Wikipedia talk:Consensus/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Revert re presumed consensus

@Nikkimaria:, you reverted my edit with the explanation that it "overstates the case not only in the specific wording but also the prominent placement." Before we talk about placement, I'd like to learn how the text overstated the case. Please let me know where I went wrong. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

The proposed text stated that edits "have consensus" until reverted etc. The text of the body states that they have presumed consensus - a subtle but important distinction. If I make a (new, bold, undiscussed) edit and you revert it a few minutes later, my edit didn't have consensus; as SILENT states, you "find out whether your edit has consensus when it sticks". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

So the wording "All Wikipedia edits have presumed consensus until they are questioned, changed, or reverted" doesn't overstate the case (depending upon where it is placed), do I have that right? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

The specific wording in the policy is "An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted" - "changed" is addressed in the following sentence. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Is there anything in the "following sentence" ("Should another editor revise that edit then the new edit will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement") that conflicts with "All Wikipedia edits have presumed consensus until they are questioned, changed, or reverted"? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, depending what the change is. If something like this is to be included in the lead, it makes sense to use phrasing consistent with the existing policy. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Regarding placement, let's work one on thing at a time.

Please help me see why you view "All Wikipedia edits have presumed consensus until they are questioned, changed, or reverted" as inconsistent with the two sentences in the policy. Please give me an example of a change for which the outcome would be different under the "following sentence" and the latest version of my sentence. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Your version assumes any change to an edit means the edit doesn't have consensus. A change can fundamentally alter the original edit, but it can also be entirely congruent with the original - eg if you add a sentence and I add a wikilink to it, I've changed your edit but am not disputing it. And this process is what is reflected in the extant IMPLICITCONSENSUS section. What's wrong with the existing policy wording? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

In your example the presumed consensus for the text without a wikilink is replaced by the presumed consensus for the text with a wikilink. This is what the two sentences in IMPLICIT say and what my proposed single sentence says. I'm still not seeing any inconsistency.

It looks to me like the two sentences in IMPLICIT describe a process and my single sentence states a "rule." The single sentence can be useful to, for example, drop into wp:SILENCE with a link back to wp:IMPLICIT for more information. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I'm hoping we can continue this conversation. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree that we want to have a "process" and a "rule" that differ in wording in such a way that they can be interpreted differently - even if you personally would interpret them the same. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Would you please give me an example of how the two texts may be interpreted differently? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I have, and you've disagreed. Which is your right, but I'm not sure how repeating that would be helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Apologies for not making my question clearer. Please give me an example of a change for which the outcome would be different under the two different interpretations that you see. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid that doesn't make the question clearer. Outcome of what? Presumed consensus only carries weight if nothing happens. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@user:Nikkimaria: Okay, your example is an edit that builds on - is congruent with - a prior edit. And you seem to say that my phrasing means the original edit loses "presumed consensus" at that point. Let's say you are correct. So what? The original edit is now history, it has been replaced by the edited text.

The new text - including the original edit (as changed) - now has presumed consensus. I don't see any practical difference in the outcome under my phrasing: under both formulations the old text as edited now has presumed consensus. Are you seeing something different? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The original edit hasn't been replaced, it's still there. No one has removed or fundamentally altered it. So we presume it has consensus until someone does.

Maybe this will help. Suppose I run a bot to automatically link all instances of a particular term, and that bot adds a link to your edit. Obviously a bot can't assess the merit of your edit, so we can't say the bot agrees. A person who comes along could disagree with your edit or the bot's edit separately.

(And I realize you wanted to address the specific wording first, but I think this conversation is meaningless because we haven't agreed to place something in the lead at all, regardless of its specific wording.) Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, that does help.

In your example the original text ("some words here") has been replaced by the new text ("some words here"). The new text (which includes the old text) has presumed consensus until a later edit changes it. Again I ask, once the new edit takes place (and has presumed consensus) what practical difference does it make whether the retained original text had presumed consensus before the new edit?

(This particular conversation is an attempt to achieve consensus regarding whether it is important for this policy to say that retained retained original text retains the presumed consensus it had before a new edit.) - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

As above, the "new text" is a link only. One could agree or disagree with the addition of the link, separately from whether one agrees or disagrees with the addition of the original text; the addition of the link shouldn't impact how the previous text is assessed. But really this particular conversation is a discussion of how to word something that we haven't agreed should be included in the first place. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

We agree that "the addition of the link shouldn't impact how the previous text is assessed." But that still doesn't answer my question. Do you believe my proposed text would impact how the unchanged/unlinked part of the previous text is assessed? If so, please explain how. If not, what practical difference would my text make? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

If you agree, then why continue? Under your proposal, any change, including the addition of a link in the scenario described, would impact how the previous text is assessed, as it is now the link only that is under the presumed-consensus proviso. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Butwhatdoiknow, I think the problem with your version is the word "until". It implies that if Alice adds a sentence, and Bob changes the sentence, then Alice's contribution no longer has any (presumed) consensus. That's not really true when editors are working in harmony. If Alice writes "Reese's Peanut Butter Cups are made with chocolate and peanut butter", and Bob adds the word filling to the end of her sentence, then it would be more accurate to say that both of their contributions (not to mention all of the contributions by all the editors who wrote the rest of the page) have presumed consensus. (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing, thank you for joining the conversation. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The practical effect of presumed consensus

@Nikkimaria: and @WhatamIdoing: If you'll permit, let's take a look back at what it means to have presumed consensus under the current CON text:

An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit then the new edit will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement.

