Talk:Consensus decision-making

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on August 8, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.
To-do: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • expand/clarify quaker model
  • include section on Polder Model
  • reformat all refs to use WP:CITET
  • get a photo

There is a separate, short, article on consensus to contain definitions of consensus from computer science, and give a short overview with examples to those not interested in the decision making implications. If that structure is clunky, then the title 'consensus' should be used for all of this material, resulting in a very long article that would have to cover both technical and poltical uses of the term. probably undesirable.

Contents

[edit] Added Some Links

I added two references - one to a classic article (Meeting Facilitation: The No-Magic Method) on how to facilitate meetings which has been very useful for many people conducting consensus meetings and a reference to a series of articles I've written on Cooperative Decision-Making and Consensus. I hope this is ok. --Randy Schutt 23:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Randy Schutt

Randy. While I think the links are excellent, they are only weakly related to consensus. I think that they should be moved to another article. Good candidates might be: Facilitator and Meeting. Sunray 23:34, October 2, 2005 (UTC)

Being new to this process, I'm not sure it's appropriate to mention two books I have written on this topic. Both are essentially the same except for the introduction. "How To Meet, Think and Work to Consensus" (Pfeiffer & Company 1993) which is out of print but in many libraries and "Thinking Together - to make great decisions and solve the world's problems" (Xlibris 1999) Dantagliere 17:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)



I'm uncomfortable that active listening redirects to this page. Active listening may be a useful part of the consensus decision -making process, but it is an independent process that is used in conflict management, psychotherapy, couples counselling and organizational development. It should be defined separately. ChristopherA 20:10, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Can you be bold and start the article stub for AL? Nae'blis 16:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I too agree and since Christopher hasn't yet started a new article on active listening, have done so. Sunray 23:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] definition of majority

A "simple" majority is not 50% plus one. A majority is "more than half". There is a big difference. Let's say you have a committee of five people. Without doing the math, your common sense tells you that a majority of 5 is 3. Yet if you use the 50% plus 1 scenario a majority of 5 is 4 (half of 5 is two and a half, add 1, becomes three and a half. Since you cannot have half a person, the answer becomes 4). "More than half" solves the problem and is the correct definition according to most accepted parliamentary authorities, such as Robert's Rules.

Agreed. Change at will. EofT

Removed consensus as being necessarily "democratic". For example, the Politburo Standing Committee of the Chinese communist Party appears to make decisions via consensus, but this doesn't make the decision making democratic.

Roadrunner

Even if the Politburo Standing Committee of the Chinese communist Party is not democratic, the specific decision process if indeed reached via consensus is as they will be participated by all (popular), in equality of circumstances. Panic —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.84.103.176 (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Isn't the discussion on definition of majority somewhat tangential to consensus decision-making? I found the article informative and interesting, but I think that it could be tightened up considerably. Even the definition doesn't seem to countenance the possibility that groups could easily achieve unanimity. I think that this aspect of consensus decision-making should be presented too.

For instance, a commonly accepted definition of consensus is the following: "An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole." -- American Heritage Dictionary

There has been considerable development in consensus decision-making in recent years. For example Quaker-based consensus has been applied to a variety of settings. The model used by the Quakers is effective because it puts in place a simple structure that moves a group towards consensus while limiting potential disruptors (e.g., people who want unlimited airtime, or who have a particular axe to grind).

Cohousing groups have also used consensus decision-making with good results. In many cases, with cohousing groups, business must be transacted within time constraints. Thus efficiency is important. If the group genuinely wants to make decisions by consensus, a bombproof method is needed. An open discussion needs to be animated by a process that moves towards a timely, and sound, decision that is supported by all. Some ingenious techniques have been developed whereby this can be achieved.

I would like to propose some judicious editing of the current article and the addition of some information on the ingredients of effective consensus decision-making. I would also like to add some links to practical materials on building consensus. However, I am new to Wikipedia and I don't want to overstep any bounds. Comments? Sunray


Don't worry about "overstepping your bounds". Your ideas are sound. Much of what you have written here could be added to the article. If someone thinks you are overstepping your bounds, they will tell you. mydogategodshat 05:23, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

How could one find out who wrote the original text or where it was taken from? I'm curious about the sources for certain assertions. I've made some minor changes to the first five paragraphs--mostly substituting the conditional for the absolute--i.e., substituting "can" or "may" for stronger assertions. I will continue in this vein for now. If I can get info on sources, I can make a few more substantial changes. Sunray

By clicking on "page history" you can find out who wrote what. If you want to know their sources, you can click on the link to their talk page and ask them a question. mydogategodshat 07:31, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Page history only seems to go back to January 2003. I was hoping to go back to the root article. Sunray
If the first entry in the page history is not the original article, then the source must have been lost somehow. You might want to ask the database experts at village pump what happened. mydogategodshat 08:12, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What sources support these claims?

The ancient Jewish Sanhedrin courts rejected all unanimous verdicts and let the accused go free, on the assumption that the accused had not had any adequate defense.

The New Testament records the hastily-convened illegal Sanhedrin of Pharisees that condemned Jesus as a unanimous verdict - one unacceptable under Torah law. Such practices were actually criticized by Jesus and other contemporary rabbis, and many believe they reflected the influence of more authority-driven Roman law (on which our current jurisprudence in the Western world is based). Slrubenstein

... a decision process that not only seeks the agreement of a majority of participants, but also to resolve or mitigate the objections of the minority to achieve the most agreeable decision.

