Talk:Consensus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Consensus and the Delphi effect

I know I'm encouraged to be bold but I would like to consult the opinions of fellow interested readers before I attempt to link consensus to the Delphi method or Delphi effect. I thought this link would be rather interesting as to how a panel of experts collaborate over an nth iteration of rounds, resulting in a converging opinion. This is an interesting phenomenon. --WikiInquirer 06:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC) talk to me

This is a tricky topic, but before I would venture any edits folks might be interested in

[edit] Discussion

An interesting thing about the term consensus is that it is so vague, a unicorn of harmony which seems to be neither majority nor unamimity. Like an intuition about an as yet undiscovered process. What seemes most important is the convergance of these new methods which would be impossible to cary out with parchment, fether quil, chamber and desk.

Electronic media can:

  • forward issues by taste and voting history
  • tally votes from larger populations
  • support forks of issues and drafts
  • mathemetically formulated list priorities
  • support referendums on many more topics
  • refactor referendums by interest level or consensus
  • teach others of information

with this topology? I see consensus as the ability to create knowledge focusing like with Recomendation systems and to structure decision making to acheive higher internal consistancy. -WS

This:

One can make an analogy in mathematical terms by envisioning the distribution of opinions in a population as a Gaussian curve. We would then say that the consensus would be a statement that represents the range of opinions within perhaps three standard deviations of the mean opinion.

sounds arbitrary and ad hoc. Does it really belong in n encyclopedia article? I don't see that it adds anything

It's now balanced with a criticism of applying formal methods, and other possible definitions are included. These are discussed more exactly in the consensus decision making article.

The paragraph that follows seems much more useful. Are there any political theorists out there who can clarify the issues? It seems to me that this is an issue that Locke, Rousseau, de Toqueville, and others must have debated... SR

yes, but their opinions would be more appropriate to cite in an article on consensus democracy, which is, consensus decision making applied to government. This article should remain as narrow as possible. I am wondering whether consensus action should get its own article, too.
  • The analogy is indeed awkward - I recognize this; put it down to the result of too much recent thinking about probability distributions. It is, however, a somewhat difficult concept to express. Consensus appears to be a range of opinions, mixed, boiled down, and all the contriversial parts subtracted until all that remains is the common ground. I am, as you can tell from that equally clumsy analogy, at something of a loss for how to express this properly. I hope that someone will replace that excerpted analogy with a better explanation. -- April
on the meta site there are many discussions of consensus, most in some specific context of the wiki itself, but there seems to be no agreement there either.

On the French Wikipedia, there's a slightly better article and did you know that Consensu means unanimous ?

that probably suggests a problem with french politics.  ;-) In English there are two different words, and that's for very good reason.

It may be time to refactor. Suggest as follows:

*consensus as it is, only, more focused on formal and mathematical statements, linking to more formal issues like artificial intelligence. Clear statement to see other articles for specialized issues: *consensus decision making which is how collective intelligence is formed, and which involves questions of non-formal statements, partial commitment, changing of minds, etc. More or less as it is. *consensus democracy, which is, consensus decision making applied to government, detailed discussion of Locke, Rousseau, de Toqueville, and others - relation to grassroots democracy, deliberative democracy, anticipatory democracy, semi-direct democracy and other models. Obviously this must focus on control of law and the military using the consensus methods. *consensus action which is more related to non-violent resistance, anarchism, and "active creation" of truth by taking common action in concert. Many more issues since it does not rely on authority or even rules.

Well, I tend to think that this buddha definition is clearer Angela and perhaps more accurate. Anthère

No it's wrong. Consensus means the majority, as can be seen by the links I provided. He is trying claim it means everyone has to agree, which they don't. Angela 18:14, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)
He was not trying to claim everyone has to agree, he was merely stating that some did claim that while others indicated the majority. Quite different.
No, Angela, you are wrong. Definition 1a in Mirriam-Webster's clearly includes unanimity as a requirement, and therefore you are incorrect in your reversion. -BuddhaInside
I've put both in. Angela 18:20, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)
Fair enough -BuddhaInside

Consensus is;

  1. General or widespread agreement (Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition)
  2. The judgment arrived at by most of those concerned (Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 10th Edition
  3. An opinion shared by a great majority (The Wordsmyth English Dictionary-Thesaurus)

Going on these definitions, consensus most certainly was achieved. Angela 18:04, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)

Angela, why on earth would you selectively quote definition 1b from Merriam-Webster while avoiding definition 1a?
1 a : general agreement : UNANIMITY
Going on this definition, at least some hold that consensus requires unanimity. -BuddhaInside
So add that in, don't just delete the ones I added. Make it npov, don't remove it completely. I didn't remove the bit that said some don't think this. Angela 18:17, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)

I'll reread all the recent versions and see what is missing from the one I just edited. -BuddhaInside

In reviewing the Encarta definition, I just discovered that when Angela selectively quoted it she left out the part about broad unanimity and all the members of a group.