My understanding, using the example Nikkimaria and I are working with above, "some words here" has presumed consensus until it is changed to "some words here." At that point, the presumed consensus for not linking "words" evaporates but (a) each word in the text has presumed consensus dating back to the edit that created it and (b) the link has presumed consensus dating from when it was added. In both cases, the presumed consensus for a word or the link evaporates if it is disputed, reverted, or changed in the future.
Do I have that right? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

For clarity, the presumption of consensus for a word or the link evaporates if/when it is disputed, reverted, or changed in the future, but it might still have real consensus. Also, we put common-sense limits around this, so that blatant vandalism doesn't count as a (relevant) "change". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Right, "real" consensus trumps presumed consensus every time and, one would expect, the new edit would be quickly returned to the original text (which would then have presumed and real consensus). It doesn't matter whether the new edit was in good faith or vandalism, it's presumed consensus disappears when it is reverted. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, let's look at my proposed text:

All Wikipedia edits have presumed consensus until they are questioned, changed, or reverted.

Applying this text to the example Nikkimaria and I are working with above, "some words here" has presumed consensus until it is changed to "some words here." At that point, the presumed consensus for not linking "words" evaporates and (a) each word in the text has presumed consensus and (b) the link has presumed consensus. In both cases, the presumed consensus for a word or the link evaporates if it is disputed, reverted, or changed in the future.
Would you agree that is how the proposed text would work out? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: and @WhatamIdoing: I would appreciate your answers to this question. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The edit (of adding text) has been changed. There's no basis in your proposal to split out the choice of not-linking and the choice of what words were added to say that the former lacks presumed consensus but the latter still has it. The edit has been changed, period; under your proposal the substance of that change is immaterial. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, let's say that my proposal means the unchanged text loses presumed consensus because a link was added. So what? What difference does that make? In other words, does "presumed consensus" give text any greater protection than any other text that has not been through the discussion process? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I look forward to your reply, - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

At this point I'm going to defer to the question raised below rather than continuing this thread. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's true that "All Wikipedia edits have presumed consensus until...". Some are known in advance to not have consensus (consider an edit summary that says "Just a demonstration for the talk page – will revert"). Others are known in advance to have "real" consensus (e.g., edits made pursuant to agreement on the talk page). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Well then, the current text ("An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted.") is wrong. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you agree or disagree regarding how the proposed text would work out? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I look forward to your reply, - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I think your example about linking "some words here" is fair, but the choice to add the link might reasonably be construed as an expression of support for including the words (and therefore a form of demonstrated consensus). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Preservation of presumed consensus distinction

IMO there's another problem with your proposed change. "Presumed consensus" can be interpreted as a different weaker type of consensus (which I think is a good idea) rather than a mechanism for it to achieve regular consensus. Your proposed change eliminates that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that presumed consensus is weak and should be distinguished from "real" consensus. But I'm having trouble seeing how All Wikipedia edits have presumed consensus until they are questioned, changed, or reverted - which says that presumed consensus for text evaporates when the text changes - eliminates that distinction. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@North8000: Please help me see the problem. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Presumed consensus is different than consensus and much content has only presumed consensus. So your edit was a substantial change and one that conflicts with that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

What if the sentence read "All Wikipedia edits have presumed consensus until they are questioned, changed, or reverted"? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Placement of text

Nikkimaria, above you express concern regarding where the text we're discussing ("All Wikipedia edits have presumed consensus until they are questioned, changed, or reverted") would be placed in the event we can agree that the text is accurate. The answer includes (1) the into is one option (we can talk about whether that is a good idea after we have text that is not objectionable on its own), (2) other pages (as a summary of IMPLICIT), and (3) perhaps as a replacement for the two sentences in IMPLICIT (which, I believe, are redundant). - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

What is the point of presumed consensus?

If we are saying that a “presumed consensus” only lasts until there is a subsequent edit (and then evaporates) what is the point of mentioning the concept in the first place? WHY do we even need to address it? Blueboar (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• A choice of wording by someone with limited experience in the process clearly. Moxy- 01:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
• It’s pointless. It’s meaningless waffle likely to confuse people. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

If it is pointless, shouldn’t we simply cut it? Do away with the concept of “presumed consensus” entirely? Blueboar (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• I guess someone thought it was nice to be able to say that everything was in articles by consensus and then invented this fictional concept to make it true. I have never seen a useful purpose for it and thoroughly support it disappearing. Zero^talk 13:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  That's a good way of putting it. DFlhb (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

"Presumed consensus" is a synonym for "implied consensus." Here's what WP:EDITCON says about that:

Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit then the new edit will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement. In this way, the encyclopedia gradually improves over time.