This phrasing isn't technically correct but I'm having trouble finding a better phrasing that doesn't become overly wordy.

I'm not aware of any group using consensus decision-making requiring that a "majority" of participants agree with a proposal. In fact in pure consensus models, there isn't even a reliable way to measure whether a majority approves -- all that is known is whether there are outstanding concerns that participants are willing to voice.

Although at least one group does impose a requirement that a proposal must not be burdened with more than some minimum number of "stand-asides" -- which I presume is an attempt to insure a minimum level of active approval as opposed to passive acceptance.

So how to rephrase the first sentence to incorporate this reality? Suggestions?

Err... maybe answered my own question. How about if I just delete "of a majority" and maybe elaborate in a following section. I would also like to incorporate some discussion of hybrid consensus/voting systems. Took a first stab at it at consensus-seeking decision-making. Feedback appreciated. User:New

[edit] Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

Does anyone think that the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth's Sejm, with its institution of the Liberum veto (any Sejm deputy could at any time vote to invalidate all legislation passed during the current session) belongs here? --Jfruh 15:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The process you refer to is one that requires unanimity in legislation. That seems to relate to the article and perhaps could be added as an historical example (for e.g., in the section on "Promise of consensus decision-making"). Sunray 16:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category of bodies using this model

Are there enough organisations with WP articles using consensus decision making to justify a category say Category:Organisations using consensus decision making - the Uniting Church in Australia and the World Council of Churches (from 2/2006 are two known to me. -- Paul foord 12:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus in the Spanish civil war?

I've never heard this before, and in the absence of a credible citation I don't believe it:

Anarchist groups in the Spanish civil war and revolution (including the anarchist militias) used consensus decision making.

I've never heard of consensus being used in any significant political context before the 1970s. Occasionally one sees similarly inaccurate claims such as that the Zapatista communities in Chiapas employ consensus processes (they do not). 24.22.58.51 10:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree about 1970. Important earlier uses, well documented, are the FIC, AFSC, the Quakers, certain Catholic groups, and certain forms of jury trial. But I do question Spain, I know firsthand that the Zaps don't use consensus, and I think the idea that the Haudenosaunee used consensus is absurd. Everything that the American Left likes, we attribute to the Haudenosaunee. Without citations, I say cut. Also....I've just put a fairly long empirical article on consensus up on the web. Seeking publication now. It's a bit peer-reviewd, though. I don't know if linking to it would constitute original research?? Ethan Mitchell 15:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
No that wouldn't be original research. However, it would be best to wait until the article is published. Meanwhile, do you have a URL for it? Sunray 03:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
http://www.trelevenfarm.org/Consensus.htm 22:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Haudenosaunee and consensus decision-making

Ethan Mitchell said: "I think the idea that the Haudenosaunee used consensus is absurd... Without citations, I say cut."

Ethan may wish to consider this further. There are abundant references on the Haudenosaunee's form of government, beginning with Lewis Henry Morgan in the mid-19th century. Morgan was an ethnologist and a keen observer of the social organization of the Haudenosaunee. His work was flawed by a unilinear notion of evolution and the popular bias of the "noble savage." However, he did observe Haudenosaunee practices first hand, and if one sticks with his observations (rather than some of his theories) a clear picture emerges. Here's what he says in Chapter II of Ancient Society:

The simplest and lowest form of the council was that of the gens. It was a democratic assembly because every adult male and female member had a voice upon all questions brought before it. It elected and deposed its sachem and chiefs, it elected Keepers of the Faith, it condoned or avenged the murder of a gentile, and it adopted persons into the gens. It was the germ of the higher council of the tribe, and of that still higher of the confederacy, each of which was composed exclusively of chiefs as representatives of the gentes.
…All the members of an Iroquois gens were personally free, and they were bound to defend each other’s freedom; they were equal in privileges and in personal rights, the sachem and chiefs claiming no superiority; and they were a brotherhood bound together by the ties of kin, liberty, equality, and fraternity, though never formulated, were cardinal principles of the gens. These facts are material, because the gens was the unit of a social and governmental system, the foundation upon which Indian society was organized…[1]

There is a fair amount of research on the subject of the Haudenosaunee system of consensus decision-making in the past twenty years. See, for example: Snow (1994) [2], the Canadian Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996) [3], Johansen (2002) [4].

Here's what anthropologist Dean R. Snow says about the Haudenosaunee and consensus:

"Iroquois custom requires unanimity in League decisions. Concepts of quorum and majority rule were not acceptable. Achievement of unanimity was often facilitated by having the most senior chiefs speak last, so they could incorporate the wisdom and diversity of opinions expressed by more junior men. Orators often spoke for the chiefs, appealing repeatedly to the audience for confirmation that the message was being well received. Elaborate procedure evolved for passing matters for discussion from one side to the other until either consensus was reached or the matter was dropped. If the nations could not agree, they could act individually so long as their actions did not harm another League member. Thus the basis of the League was more a mutual nonaggression pact than a political union." [5] —The Iroquois - Dean R. Snow

Of course, Ethan is quite right when he observes: "Everything that the American Left likes, we attribute to the Haudenosaunee." Yes, (sigh), we do have to sort through a great deal of POV garbage. However, I think that there are enough primary and secondary references to support the claim that the Haudenosaunee developed an early form of consensus decision-making. Sunray 21:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I've read some of this literature, and also some of the opposition (like: Hasbrouck, Jay (2005) Anarcho-Primitivism and the Appropriation of Anthropological Narratives. Paper presented to the Association of American Geographers. Denver.) My impression is:

  • The Haudenosaunee obviously developed very sophisticated decision-making process
  • Their process seemed to vary with different functions and governmental levels
  • There has been a great deal of revisionist pressure to insist that the Haudenosaunee either used consensus, or were strong influences on the U.S. consitution, or both.
  • Some of these arguments verge on the ridiculous; e.g. "the Iroquois invented democracy."

