requests for arbitration. These require collaborative effort and considered input from their participants to form a consensus and act appropriately upon the consensus.

In determining consensus, consider the strength and quality of the arguments, including the evolution of final positions, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace if available. Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the "logic" (point of view) of the majority. New users who are not yet familiar with consensus should realize that polls (if held) are often more likely to be the start of a discussion rather than the end of one. Editors decide outcomes during discussion.

Polls are structured discussions, not votes. Opinion has more weight when you provide a rationale during a poll, not just a vote. Convince others of your views, and give them a chance to convince you. Pure argumentativeness rarely convinces others.

[edit] Forum shopping

See also: Wikipedia:Forum shopping

Editors can easily create the appearance of a changing consensus by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people discusses the issue. This is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works. Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons.

[edit] Exceptions

Some exceptions supersede consensus decisions on a page.

• Declarations from Jimbo Wales, the Board, or the Developers, particularly for server load or legal issues (copyright, privacy rights, and libel) have policy status (see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Sources of Wikipedia policy).
• Office Actions are outside the policies of the English Wikipedia.
• Consensus decisions in specific cases do not automatically override consensus on a wider scale - for instance, a local debate on a WikiProject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline. The WikiProject cannot decide that for the articles within its scope, some policy does not apply, unless they can convince the broader community that doing so is right.
• Foundation Issues lay out the basic principles for all Wikimedia projects. These represent the consensus decisions achievable among all Wikimedia projects, and affect all of them.

[edit] See also

• Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle
• Wikipedia:What is consensus?
• Wikipedia:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance
• Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot
• WikiEN-l mailing list July 2005