User:Greeves/Wikipedia talk:Five pillars/Consensus poll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an opinion poll started by Greeves regarding whether or not consensus should be added as another pillar in addition to the other five pillars. If you have an opinion on this matter, please sign in the appropriate section below. The poll will end April 1, 2007 (two weeks from it opening). Thanks! Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This poll should be considered irrelevant because changes to pages are made through discussion on its talk page, rather than by voting on additions. >Radiant< 10:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Support as a New Pillar

1. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Object as a New Pillar

1. NPOV and encyclopedicity trump consens: even if there is, say, overwhelming consensus among Wikipedians that a certain D. B. is a moron, that still won't figure in that person's article. Consensus is, as it were, a meta-pillar, the only method we have to establish whether a given question is supported by the five pillars, but it is not a "pillar" on equal footing itself. dab (𒁳) 17:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
2. I agree; consensus is a means we use to achieving NPOV and encylopedicity. (we do not reach consensus merely for the sake of having consensus, but reach consensus on whether an article is NPOV, etc.) Plus, a lot of people will probably point out that "consensus is not always true" (aka wikiality). This gets into epistomilogical and philosophical realms we don't need to deal with. For instance, a bunch of editors may have consensus, but then someone else will come along and prove them all wrong. But then we have would have consensus again, etc. Like I said, consensus is only a means for working with others who think differently, and not an end in itself. Still, consensus is an important part of wikipedia, but there are several other good practices to use when working with others, which are outlined under "Wikipedia has a code of conduct". Consensus is already mentioned in that section, and I think that is enough. Danski14 17:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Consensus is incredibly important. So much so that I was considering supporting this. But dab's points have made me reconsider. Because of the problem of meatpuppets, sockpuppets and mob-rule, the addition of Consensus to the pillars could be misinterpreted and abused. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
4. We can agree that Wikipedians should always try for consensus where two or more users are involved in a decision. However, it should not be a foundation principle that consensus dictates the final decision. First, it's not always true. Jimbo Wales has final authority, and he can overrule whatever the community decides - though he rarely, if ever, exercises this power. In vote-oriented processes, such as XFD and RFA, consensus is hard to evaluate, and can be subjective. I wasn't around at the time, but when User:Carnildo was reinstated as an administrator with a support rate of around 60%, instead of the usual 75% threshold, it raised a huge ruckus. Basically, the bureaucrat decided that there was consensus, where members of the community did not see it that way. The same situation can happen at AFDs - admins may close a 4 to 3 AFD as a result or as "no consensus" - it's up to the admin's judgment to evaluate whether consensus is there. Also, what do we make of the fact that Consensus Can Change? The requirements for NPOV, ATT, user conduct and so forth don't just change with the winds of public opinion. Overall, consensus is too delicate a principle to join the existing five. YechielMan 02:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Wikipedia is not a democracy - leaving consensus a shadowing subject, not one that this is firm and important enough to be a pillar. Plus, over a million user page welcomes would need to be updated — Jack · talk · 05:50, Wednesday, 21 March 2007

[edit] Object to voting like this

This is really not the way to decide such things. Discuss changes to a page on its talk page. Besides, WP:5P isn't even policy, if you want a list of all policies there's CAT:P and WP:LOP. >Radiant< 10:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)