My own feeling is that it does not do justice to the extraordinary sophistication of indigenous governmental structures to jam them into whatever (white, modern) category we are currently trying to glorify. 22:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, a problem with the work of Morgan, etc., is that by the mid-1800s there had been a fairly substantial Quaker influence on the Haudenosaunee, so the question of independent origin is contaminated. 22:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Good points. So there may be a question of the timing and origin of the Haudenosaunee system. Do you have a source that describes the Quaker influence? Sunray 23:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, the most useful cite is Swatzler, David G. (2000) A Friend among the Senecas; The Quaker Mission to Cornplanter’s People. Stackpole Books. This uses the journals of the Quaker missionaries as well as some later writing to describe the period, and incidentally look at the Quaker influence on Handsome Lake, which obviously re-shaped the Haudenosaunee society in significant ways. Two cavaets are in order. First, many people describe HL as reacting against Quakerism, which is true. He kicked them out, for example. But a great deal of HL cult's novel teaching resemble Quaker/Christian tropes, and so the claim that no influence occured is hard to maintain. Second, it is not at all clear (to me, anyway) that consensus process was diseminated by HL. The confederacy itself was much older, clearly. But I haven't seen any credible citations for the Haudenosaunee using consensus until quite a while after the HL prophecy. So my read is that the existing sources are too contaminated to assert that the Haudenosaunee had an...urmm...autochthonous consensus process. Ethan Mitchell 14:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Very interesting. Thanks. I have adjusted the wording of the statement in the article to leave it open as to the timing of the Haudenosaunee's initial use of consensus. Sunray 08:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contrasting consensus and democracy

I have reworded a few points in the criticisms section that contrasted consensus decision-making with other models that were described as "democratic", eg "They contrast a consensus process with democratic decision-making systems". This only works if you take the POV that consensus decision-making is undemocratic; as mentioned elsewhere in the article, many people consider it a form of democracy. I've changed these to references to majority voting if the alternative system needs any description - maybe another term would be better but I don't think it should be "democratic". Andy Smith (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doesn't get the point of consensus vs. majority rule

I won't make any changes, but I don't understand the often asserted claim by proponents of formal consensus systems that there are no opportunities for developing compromise positions in democratic systems of decision-making. Parliaments routinely shop issues around extensively through committees, public hearings, caucus meetings, etc, before and even during the process of crafting their bills. The only difference is in that in a democractic system the majority gets to make the decision, whereas in a formal consensus system a minority gets a veto in favour of the status quo. What's the big advantage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.60.138 (talk • contribs)

Rather than a minority having a veto in consensus decision-making, it might be more accurate to say that everyone gets a voice. Most approaches to formal consensus do not convey a veto per se. If you look at the examples, both the Quaker model and the use of color cards set conditions on blocking in such a way that there is no absolute "veto." Sunray 19:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


This is nonsense! In large deliberative organizations it is practically impossible to let "everyone have a voice". Once you get beyond a handful of individuals and the simplest of issues, there has to be a mechanism for limiting debate according to some sort of objective system. Otherwise, you end up with discussions taking forever. I get the impression that the dominant voices in this discussion have no experience at all trying to use formal consensus in anything other than a very small, single-issue group.

if you have sourced information on a criticism of consensus, there is a ciriticisms section you can add it to. please note, however, that wikipedia aims to preserve a neutral point of view. -- frymaster 10:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly the sort of response I am used to getting from partisans of formal consensus. Please note that "Frymaster" has avoided actually responding to my commonsense critique of formal consensus and suggested that direct experience is not considered valid in Wikipedia articles and will be removed. You guys really are a bunch of "digital Maoists"!

um, this project is an encyclopedia. it exists to document in a concise, well-referenced way topics of note, regardless of whether or not you find them to be "nonsense". personally, i think that White Separatism is "nonsense", but i realize that it is a notable topic and, thus, support there being an article on it. additionally, wikipedia strives to always use well-referenced material. if you have material to add that you feel is "common sense" then i would encourage you to find a verifiable source for it before including it. lastly, i have not responded to your critique of consensus because wikipedia is, again, an encyclopedia. it exists to document topics, not debate them. if you are interested in debate on the merits of concensus decision-making, the place for that would be a discussion forum, blog or usenet, not wikipedia. if, on the other hand, you are interested in helping us build a well-written and well-referenced article then welcome aboard! oh, and please, in future, sign your posts using ~~~~ (four tildes). it's a common curtousy. -- frymaster 23:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will sign my post, but only if you will too (I doubt very much if your birth certificate says "Frymaster"), that is what people do in scholarly journals. But it is just a debating tactic to say that the Wikipedia is an "encyclopedia, not a debate". If I write something that you don't like, you simply remove it. That is why I am trying to point out the errors in your reasoning. If I cannot convince you of your mistaken reasoning, you will simply remove what I have written (which has happened to what I have written before.) And the original question remains, how is it possible to allow everyone to have their say in a very large number of individuals without having the meeting stretch on too long? Moreover, I have been a member of several organizations that used formal consensus decision-making and they always ended up giving either individuals or minorities the right to "block" decisions. If they don't, then what is the ultimate difference between that an a form of majority rule? This is not an idle quibble, as I have been a member of a major political party that tried to use formal consensus decision-making and it was a total disaster.