Are you proposing to delete this text? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• I am certainly considering proposing we do so. I think we should at least examine the possibility. What are the up sides? What are the down sides? Etc. Blueboar (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
• I think it is a useful concept. This has to be looked at from two different directions:

• "How dare he edit my article without getting written permission in advance to prove that there is consensus!" – Um, all edits have presumed consensus. It's okay for editors to make bold (=significant but undiscussed) edits. We know that people check RecentChanges and their watchlists to revert anything they disagree with, but there's no way for them to mark their agreement with an edit. So unless and until someone visibly disputes it, we assume that non-removal is some sort of acquiescence to the edit.
• "My edit must stay on the page forever, until you can get near-unanimous consent to remove it, because it has consensus!" – Um, your edit only had presumed consensus, and that presumption of consensus disappeared when the other editor challenged it. Now your edit doesn't appear to have consensus at all. Please try to work out an agreement that satisfies (almost) everyone.

I think it is a mistake to say (without qualification) that presumed consensus only lasts until there is a subsequent edit. It is probably more accurate to say that presumed consensus only lasts until that material is disputed. (A "subsequent" edit could be to a different part of the page, an AWB typo-fixing run, a bot edit, or some other edit that doesn't really confer any sort of expression of support or opposition.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Something important I would add (which I detailed below) is that the nature of implicit consensus means that it is generally not acceptable to object to an edit solely on the basis that you don't feel it has consensus, at least not unless there's an existing dispute to point to or the edit is so manifestly controversial or drastic that the objection is obvious. A lack of consensus is supposed to be based in some specific objection. "I think it makes the article worse" is fine (if a bit weak and vague); but it's not acceptable to revert someone purely with a demand that they get consensus, unless some other objection is backing that up. This doesn't mean that an editor should immediately restore the disputed text, of course; WP:AGF means you should assume they have a valid objection and try to tease it out of them. But if someone just repeatedly brushes them off with "no, you need to get consensus, WP:ONUS is on you, I'm not going to say anymore" without ever articulating why they object to an edit beyond that, then that's inappropriate of them. This gets to part of my underlying objection to the "WP:ONUS maximalist" proposals in that I believe discussions work best when everyone is encouraged to come to the table, put all their cards on it at the start, and try to find a way to address the underlying content dispute; I'm concerned that some of the more radical interpretations of WP:ONUS amount to saying that people who want to remove material or to keep it out of an article have less of an obligation to engage at all and can simply point to ONUS without articulating a position that can be meaningfully engaged short of an WP:RFC. In the rare cases where I've encountered people who have actually tried to apply this belief during discussions, it has been completely unsatisfactory and lead to useless, circular discussions focused on the minutiae of policy rather than actually productive discussions of article content or meaningful efforts to resolve disputes. --Aquillion (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I particularly dislike it when someone reverts an edit with the explanation that they support it, but they believe somebody else (usually an unnamed/hypothetical person) will object. Reverting needs to be done by the person who objects, so that the bold editor knows who to talk to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• No, it's important that edits be presumed to have consensus until someone voices a specific objection, otherwise we run into the "rv, get consensus" issue where people who dislike an edit but who don't want to articulate why they dislike it can WP:STONEWALL it by demanding consensus without giving an objection that can be answered. This is a serious problem in controversial topic areas (where people will sometimes dislike an edit because they don't like what it says, even though they can't come up with a reason to oppose it; and where there are sometimes WP:OWN issues where people will try and demand consensus for edits by default), and would generally discourage useful discussion by allowing people to remove content from articles without providing any hint of how their objections to it could be addressed. An objection doesn't have to be detailed (at least not at first); even something as simple as "rv., undue" or "rv, tone issues" is fine, since that at least points to a place for discussions to start. But you're supposed to voice an objection, and the point of implicit consensus is "you need to get consensus before editing this article" is not a valid one. --Aquillion (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
• What it does in the Wikipedia system is give some weight to the status quo in discussions which consider many factors. And, in turn, the amount of weight is determined by other factors such as longevity and amount of review it is likely to have had. This is how most of our policies and guidelines work, even though they are not worded that way. North8000 (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  If we removed “presumed consensus” do you think that the “some weight to status quo” would disappear? Blueboar (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  Taking your question literally, I think that the extreme "disappear" would not happen. I haven't done the analysis to opine on whether it would be significantly weakened.....my guess is that full removal of the term would weaken the concept. North8000 (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  Weight to the status quo is provided by WP:PRESERVE. The fact that PRESERVE does not even mention presumed consensus is evidence that the concept of presumed consensus is not necessary. Zero^talk 01:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  @North8000, I think you might be right (What it does in the Wikipedia system is give some weight to the status quo), and that feels very weird to me right now. So there's presumed consensus for Edit #1, that presumed consensus disappears when someone disputes it, and yet... and yet... and yet many editors treat that no-longer-presumed no-longer-consensus as still being evidence of real-and-right-now-consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing: This and a lot of policy quandaries all make sense in the grand unification theory. Wikipedia:How editing decisions are made  :-) Seldom explicitly acknowledged, IMO it's how a big part of Wikipedia works. North8000 (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Does it help if we relabel "implicit," "presumed" consensus as "silent" consensus, making it clear that it only lasts until it is disputed or reverted (or perhaps "changed," but that is a conversation for another day)? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
This is inelegant draft wording, but how about something to the effect of: Material that has been in article for some time is presumed to have an implicit consensus, the strength of which is based on the length of time it has been in and the amount of review it has presumably received. While this implicit consensus does not carry the same weight as an actively-arrived at consensus, it should be taken into consideration and given some weight in discussions about the material. North8000 (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I think only the the amount of review it has presumably received is important. In other words, how much consensus did it have when it was added. Because often, additions (especially silent additions) may go unnoticed for some considerable time. Selfstudier (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@North8000: What purpose would your concept serve that is not already served by WP:PRESERVE? Zero^talk 00:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to put forth a new concept, rather I was trying to acknowledge how Wikipedia operates. Infusing reality into our wordings of course has benefits. But the purpose in the specific debate here is just to try to bring a resolution to it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, but Blueboar started this section with the proposal that presumed consensus be ditched. It seems to me that so far the only argument put forward for keeping it is the weight it gives to existing content. But that's not a good argument as PRESERVE already does that more thoroughly without the need for imaginary constructs such as "consensus" for text never discussed. Furthermore, the confusion over what presumed consensus actually means is further support for removal. Can you (do you want to?) offer a better rationale for keeping it? Zero^talk 02:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Another rationale: Saying a bold edit has consensus has the effect of discouraging reverts with no explanation beyond "no consensus."

