Wikipedia talk:Consensus

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

Consensus might become hindrance to truth

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

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

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

How does 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)

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)

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)

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)