well, signing your posts is a good idea, regardless of whether you use your real name or not, because it allows people following the disucssion to differentiate between speakers and follow the thread more effectively. additionally, it's just generally considered the polite thing to do. now, to the topic at hand, i still submit that debating the effectiveness of consensus decision making here is pointless and counterproductive. regardless of whether or not you have had bad experiences with consensus, it is still a topic noteworthy enough to merit an article, and thus it is here. note, also, that there is a 'criticisms' section in the article that addresses some of your concerns, although in a more concrete manner. again, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a debating society. this is not a 'debating tactic', but rather the stated purpose of this project. if you are not interested in building an encyclopedia and would rather focus on debating certain topics there are numerous other avenues where you can pursue that activity. -- frymaster 16:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

OK Frymaster, but the point is that I wrote extensive criticisms in the posting that raised those specific issues that I have found when trying to make formal consensus work in an organization with thousands of members spread over the second largest nation on earth, only to find them substantively removed from the article. I take from this that there is no sense simply writing a post on a Wikipedia topic unless you can convince the people who disagree with you to stop removing your posts. Since you admantly refuse to deal with the substantive issues that I have raised in this discussion, I can only assume that you will simply remove any posts that I may put on the article. So what is the point of trying to share my extensive experience on the subject with people who seem to put their ideological theory ahead of someone's actual experience? Just in case you forget the points I raised, they are as follows: 1: in large instituttions it is practically impossible to let everyone have their say; 2: most functional democratic systems have mechanisms for imput from individuals through hearings, debates, caucus meetings, etc---so it is a red herring to say that democratic systems do not allow for substantive imput or compromise; and; 3: once you stop individuals or small minorities to block consensus, you are not talking about formal consensus at all, but rather democratic vote counting with higher thresholds rather than any form of absolute consensus. Bill Hulet

if you can write that up in an encyclopedic format and provide sources for the material that meet the requirements in WP:CITE then the contribution is more than welcome. i realize that you may have personal experiences that you feel should be reflected in the article, but wikipedia is an encyclopedia and, as such, does not include original research (WP:OR). sound fair? -- frymaster 17:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with consensus

don't see the point in the merge because:

  • consensus is a page devoted to the gernal concept. this page is dedicated to the formal procecure(s) for making decisins based on the general concept of consensus. it's like proposing mergin great dane into dog
  • consensus is already a big page. do we really need to make it bigger so that in six months someone can propose splitting it up?

frymaster 14:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose merge. The article on Consensus is theoretical and looks at the concept from the perspective of various disciplines. The Consensus decision-making article is more practical, focussing on how groups reach consensus. Both articles are lengthy. To combine them would produce a monster article, overly large and unwieldy, IMO. Instead, I would suggest editing and improving cross-references. Sunray 16:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge, per Frymaster and Sunray. —GrantNeufeld 16:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, I will remove the "merge" tag based on this discussion. Sunray 06:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] trust is low

"Consensus methods may be appropriate when personal (or emotional) risk to members is high, trust is low[citation needed], and time is available for a prolonged discussion."

I have doubt that Consensus methods may be appropriate when trust is low. The author should say who is claiming that or explain it better. When trust is low then people are seeking for group power to enforce their positions. It wouldn't be rational to enter voluntarily in such processes when the partners are not reliable. Or the author means that the Consensus methods would improve the trustability in difficult enviroments. I don't know. --Irgendwer 17:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There is some material that suggests that consensus is good in low trust environments. However, I do agree with you inasmuch as this is a qualified position, not the mainstream POV. I also think that the whole section is problematic without references. Who says these are the "key principles?" Sunray 22:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it should be described at least who is asserting it. --Irgendwer 07:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Somebody add the footnote:

Monteze M. Snyder, with Cheryl Gibbs, Susan A. Hillmann, Trayce N. Peterson, Joanna Schofield, George H. Watson: "Building Consensus: Conflict and Unity", Chapter 1.

He should quote which sentence is to understand that Consensus methods may be appropriate when trust is low. I found quickly only:

  • When the views of members were considered in management teams in a Fortune 500 company, commitment to the decision, attachment to the group, and trust in the leadership were strengthened (Korsgaard, Schweiger, & Sapienza, 1995).
  • In a multinational automotive firm, consensus-building processes helped people overcome the low level of trust that existed after massive layoffs.

This is no useful evidence for this issue. --Irgendwer 07:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

How is "consensus-building processes helped people overcome the low level of trust" not a useful citation for this issue of whether "Consensus methods may be appropriate when trust is low"? I'm reverting your inexplicable commenting-out of the reference. For those of you who are unfamiliar with Irgendwer and his tactics, please see: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Irgendwer --Serge 17:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
To answer your question: It is not useful because it says nothing about that Consensus methods may be appropriate when trust is low. It says only that it helped to overcome a low level of trust. These are two issues. You should use a scientific proceeding to improve this article by facts. We have already enough subjective values here. (When you merely follow my contribution list with the unique interest to interfere with me then you should stop it quickly, Troll.) --Irgendwer 19:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

ref - "In a multinational automotive firm, consensus-building processes helped people overcome the low level of trust that existed after massive layoffs." Monteze M. Snyder, with Cheryl Gibbs, Susan A. Hillmann, Trayce N. Peterson, Joanna Schofield, George H. Watson: "Building Consensus: Conflict and Unity", Chapter 1. /ref ref - "Even when an agreement cannot be reached, the improvement of relationships and trust between groups often makes the [consensus] process worthwhile." Heidi Burgess, Brad Sprangler "Consensus Building", Beyond Intractibility.org - /ref