A better solution to this problem might be to remove the presumed consensus text and replace it with the text from wp:PGBOLD: "you should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion indicating consensus for the change before it was made." - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good, but I think a reference to WP:PRESERVE would be better, since it's more comprehensive and gives specific, practical advice on what to do before reverting (rather than giving a commandment). DFlhb (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see that the PGBOLD text (dealing with "no consensus" reverts) and saying something in addition about PRESERVE (one of four alternatives to a revert) are mutually exclusive choices. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Belatedly, I think there are really two kinds of implicit consensus; both are important but it's also important not to confuse the two. The "implicit consensus" this is discussion focuses on (more commonly called "presumed consensus") is the first type.

• First, any edit that hasn't been challenged (no matter how new) has presumed consensus behind it until someone challenges it. This usually doesn't mean much because if there's a dispute then it has been challenged and this goes away; the main point is that editors shouldn't just revert something based purely on "get consensus" unless the edit is clearly controversial and the objection is obvious enough to not have to be stated. The idea here is that you need to voice at least some objection that can reasonably be engaged with for discussions to occur - editors aren't required to get explicit consensus before making uncontroversial edits, which means it's not generally appropriate to use "you didn't get consensus for this" as the sole reason for reverting them. Again, the rationale doesn't need to be detailed - at least at first - sometimes even just one or two words is sufficient, like "tone issues" or "BLP concerns" or "undue." But you have to articulate something. Another caveat is that this doesn't mean you should just restore something if someone does do this; what I think that it means is that if an editor constantly removes things that were not previously controversial with no rationale beyond demanding consensus, it's often an indicator of WP:OWN or WP:STONEWALL problems or other potential conduct issues.
• The other kind of implicit consensus is stronger (comparatively, although still weaker than explicit consensus) and comes from the idea that a particular part of an article has been viewed and reviewed by a large number of editors; if none of them have objected to it, then it eventually accumulates some degree of weak consensus, such that (in particular) disputes over it will usually end up defaulting to the stable version, with a few exceptions for situations like WP:BLP issues where there's an overriding concern otherwise. While quick handwaves like how old an edit is are often used for this, the real point is how many editors have implicitly signed off on the text, so eg. an obscure article or something easily-missed doesn't benefit from it even if a long time has passed. Also, this sort of implicit consensus depends on the text remaining in the article with many people seeing it and nobody objecting - if it was revert-warred in, or if there was an objection that wasn't resolved, the text remains disputed and doesn't have implicit consensus even if it ended up sitting there for a long time while people argued. Otherwise we end up with situations that reward dragging out discussions or encourage revert-warring to "keep" something from being considered stable.