For those who prefer the "general agreement" definition, I would remind you that the primary definition of "general" is refers to something the involves the whole, not something that merely involves a majority. -BuddhaInside

I have moved the dictionary entries here as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The content of them is summarised in the article. Angela

  • 1. broad unanimity: general or widespread agreement among all the members of a group. (Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition)
  • 1a:General agreement: UNANIMITY. 1b: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned (Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 10th Edition (Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 10th Edition
  • 1. General agreement in opinions, values, preferences, or the like. 2. An opinion shared by a great majority (The Wordsmyth English Dictionary-Thesaurus)
  • Consensus is a method of decision making where unanimous agreement is reached through debate without a vote. (Ohio Association of Parliamentarians)

[edit] Building consensus using a wiki

Pontificating about the Wikipedia's limitations with regards to consensus-building is POV. The only fact is the first sentence. -- Stevietheman 22:07, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Namely: "A wiki can be seen as infrastructure for reaching consensus within a project, since in theory the project's text will continue to be edited until consensus is reached." -- Stevietheman 22:10, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Every sentence is equally factual (and Wikipedia was never mentioned). How can a restricted wiki be an infrastructure for reaching consensus? If the statement you've removed is POV, that means someone seriously disputes it. Who disputes it? In any case, I've removed the whole paragraph, as it is original research. anthony (see warning)

I dispute the extra text, but the first sentence is just a fact. Perhaps you could reword your extra text in a way that makes it NPOV. Please give that a try before removing content. Further, the "original research" charge doesn't hold any water. -- Stevietheman 23:40, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What is wrong with the extra text? How can a restricted wiki be an infrastructure for reaching consensus? Perhaps you can reword it an a way which is NPOV. I don't understand your objection, so I can't do it. As for the original research charge, where is the primary source if it is not original research? anthony (see warning)

I think your rewrite is a wild stretch of things, but it's better than taking it out altogether. I think you're just on some kind of crusade here to invalidate the wiki process because you've been denied access to some small part of a wiki. Consensus-building is a natural element of wiki authoring--look at almost any article on wikis you can Google for your primary source. -- Stevietheman 23:51, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You have not addressed any of my questions at all. anthony (see warning)

[edit] Rough consensus

In following rough consensus from WP:RM (and the likes of WP:RFD), I find a redirect to Consensus that doesn't have anything on what a "rough" consensus is. I think the redirect needs to be dropped and expanded as an article to describe what a rough consensus is in terms of votes for these things. Thoughts? Cburnett 22:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I agree totally.DanielDemaret 13:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Article created on rough consensus. Sunray 19:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of consensus

This page ought to have a history section. Who started using consensus and why? Does it predate the Quakers? I don't know these answers, but would greatly appreciate them being added in by someone.

--ErikStewart 15:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with ErikStewart that some history would be valuable. I'm wondering whether it should be in the article on Consensus or the one on Consensus decision-making. Would a history be about the use of consensus as a decision process (thus the history of consensus decision-making)? Sunray 06:58, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)

[edit] Obscure sentence?

The process of achieving consensus involves serious treatment of every group member's considered opinion, and a collective trust in each member's discretion in follow-up action.

I have a problem in understanding this sentence. What does follow-up mean in context? Actions after the consensus decision has been taken, or something else? /Habj 15:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The way I read it it means action after the decision has been taken. Members must trust one other members to act on the decision. I agee that the sentence could be better expressed. I will take a crack at it. Sunray 16:22, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

[edit] Without or with

This question may be simply stupid and follows from my poor knowledge of English, but in the last sentence of "Models of consensus" shouldn't the word "without" be replaced by "with"? If I gather, the peace activist weren't been beard because of the game theory model mastered the politics. 4C 09:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The way I read it, peace activists weren't able to influence the game because they had not mastered game theory. However, I agree that the sentence is unclear. Sunray 14:28, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
Now we see it... Thanks a lot for explanation. 4C 18:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus in Pennsylvania

I "boldly" removed the sentence "Some claim Pennsylvania is governed based on consensus decision making, rather than voting," because I could find no evidence of such a claim, which seems prima facie nonsensical. Mark K. Jensen 08:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The plural of consensus is?

Could you PLEASE include the plural of the word "consensus" as part of your definition in wikipedia? Thank you.

The plural of "consensus" is just "consensus." It's Latin. "We came to three different consensus." If that's awkward, "three different points of consensus" is probably better than "three consensusses." 24.22.58.51 10:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consistency between wictionary and wikipedia

I have added : "each of which exercises some discretion in decision making and follow-up action, since this is what it says in wictionary". wictionary and wikipedi should not contradict each other.DanielDemaret 13:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster lists 3 distinct meanings of "consensus": [1]

    • general agreement : UNANIMITY <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports...from the border -- John Hersey>
    • the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>
  2. group solidarity in sentiment and belief

I'm particularly concerned with how the term is used in our Scientific consensus article, and in related articles such as Global warming controversy and List of scientists opposing the global warming consensus. I'd like to see our articles give proportions when possible, e.g.., what percentage of climate scientists agree with the UN's climate panel about the causes of global warming? --Uncle Ed 10:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think, it is a kind of weasel wording to use the term consensus in a political connotation. It is an urgent need in Democracy Theory to form collective wants and unanimity with the aim to ignore inconvenient minorities in pragmatic styles. The problem is a politcally correct ambiguity in the langguage. Of course, it is liked by democrats to enforce their policies. This connotation shouldn't be used in a scientific or neutral enviroment, but democrats are also on the way in Wikipedia. --84.60.196.216 18:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bad article

this seems far below the standard i've seen in other wikipedia articles. i find the mathematical section unnecessarily obscure, and the references to peace movements requiring "consensus" by putting your body on the line doesn't sound like netural point of view.

[edit] herd mentality and consensus

The below was added as doxa subjective.

Often cited, consensus, has been a point of failure in what has been deemed "herd mentality" decision making, wherein the common masses, who are generally deemed sub-par in capacity for higher thinking, greatly affect the outcome of conclusions and decisions. In the same reasoning is made the ancient motto: "too many cooks spoil the stew". Another model for the many failures of consensus position, is the common addage of "lemmings following each other over the cliff's edge to certain death".

Please sign your posts using --~~~~ at the END of your text NOT in the edit summary. --Fredrick day 00:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/n/Talk%7EConsensus_644c.html"