Your second reference is of the same kind. So I will delete both references because your explainations are showing that you are obviously confused. --Irgendwer 19:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that consensus building helped overcome a low level trust is not evidence that consensus building may be appropriate when trust is low? The fact that "improving trust between groups" is not evidence that using consensus building when trust is low is appropriate? How poor is your understanding of English? And, yes, in the interest of maintaining Wikipedia quality, I follow your "contributions" which have been shown to be disruptive. What you're doing here is simply providing more evidence that you really don't contribute. If you really believed this claim needed citations, you could have looked for them yourself. Note that I didn't just remove your tag, I did the research and provided the references. Perhaps you're thinking that consensus building is not as effective when trust is low. Whether that is true is irrelevant to the point being made in the article: that consensus building can help overcome a low level of trust; that its use for that purpose can therefore be appropriate. I have provided two citations now. --Serge 19:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Serge: I think the way you have handled this is spot on. It responds to the concerns raised by Irgendwer and provides excellent references to get at the nuances of this discussion. I am beginning to like the section a whole lot more with your additions. Sunray 21:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Although, all I added was the footnotes. Credit should be given to Irgendwer for noting a need for these citations in the first place. Frankly, the "consensus building is good for building trust" claim seemed so obvious to me that I thought no references should have been required, but instead of arguing with him, I decided to provide them. I'm glad you feel it's an improvement. --Serge 22:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, my mistake. --Irgendwer 23:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Interesting that despite differing perspectives, the article has been improved. Good for both of you. Sunray 23:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I haven't read Snyder et al, but I am aware that the term "consensus-building" is often used in the corporate world to refer to motivational and informational exercises which have very little to do with consensus in its poli-sci sense. Is it quite clear that this is not the case with the study in question? We wouldn't cite an analysis of corporate "tiger teams" in an article about tigers.... Ethan Mitchell 22:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Snyder is the genuine article —a prof at Earlham, the Quaker College. Sunray 05:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additions to section on Quaker-based consensus

I've reverted recent edits by Rgathercoal for a number of reasons, chief among which are the following:

  1. That section is based on a webpage entitled "A Comparison of Quaker-based Consensus and Robert's Rules of Order" retreived from the Earlham College website. As it is a direct paraphrase of the Earlham article, it seems to me to be highly improper to change the wording, thus altering the meaning of the cited material.
  2. The additions were not of direct relevance to "Consensus decision-making," since (in Rgathercole's words), they describe a "process of unity, rather than of consensus" used by the Religious Society of Friends and would be more properly placed in another article.
  3. Since this article is already overly long at 35 Kb +, a 5 Kb addition is way beyond the guidelines for article size. Sunray 07:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a small addition

Hi folks. it is an honor to be able to play any role in this, however minute. We share an interest in deliberative processes which is important to society in generally and incidentally especially interesting to wikipedia users, since wikipedia could itself (I'm sure you've already noted this) be considered a kind of deliberative process. I added a note on specific groups, and a corresponding entry which I hope will serve as a small positive addition. thanks. thanks Alvestrand, and others, for your helpful edit. (thanks for adding my signature. I assume another user did that? or perhaps it was a wikipedia bot. anyway thanks for the help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sm8900 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Online or mailing-list consensus

There is little information on consensus methods used by geographically-spread organizations, that communicate via mailing lists or other electronic means.

As a start, I would propose to link to a few examples, and here is one I know: Decision making in the Apache Software Foundation --195.5.89.38 10:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Consensus decision-making rewrite coming soon

i posted this on the talk pages of people who have made significant contributions to this article in the last couple of months. i'm putting it here as a catchall for the folks who watch this page and weren't on my list:

howdy . you're getting this message because you have made a meaningful contribution to Consensus decision-making in the last couple of months. This note is to inform you that i have done a complete rewrite of the article, basically from the ground up, and will be installing the rewrite sometime after 22:00 mst (gmt -7)

i decided to undertake this rewrite because the current article had some notable shortcomings in my opinion, most notably:

  • lack of references: whole sections of the current article are unreferenced
  • section balance: the amount of detail on some sections was out of step with the detail level on other sections. for instance 'timing' is as large as 'key principles'
  • run-on writing: some sections succumb to rambling, while other sections are quite concise to the point of being terse.

all of these problems are inevitable in a project written by a group of people with different areas of expertise and writing styles.

my rewrite is designed to address these issues. most notably i have aimed to make the article more concise -- put more content in less words as it were -- and to make sure that everything is effectively sourced. i have also pretty much completely re-sectioned the article in an attempt to flow from general down to specific.

i have given this notice to you as a 'heads up' that this change is coming. i realize that you have invested a lot of effort into the existing article and i want to make sure that you are ready to make the edits you feel are necessary once my rewrite goes 'live'.

i also intend to submit the new article for peer review shortly after posting it. i think that the feedback will help us all drive this piece forward, hopefully to at least ga status! -- frymaster 23:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

rewrite posted and request for feedback submitted -- frymaster 05:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quaker consensus subsection