These are both necessary because we are not supposed to have explicit discussions confirming the consensus for every line of text; to a certain extent those discussions are a failure state - they consume considerable amounts of time and energy for editors. Additionally, having the entire article nailed down by detailed explicit consensuses can discourage new editors. On highly-controversial high-profile articles it may be necessary, but we don't want policy to encourage people to reach for dispute resolution as a first resort; it should be possible for uncontroversial parts of articles to develop and remain stable over time through casual editing without the whole thing being forever a house of cards that collapses the moment someone objects. --Aquillion (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• Also, while I don't mean to call out a specific editor, the fact that this occurred right after I made the comment above and is such a clear-cut example of why we need the concepts of presumed consensus is here - an editor objected to basically every single edit recently made to an article (all of them plainly minor), based solely on demanding that they get consensus and without articulating any other objection. That's not something that ought to be encouraged for reasons that the way that discussion collapsed ought to make clear. --Aquillion (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The way I see it: Decisions involve evaluating and weighing multiple factors. Attempts to define that as a flowchart with binary decisions don't work. A longstanding edit has built up a stronger implied consensus. From (only) your description, that situation / challenge is a double weakened one.....first by being one of a bunch, and second with little or no rationale/concern description to go with the individual item. And so editors at the talk page would decide that such is not enough to force the status quo to require a consensus. North8000 (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Aquillion, the account in your example now has a Checkuser block. As it is proven not to be a good-faith, above-board edit(or), perhaps we should make that our standard example of this problem, to avoid potentially impugning people who were actually trying to follow Wikipedia's standards. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Local con on user talk

@Jasper Deng: I would have thought it largely indisputable that a consensus on a user talk page is a local consensus? Indeed, prior to recent events I would have thought it so indisputable that it would be unnecessary to say. BilledMammal (talk) 09:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Does anybody have an actual objection to the change? Bon courage (talk) 09:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I'm contesting this change not in disagreement with the point, but because I think it is unneeded. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time already implies that, for example, a user talk page falls under this provision; I do not think we have to list every such venue that is inappropriate. The WikiProject example was likely specifically included due to problematic WikiProjects at the time. I do not think adding in a discussion at adds a missing value to the example, and it could change the meaning (broad-stroke "WikiProject", versus narrow-stroke "discussion at WikiProject"). Curbon7 (talk) 10:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. The specific situation that inspired this change is the longstanding usual process for unblock requests: a discussion among administrators on the user's talk page, immediately below the appeal. The discussion now playing out is what's expected: a user appealed their block; various users discussed the block (on their talk page as advised by WP:UNBLOCK) and an administrator found consensus to unblock; a number of users then objected to the unblock and now both the administrator's action and the user's fate are being discussed in a wider forum, all of which naturally flows from WP:ADMINACCT and this policy. Nothing needs to be clarified, and policies should not be changed without good reason. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I have seen editors trying to impose a consensus at a talk page against policy, but I'd agree that "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time" covers when this happens. An admin blocking a user as a normal admin action is not subject to a higher consensus, so unblocking after consensus at the users talk page would seem appropriate. If the user had been blocked by community consensus the situation would be different. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that discussions on a user talk page cannot lead to a broad consensus and don't mind noting that if people are somehow in doubt. However, the actual edit doesn't make sense: participants in a discussion at a WikiProject or user talk page cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. What does articles within its scope mean in reference to a user talk page? – Joe (talk) 08:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I think this shows the need for LOCALCON to get some more attention. Last week, we saw an RFC close with a couple of editors claiming that a site-wide RFC was just another local consensus. There's the old joke that any discussion that "I" don't participate in personally, and that comes to The Wrong™ conclusion is obviously invalid, but there really must be limits. An RFC is a community-wide discussion, no matter what the result is. CENT-listed discussions are site-wide. Any well-advertised and well-attended discussion should be assumed to be effectively site-wide, even if they don't use the exact method of RFC or CENT for the advertising, but if you have a CENT-listed RFC on someone's talk page, then that's not a "local" discussion any longer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

RFCs

@Peter Gulutzan, I see your edit summary saying "An RfC can be a consensus among a limited group of editors". Wikipedia:Requests for comment, on the other hand, says "A request for comment (RfC) is a way to ask the Wikipedia community for input on an issue." What makes you think that "a way to ask the Wikipedia community for input" would result in "a consensus among a limited group of editors", instead of "a consensus formed by the Wikipedia community"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, what does 'limited group' mean? Everything ever decided on Wikipedia ever was by a 'limited group' technically. Is the intent to imply 'unrepresentative group' or 'illegitimate group'? Bon courage (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Just because you ask the community, doesn't mean any significant proportion of the community responds. If an RfC has three !votes, that is a limited group of editors. Most people would reserve the term "community consensus" for a more representative sample (although per BC there isn't really a numeric cutoff). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I showed you in thread CONLEVEL as any level that agrees with me, that RfCs can be closed with a tiny number of editors. Your policy change was "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 (e.g., as evidenced by a request for comment) ..." where that "e.g." is your addition. I interpret that as a suggestion that any RfC's existence indicates a broader-community exception, and since I believe that a tiny number is a limited number I reverted your policy change with -- quoting my edit summary more fully -- "An RfC can be a consensus among a limited group of editors, so it shouldn't be mentioned here as an exception about a consensus among a limited group of editors." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I think one of things being missed here is that sometimes not many editors care about something, and for the purposes of establishing consensus those who don't, are immaterial. For niche topics consensus is often quite properly decided by a tiny number of editors. Bon courage (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Even if qui tacet consentire videtur were applicable somewhere sometime, it wouldn't be here. The objection isn't solely about whether such RfCs should result in "no consensus due to lack of participation" (though I'd probably like that). It's about a policy change saying that such groups are the "broader community", "community consensus", etc. It's about whether it makes sense to say a limited group doesn't matter but matters if a limited group says so. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan, I wonder if you could give an example/description of a group of editors who are able to make a decision about an article's contents, that you might disagree with the decision, but that you would not describe as a local consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

No because the term "local consensus" isn't part of the disputed wording. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem I want to address is people claiming that any and every discussion that ends with the Wrong™ Result is "just a local consensus".

The understanding I had of the term when I wrote that originally had characteristics like these:

• an unadvertised discussion (e.g., a normal discussion on a talk page),
• participated in only by self-selected people (e.g., members of a WikiProject),
• on a lower-profile page (e.g., on a WikiProject page, not on a Village pump or a central noticeboard),
• resulting in a decision to reject the normal guidelines (e.g., the community's guidelines say that infoboxes should be decided case-by-case, but we reject that and decide to ban all infoboxes in one fell swoop), and
• affecting a large number of pages (e.g., all the articles within the scope of a WikiProject).

That's what I meant when I wrote this originally. An RFC, as it is the canonical opposite of "an unadvertised discussion", would obviously not be a "local consensus". An RFC that attracted participants from outside the original group would also not be a "local consensus".

From your comments here, I don't think that we have the same understanding of what the term means, and I don't think we have the same understanding of how that relates to forming a consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, my understanding is that this thread is about my objection to your addition of a phrase in the policy text, because you started the thread by addressing me and quoting a snippet of my edit summary explaining the reversion. But you want to talk about the definition of the term "local consensus", which is not in that phrase or in my edit summary or indeed anywhere in the policy text. So yes we have a misunderstanding. Perhaps you can clear it up by changing the heading to e.g. "Definition of local consensus which has nothing to do with the recent edits", or starting a new thread? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The phrasing in question here was attempting to provide an example of how a limited group of editors can "convince the broader community that such action is right". Peter, you are essentially saying that an RfC is not a good example, because occasionally an RfC does not have wide participation. Wouldn't the easy fix be to adjust the statement to read, "(e.g. as evidenced by a request for comment with wide participation)", or something craftier along those lines? If you don't want to see an example in running text, we could easily place it into an {{efn}} with the added benefit of being able to elaborate further. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan, I don't think I'm understanding your view. What process do you believe editors can engage in, to find out what the "broader community" or "community consensus" is? If it's not an unadvertised discussion among partisans on a talk page (what LOCALCON has rejected from its first moment) and it's not an RFC (what you objected to here), what's left? Votes during keynote sessions at Wikimania? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, once again I can't make you understand, okay. But that doesn't mean the onus is on me to propose an alternative phrase when I believe no phrase is appropriate there. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

GoneIn60: Thank you for understanding, although I didn't emphatically say "occasionally". Yes, adding "with wide participation" would handle the objection that the phrase conflicts with the sentence start. But why there? If the idea is to praise RfCs, that could be a sentence at the end of the Levels of consensus section e.g. "RfCs with wide participation might be considered to have a higher level of consensus." Instead putting them in the sentence about WikiProjects implies that making such an RfC will make it okay for a WikiProject to override a policy, which I think is rare (anybody know any example?) and which I think is inferior to the alternative (why not change the policy?). Anyway, if you still think the phrase can be saved, then I know a way to proceed with the dispute: an RfC. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

RFCs often happen on WikiProject pages. If groups of editors ("WikiProjects") start a community-wide discussion ("an RFC"), then why wouldn't that be treated the same as anyone else creating a community-wide discussion?

The problem that is described in LOCALCON is that a group of editors can have such a discussion without the broader community being notified. Then you add an infobox to an article, and someone from WP:COMPOSERS reverts you and says basically that their group had a quiet little conversation several years ago and decided to ban infoboxes in "their" articles without telling the rest of the community. It is the exclusion of the rest of the community that is the problem. RFCs, because they are deliberately advertised to the whole community, do not exclude the rest of the community. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

It’s rare, but I think an RFC can be an example of a local consensus - although the closer would have to have very good reason for rejecting it on that ground.