Hello, frymaster, thank you for all your work. The new version is certainly much more concise, and it is gratifying to see my article cited. Because I am now an outside source, I'm trying not to edit this article myself. But my general feeling has been that the article would benefit from a more serious historical and anthropological approach, in addition to its well-developed technical analysis. This is, BTW, not a new concern on my part. For example, there is nothing in the first paragraph on Quaker consensus that would be appreciably familiar to the understandings of most Quakers in terms of the way they view Meeting for Worship for Business. In emic terms, Quakers are engaging in silent worshipful communion, out of which the spirit may or may not move them to speak. In the etic view of a political scientist, OK, they have a "tradition to have a short period of silence after each speech to encourage deliberation." But I think the article would really benefit from providing more than just that. Again, thank you. Ethan Mitchell 03:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

okay, excellent and valuable points. i freely admit that my familiarity with quakerism is very limited. as such, it can be hard to pick out the more salient points from the ocean of raw data available, especially when a lot of that material is written in a vocabulary that is grounded in a long tradition to which i am not immediately privy -- that whole etic/emic distinction again. so, yeah, i'll take another tour through my source material and see if i can beef up that section. -- frymaster 05:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I would strongly recommend Sheeran's book Beyond Majority Rule, which contains a very good history of consensus process up until the 1600s, as well as a sociology of Quaker consensus use. For the twentieth century, things are a bit murkier, and I don't think we are capturing that murk here. In particular, I think it's pretty clear that the American Friends Service Committee and the Federation of International Communities were both important vectors for moving consensus out of its predominantly Quaker context and into secular politics. I can give you tons of cites on that, but they maybe aren't verifiable--actually, I'm questioning the cite of my own article here over at WP:V. Finally, I think it's germane to point out that consensus process was actively resisted by a lot of activists, especially around the clamshell alliance, and that they viewed it as a kind of process-provocation. Cheers. Ethan Mitchell 14:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
i think what you're heading towards is a separate article on quaker consensus. that's a tonne of potential material! there is ample precedent for rolling a new article out of this one. for instance Anarchism_and_religion#Anarchist_themes_in_religion consists of a general treatment of several subtopics in sections with links out to larger, main articles (although please don't take that article as a good example of anything else!)-- frymaster 06:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
A separate article on Quaker consensus would be a good idea, but...I don't think that Quakerdom should be shunted to a minor position on this page, since in time and distance terms, most consensus process has probably been Quaker. Again, I think a more sociological description of consensus would enhance the article a good deal. Ethan Mitchell 20:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this for awhile now and, while I don't disagree with the creation of a separate article on Quaker consensus, I do think that we could simply make it much clearer that most existing consensus systems are deeply endebted to the Quaker model. As someone who lives in a community that lives by consensus, I regularly bless my socks for the Quaker model. It is the simplest, most powerful approach to consensus that I've come across. I see the IETF Rough Consensus model as entirely consistent with Quaker-based consensus. I would add that I have worked with the color cards a fair amount and see them as simply a way to do Quaker-based consensus in an easily-learnable format. Facilitators in groups using the color cards, to be effective, essentially play the same role as the clerk or convenor in the Quaker model. Sunray 21:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anthropology

Like Ethan Mitchell, I would like to see more content related to anthropology, history yes, and similar animal behaviour. Terms that appear linked in this context include "consensus", "rough consensus", "modified consensus", "schooling", "mob rule" and "emergence". SmokeyJoe 01:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please reference sources

hey, can we please reference material that is added to this article. i've put a tremendous amount of effort into proper referencing as part of driving this article towards 'good' status and i don't want to see gains erroded. i've tagged the sections in question. please get it up to scratch within a week. -- frymaster 22:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok Frymaster, how does someone make a reference that relates to their personal experience? bill hulet

well, you don't include it in the article. i know i've linked to WP:OR at least once or twice before on this page and i suggest you give it at least a quick go-over. -- frymaster 22:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

OK then, take it out. It seems that you guys are more interested in grinding your own personal axes than in actually helping people who are going to read the Wiki. More digital Maoism---. Bill Hulet

holy crow! 'digital maoism'? i think you're taking this whole situation far too personally. the simple fact is this: wikipedia is an encylopedia and, as such, exists to contain concise and well-written overviews of pre-existing data on notable topics. to that end, there are policies on things like citing material and not including original research. it has nothing to do with the political bias, if any, of the participants and everything to do with building a quality encyclopedia. if anything, helping people reading this wiki is why there are policies on making sure material is referenced. citations increase the reliability and factual accuracy of entries, and that's the best thing for the readers. my goal here is to make this article the best it can be: well-written, properly-referenced and accurate. nothing more, nothing less. -- frymaster 17:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One teeny change

I don't think this will be controversial, but thought I'd note it anyway. I'm changing "For instance, the Vatican is known to assign the role of Promotor Fidei, or Devil's advocate, to a specific priest." to "For instance, the Vatican was known to assign the role of Promotor Fidei, or Devil's advocate, to a specific priest." While there may still be officially empowered critics in the beatification process, the role was abolished by Pope John Paul II in 1983. See Devil's Advocate. LaughingVulcan 03:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attempt to delete Consensus decision-making article