For example, see talk:First_statute_of_the_IMRO#RfC:_Note_about_Internal_Macedonian_Revolutionary's_Organization's_first_name - this is one I closed as no consensus on the grounds of local consensus, for reasons that I felt were very good. BilledMammal (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

That discussion does not appear to have attracted any comments from editors outside the original dispute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom discussion

Hi. There is an ArbCom discussion with one of the main topics being consensus. It is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals. Your input is welcome. This notice is placed to attract objective input (whether in favor or against) of uninvolved editors related to the interest of the consensus policy page. It is not canvassing,

In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.

Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 06:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Split Votes

Hello. What happens when a vote is split 50/50? Am I right in thinking topic neutrality wins? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• First, it’s supposed to be a discussion, not a vote… no one “wins” when we can’t reach consensus. Instead it means we need to explore compromises that might resolve the issue. Blueboar (talk) 11:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough. We have a couple of members who are basically refusing to accept that the vote reflects a need for a the article to remain neutral on certain topics. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  This appears to involve a dispute (currently at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) about whether Zoroastrianism is monotheistic.

  "Neutral" is a term of the art ("jargon") at the English Wikipedia. We say that all articles need to be neutral, but our definition of neutral may surprise you. According to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy:

  • if most/all high-quality sources say that Zoroastrianism is monotheistic, then the article is neutral if it, too, says Zoroastrianism is monotheistic.
  • if most/all high-quality sources say that Zoroastrianism is dualistic, then the article is neutral if it, too, says Zoroastrianism is dualistic.
  • If some high-quality sources say that Zoroastrianism is monotheistic and other high-quality sources say that Zoroastrianism is dualistic, the the article is neutral if it says Zoroastrianism has been classified as monotheistic by some and as dualistic by others.

  An article can only be neutral if it matches the balance of views found in reliable sources. If an accurate reflection of reliable sources would pick "X" as the answer, then having the article treat "X" and "Y" as being equally valid options would not produce a neutral article.

  Perhaps another way to say this is: Wikipedia editors need to neutrally reflect the contents of reliable sources. If the sources don't treat the options equally, then a WP:Neutral reflection of those sources will not treat the options equally, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, I see. As close as we can tell, opinions vary wildly and depend on where in the history of the religion you're looking at. We have a few meta papers that seem to indicate no consensus regarding the claim. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  Changes appearing over time are usually pretty easy: "From the Xth to Yth centuries, Zoroastrianism was often considered a dualistic religion, but modern Zoroastrianism is more usually described as a monotheistic religion" (or whatever the actual facts are).

  Usually, this approach results in the one side is satisfied because the article says it was originally their thing, and the other side is satisfied because the article says that it really is the other thing now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  Not this time, lol. They stonewalled the idea, even though it's exactly what their sources say. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  Have you actually run an RFC? If not, we can help you write a clear question. There are also other approaches to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, if you'd rather try a different process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Pretty much. I think it's been resolved now and we have an academic sending us better sources for the page. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  Congratulations on getting help from an expert. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Idea for a new feature

I was thinking that there could be a new feature where someone makes an edit but instead of applying it, ticks a box so that it has to gain approval from one other editor to be applied (and can’t outright be refused). This is a much less time consuming method that would replace talk page spam and be more of a proposal. It would also be ideal for contentious topics, to stop incorrect or uncertain content from being applied. Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Selfstudier (talk) 11:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

thanks Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: The box at the top of that page says "Proposed policy changes belong at Village pump (policy)." (If you do start a discussion there, be sure to drop a note here with a link to that discussion.) - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

On second thought, if you are proposing giving the editor the option to seek approval (or not) then maybe this would not be a change to the Consensus policy. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Proposed edits feature Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Some problems with consensus

1. There are people demanding consensus to
   1. essentially prohibit any kind of change they don't like.
   2. deliberately make non-problematic changes look controversial.
2. Some people's attitude is "convince me (but I won't be convinced no matter what)".

I am not against the consensus policy itself. But this is how consensus is sometimes actually used in Wikipedia. Those "brick wall" people drive good contributors out. 172.58.208.47 (talk) 03:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:STONEWALLING is definitely a problem, but I'm unsure that it's a problem with the model of consensus and not rather a problem with the nature of people.
The opposite of your points, 'I insist my change must be made', 'my problematic change isn't controversial', 'It's intransigence not to accept my flawed arguments', are also common issues.
Both behaviours stem from very human behaviour of being sure of what we known to be true. We can try and distance ourselves from that, try to be open to arguments against our held position, but if that was easy then the world would be much better place than it is. A different consensus model, voting for instance, would be no less effected by this issue.
Stonewalling, as with WP:CIVILPOV pushing, are difficult to deal. RFCs can help, as they attract the larger editing community who may be less convinced of the current status that the local editors. The question is how to convince editors to be less dogmatic in their positions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