Ephix recently attempted to list this article for deletion. In his reasons, he said that as the term "consensus decision-making" is a neologism and referred to the guideline WP:NEO. I have reverted this, since Ephix did not follow the policy on article deletion, WP:DEL. Bottom line is that he did not attempt to discuss this on the article talk page (or elsewhere) prior to listing it at AfD. This is a well established article on a subject of considerable interest. Many editors, including me, have spent a great deal of time collaborating on this article. It is recognized as fairly authoritative coverage of the subject. And the subject, itself, is one of interest to many people who look to Wikipedia for basic information on a given subject. There are over 180,000 uses of the term on the Internet, many books about it, and thousands of people who practice, or attempt to practice it (neologism, or not). I have suggested that Ephix discuss his concerns here. Sunray 03:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems that he doesn't like talk pages. So we'll have to spend time dealing with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consensus decision-making instead. I think it's silly - the process of getting to consensus is different from the idea of consensus (so we shouldn't merge to Consensus), and consensus decision-making is used in quite a few situations that aren't related to democracy (Quakerism is NOT a democracy; neither is the IETF), so a merge to Consensus democracy is totally inappropriate. --Alvestrand 06:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I might also add that Wikipedia is not a democracy and consensus decision-making is continually in use here. —Travistalk 13:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Sunray that there are other avenues that should have been explored before nominating this article for deletion. Unfortunately, however, that is an all too common problem at WP:AFD. Please see our conversation on my talk page —Travistalk 13:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
After some discussion with TravisTX on his talk page, I think we have found a serious bug in the Wikipedia program. If, as in this case, editors collectively put in hundreds of hours collaborating on an article and someone can drive by and slap a AfD tag on it in two blinks of a gnat's eye, something is out of whack. The principle of "everything is up for discussion" is fundamental. However, there was no discussion prior to the tagging of this article. The policy on deletion was not followed. If the wrong crowd flocked to the AfD and voted for deletion, the article would be history, just like that. Something is wrong with this picture, IMHO. Sunray 15:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment: Consensus decision-making AfD nomination (Closed)

A question has been raised about the nomination of this article for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consensus decision-making) as to whether this is a proper nomination or if the nomination should be deleted. Specifically, what is the policy for dealing with potentially malicious AfD nominations? 17:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I am responding to this RFC myself as the wikipedian nominating this article for deletion.

Before, reconsidering my position, which I hope you will do fairly, please read any dictionary entry on the word, sit back and think about it. Then think about Wikipedia and due to the overload within it how:

  1. article subjects are actually revolving instead of expanding on the lead paragraph.
  2. article subjects are evolving, becoming something else due to an environment affect.

Back to the subject, consensus is a decision-making making process. No amount of the above two factors should ever change that. Consensus decision-making if you glance back at the dictionaries is clearly a neologism.

There was obviously a point mutation in the evolution of the Consensus article which lead to the creation of this double expression term.

ephix 22:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

A) You did not respond to the central point of the RfC, which was: "Is it proper to nominate an article for deletion without any previous discussion?"
B) Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
C) Consensus is a *result* of a process. Decision-making is a process.
So I guess I disagree with you on all points. --Alvestrand 04:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Alvestrand speaks my mind on this. I too, disagree with ephix on all points. The RfC asks for opinions on the following:

  1. whether this is a proper nomination or if the nomination should be deleted?
  2. what is the policy for dealing with potentially malicious AfD nominations?

[edit] Whether this is a proper nomination

WP:DEL is the policy governing deletion of articles. The policy, in a nutshell, states:

  • Deletion and undeletion are performed by administrators based on policy and guidelines, not personal likes and dislikes
  • There are four processes for deleting items, and one post-deletion review process
  • Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion

The policy sets out the requirement that other alternatives be considered before listing an article for deletion. Alternatives suggested are: Editing, merging, discussion, other projects, and archiving. None of these alternatives were explored prior to listing the article for deletion.

The policy lists reasons for deletion. These include legal issues such as copyright infringement, problems with content, advertising, lack of reliable sources, and so forth. Among the reasons given is: "newly coined neologisms" [sic]

The stated reason for listing the article for deletion was:

"controversial neologism, a google search seems to indicate that it passes WP:N but they all quote or paste from the WP article. decision making is part and parcel of Consensus even though the Suffrage system is not applied. If this is not so then there should be an article on a form of Consensus lacking any purpose in decision making, not Consensus decision-making. too bad there are already a few such as voting and polls."

Simply put, this says that the article should be deleted because the term "consensus decision-making" is a neologism, and that the term is incorrect, since as he contends in his post on this page, "consensus is a decision-making process."

Assuming that the person listing the article for deletion had explored the alternatives and had asked for discussion over his concern that consensus decision-making should not be an article because it is a neologism, we should, perhaps, consider whether the term is indeed a neologism.

[edit] Is the term "consensus decision-making" a neologism?

Neologism is defined as "A new word, expression, or usage." (American Heritage Dictionary[6])

Consider this:

  • The first published use of the term was, apparently, Building United Judgment: A Handbook for Consensus Decision Making, published by The Center for Conflict Resolution in Madison Wisconsin, in 1981.[7]. Hardly new.
  • Some organizations claim to have been using consensus decision-making much longer than that (e.g., NATO, since 1949[8]), although it is not clear whether NATO used the term prior to 1981.
  • The process of consensus decision-making is used by a wide variety of organizations, including governments,[9] businesses,[10] church organizations,[11] and indigenous peoples.[12]
  • Consensus decision-making has been the subject of scholarly articles.[13][14]

Conclusion: The term is not a neologism.

HOWEVER, WP:NEO is a guideline, not a policy. There are many Wikipedia articles that are new terms:

Few of these terms can be found in a dictionary. Does that make them any less valid as articles?

ephix states that "consensus is a decision-making making process. Not in dictionaries that I've seen. It is usually defined as "general agreement." I agree with Alvestrand. "Consensus is a *result* of a process. Decision-making is a process."

My final comment on the question of whether this article should have been listed on AfD is to reiterate: Hundreds of hours have gone into creating this article. It is reasonably well-written and very well-sourced. It is authoritative. That is not to say that it cannot, and will not, be further improved, but the changes will likely be relatively minor, as it is a mature article. In short, "Consensus decision-making" is a good example of what a Wikipedia article should be, IMO.

Since the requirements of the deletion policy were not met, and the reasons for listing the article are highly questionable, this is not a valid AfD.

[edit] what is the policy for dealing with potentially malicious AfD nominations?

WP:DEL states:

"If you disagree: Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag. Even after the page is deleted, any editor can have the page restored by any administrator simply by asking. In both cases the editor is encouraged to fix the perceived problem with the page."

Now, I admit that I had not seen this when I first saw the tag (and perhaps others missed it too). I not only deleted the tag, but I blanked the AfD page. I was advised that this caused some problems with the logs. I apologize for the blanking. I shall now do exactly as the policy advises (and no more) and remove the tag from the article ;-) Sunray 17:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

But wait, there's more. I failed to distinguish between a proposed deletion and an article for Deletion and now I'm not only confused by this complex nuance of policy and procedure, but am back to thinking that we do have a bug in the system (i.e., attempts to delete established articles). This may just be in that category. I shall restore the tag and await further discussion. Sunray 20:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed solution(s)

One possible solution to attempts to delete established articles: It has been suggested, on the article deletion page, that WP:SK could be used in such cases. The current guideline doesn't allow for this—SK can only be applied if it is a case of vandalism or the author withdraws the nomination. However, this case could be added as a criterion for SK. WP:DEL could also be modified to permit this action. Thoughts? Sunray 17:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Much ado about nothing. Determining whether an AfD nomination is "proper" or not is done through the AfD itself; a nomination by itself doesn't mean much. Nifboy 16:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of term "consensus decision-making"

I thought 1981 sounded recent, so I went to Google Books and searched for it.

So far found:

  • Title of an essay published in 1968, in "Man: A Novel" by Irving Wallace: [15]
  • In "The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists", published 1946: [16]
  • Tennessee Historical Quartery, published 1942, refers to an article on "consensus decision making in the quaker tradition" written in 1815: [17]

So even with relatively little effort invested, this term seems to be at least 190 years old. Neologism it surely isn't... --Alvestrand 20:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like this to remain its own section - the history of the term might actually want to go into the article at some point, while the AfD discussion has little interest once it's over. --Alvestrand 21:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The admin closing the AfD, which is clearly going to fail, should place a tag on this page pointing back to the AfD discussion so that, if anyone has an idea to nominate this article again, the history will be easy to find. If it doesn't appear, I'll add it myself. Oh, and thanks for the excellent research! —Travistalk 22:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kick

Kicks the article. Wake up. No talk for five months... I think we have a duty to bring the article up-to-date i.e. documenting our own situation wouldn't be too naval-gazing would it? There is no mention of Wikipedia within this article, which essentially, imho, defines our own approach to rule.Wjhonson (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus vs. "Majority Voting"

I'd like to update the section "Consensus as an alternative to majority voting". Presumably, the debate isn't between consensus decision-making and voting but between consensus decision-making and other decision-making procedures, so I think using the term majoritarian decision-making procedures makes more sense.

The section is also very one-sided. I'd like to add claims by experts who see majority rule as a component to deliberative democracy -- a component to be preferred over unanimity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SgtSchumann (talk • contribs) 04:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure it could be better worded. Your point about deliberative democracy is an interesting but should only be mentioned in brief in this article. It seems to me that the comparison between consensus decision-making and majority rule is meant to apply primarily to either small groups or groups with a clearly specified product and goal. Beyond a certain scale, the larger the group, the harder consensus is to maintain (e.g., Wikipedia). Sunray (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm about to make changes along the lines of what I proposed several months ago. I'm making these changes according to three motivations: First, the article contains improper comparisons between decision-making procedures and voting systems (especially majority rule). Second, the article contains improper comparisons between decision rules and seat allocations rules. Third, as I noted before, the article is very one-sided. A little about some of the specific changes I'm making:

  • I'm changing the initial contrast between consensus decision-making and majority rule to a contrast between consensus decision-making and parliamentary procedure. If anyone decides to revert this, I recommend that you at the very least remove the link to majoritarian for the reasons I give below.
  • I'm removing all mention of Lijphart's distinction between majoritarian and consensual electoral systems here, because there are at least two problems with introducting the distinction to this context. First, as Anthony McGann points out, one thing that can be said about each of the "consensual" democracies that they are run by a parliament that operates by and larged by unchecked majority rule. (Yes, Belgium is a federalism, but it still puts fewer checks and balances on its majority-rule-using legislature than most other democracies.) So why not just note this? Well, the second problem is that the "majoritarian" democracies aren't called such because their legislatures use majority rule in their decision-making processes, rather they're called such because of the seat allocation rule they use. And that seat allocation rule is not even majority rule -- it's plurality. In short Lijphart's distinction here is confusing. If someone wants to include mention of it here, I recommend that they include an explanation of why it's relevant to the text of the article, rather than taking it for granted that the reader will understand.
  • I'm trying to provide some balance to the section that concerns consensus and majority rule, citing two works by McGann.
  • I'm removing the claim that consensus is the "option which enjoys the highest average preference". No one has been able to provide a citation of this since November 2007, and I don't think they ever will, because I doubt anything like this has ever been proven. However, in 1977 Straffin did show that majority rule is the decision rule that maximizes responsiveness to individual preferences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SgtSchumann (talk • contribs) 17:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)