A consensus is sort of a "super-majority" typically of votes (and yes, I know it's not supposed to be a vote) and arguments. And so a common warrior maneuver it to try to make it so / claim that the other side has to have a super-majority in order for their view to prevail. In other words, "my side wins by default unless the other side gets a super-majority". Or " "no consensus" means my side wins" North8000 (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• It is a tricky problem, though, because we do generally need to have one specific version in the article, even in situations where there's no consensus. One of the reasons I'm opposed to interpretations of policy that give overwhelming preference to one side in a dispute is that it can encourage stonewalling and discourage engagement, consensus-building, and compromise. But ultimately there's always going to have to be a version and unless there is a clear supermajority in favor of it, there's always going to be people saying that it's the wrong one; there's no policy or practice that can perfectly solve this. I think that the most useful advice for people who are running into problems like this is to point them to the ways of escalating discussions and attracting more opinions. Generally speaking stonewalling and the like are a more serious problem in articles and discussions that have few people contributing to them - when more people contribute there will usually be some sort of consensus at the end, but it can be really hard to tease a consensus out of two or three people who are starkly at odds with each other. --Aquillion (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

"no consensus" means my side wins" is basically what the policy states if "my side" is preference for an older version. But what consensus do we need to have to modify the policy on consensus? Oloddin (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

If you're looking at the sentence in WP:NOCON that says the long-standing version is usually retained (assuming, e.g., that there is a long-standing version, that editors can agree on which version is the long-standing one, etc.), that's a description of a fact ("the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit"), rather than a rule being imposed ("You should..." or "Editors must...") or even a best practice being recommended ("It's a good idea to...because...").

That particular line was added originally by a now-blocked editor after multiple discussions (here and at WT:V) in which people (including me) said they weren't sure that it was entirely true. So apparently the answer to your question is: It's not difficult to change this policy. Sometimes we even let changes happen when we think they're dubious. Getting it into the policy was easy; getting it back out of the policy has proven to be much harder than getting it in. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Prohibiting any demand for consensus (things like "this change needs consensus", "no consensus to change", etc.) will help a lot. Demanding consensus is like "you need my approval to make this change". 73.66.2.97 (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request for an essay on CONLEVEL

Hi all. For anyone who is interested, I recently moved an essay I wrote into WP space, and I'd greatly appreciate any feedback anyone has (good or bad) or improvements. You can find it here. In the conversations I've seen here and elsewhere, I've noticed that ironically there doesn't seem to be much consensus on how to measure the level of consensus that something has, and I've tried to highlight some of the various factors in play without being too prescriptive in terms of how to do it. Hopefully someone might find it useful when CONLEVEL discussions come up. Scribolt (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Cool. I will take a look, WP:CONLEVEL comes up quite frequently.Selfstudier (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

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 WikiPedia 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).

• What to do if you don't agree with that rationale? Start a discussion, perhaps by {{ping}}ing the other editor and asking why they believe your addition promotes a point of view. Compare Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"#How to respond to a "no consensus" edit summary.
• What to do about your content during the discussion? See WP:QUO. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 07:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Kawrno Baba (talk) 07:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Turning to your question, the Wikipedia 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)

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 Wikipedia, it is not always directly linked to correctness

I guess that Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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: Wikipedia:What is consensus?#Not necessarily equate to or imply correctness.

Anyways, I personally find the argument "Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia to reflect the collective agreement of its contributors rather than striving solely for objective truth. This reflects my belief that Wikipedia 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)

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)

Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus after discussion be moved to Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Editing policy takes a default position of retaining information (though it cares about whether Wikipedia 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 [in his opinion] 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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)

• I'm fine (support) with moving to EDITING POLICY. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support per discussion above.Selfstudier (talk) 08:50, 4 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)

sadly consensus being used to put up content without sources

people use consensus to put up content without sources. e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elon_Musk&diff=1276053600&oldid=1275972944

this destroys wiki credibility. (dangerous when people can now use AI instead of wiki.) Asto77 (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

If you believe that there aren't sources to support the content and the RFC has been closed incorrectly I suggest reading WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. However it's seems simple to find sources for which parties and individuals he has supported and how they are commonly described by reliable sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@Asto77, you might want to read WP:LEADCITE and WP:Glossary#uncited. The rule is that everything must be verifiable, but it is possible for things to be verifiable even if they are not cited ("little blue clicky number"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I was curious, so I checked… The content is cited later in the article. So not only is it verifiable, but it is actually verified. Blueboar (talk) 00:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

sadly having no citation for content, on the grounds that there may be one mentioned elsewhere in a (long) article, just doesn't stack up.

similarly the one citation further down the article for Musk 'far-right' only mentions AfD, and that's a debateable characteristion.

I'll bid you all farewell. Asto77 (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

As you will, but if you are unwilling to read the whole article I don't think Wikipedia can be blamed. If you simply do a Google search[1] you will see that although AfD is often mentioned (and as often described as far-right) they are not the only far-right group (described as such by those sources) that he has lent his support. Of course you may disagree with those sources, but Wikipedia neutrally reflects what is found in sources not what editor believe should be in articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)