Wikipedia talk:Consensus/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Image:Consensus_new_and_old.svg (Chart 1)

[1] Is it just my screen, or does the text spill out of the two boxes at the top of the chart? Other than that, there seems more useful information in this (older) version of the chart. --Newbyguesses (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the text spills out of the boxes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Chart 5 would work without the "Discuss first" box? Take out that decisionbox, and then make the line coming out of the top of the Discuss box on the right go straight up, or else across to the line joining Previous to Make an edit. That Discuss box could have a little informative text, maybe: Discuss reasonable changes with other editors. --Newbyguesses (talk) 06:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "discuss first box" it is a "should we discuss first box". Let me see if I can follow your sugggestion on the reformatting of 5. 1 is really flawed in too many ways. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the discuss decision box as the starting point. I think this change does not truly reflect the process, but it seems to be a major sticking point to getting a better chart, for other purposes. The remaining issue is whether the bottom of the chart is accurate. I believe that it truly reflects the process which has three possible outcomes after an edit is made (1) accept (2) modify or (3) reject. The first 2 lead to a new consensus and the third returns to the previous consensus. How is that wrong? To deny that things are reverted is prescriptive rather than descriptive. Yes? No? Alternative thoughts? --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No one wants to deny that reverts happen. I just think that giving revert one or more boxes and loops for itself is to excessively legitimize lazy reverting. “Revert” can be mentioned as a special case of a modification. I’m not impressed with the prescriptive/descriptive rhetoric. The chart is a teaching tool. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

CCC Flowchart 5e.jpg

It's not rhetoric, but dogma. I guess that I've had it thrown at me so often, that I'm just spitting it back. After I wrote that this morning, I rethought my position and I think that you might be right. --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Just for now, I will say that there is a place for reverts, and that could go in the chart. Or, not. Keeping revert in as a step in the process fleshes out an inter-personal interaction (being reverted by some editor) which has happened on every page that I have ever edited. And I think the chart would be over-simplified without a revert step. Thinks, and thinks again? --Newbyguesses (talk) 08:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:CCC Flowchart 5d.jpg

Chart 5d? Is that the one currently up? Almost works. The infinite loop at discuss->is the edit accepted>->discuss is the only flaw. Easily fixed though. Quickest test to see if an edit is accepted is to just make it and see who reverts, right? So you can throw out that decision box entirely and it'll work <cross fingers>. (Descriptive not prescriptive? Yes of course, but do be descriptive of something that works. If you have to describe stuff that doesn't work, don't forget to mention it doesn't work :-P ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I’ve seen enough to have a feel for when consensus building works and doesn’t. It usually works on articles. It has more trouble in wikipedia space. It works when editors talk about the article, and doesn’t when editors talk about each other. Groupthink is not prevalent. Wearing down the opposition happens. We are not putting that stuff in the chart, are we? Reversion don’t assist in building consensus. When the article reverts back to previous version, there is no gradual evolution. Second order variants don’t get tested. To simply revert is to deny that there is even a problem to work on. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think Chart 5d can work, with modifications. (The best to date?) KB is correct, we can lose one more decisionbox. (I can't edit these darn things myself, sorry.) Now the line "Yes" coming out of the Discuss box is wrong, it should be unlabelled? and go straight up or at least nearly back to "previous consensus". KM is correct, after a revert we actually go back to previous consensus, and we can show that, but I am willing to fudge that if necessary (for simplicity's sake), bearing in mind that it is something which quickly becomes obvious in practice. I think some more words could be useful, in the Discuss box, as suggested above, the box looks a bit blank otherwise. Damn, let me look again, there is something bugging me, not sure what. Well, I know I suggested losing the revert box, but in this simpler chart it is probably better kept in, though I can still see what SmokeyJoe is saying, and either way could work. Kevin, I think the bottom of the chart is OK, thanks for going forward with this. says me, without a flowchart to my name. --Newbyguesses (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

NB, you can mark up a chart or pencil something to what you think it should be and FAX it to me at 925-279-1191, and I'll do the graphics to execute your thoughts. --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin, I hope to fax something through in the next couple or so hours! (Is the International code-prefix included there?) In the meantime, is KB going to come up with something? hehe--Newbyguesses (talk) 03:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to submit their ideas. I'm not familiar with the international code, but it I'm in USA California -- 925 is our "area code". --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Typical American :>. Your international code is +1. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Dratts! My apologies, Kevin I wont be able to send that fax until tomorrow. The dog ate my fax-machine. --Newbyguesses (talk) 08:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Mark up a screengrab of it in MS Paint and email it.--Father Goose (talk) 09:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah I did try that. After a while, it looked like a fly had done a random walk on the screen. I concluded there might be a bug, in the system, at the User-interface end.. --Newbyguesses (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Alrite! FAX has been sent to Kevin. I will know it has reached the correct destination when I hear his exasperated sigh - not my fault I am left-handed, and everything I write looks so untidy. Best of luck deciphering that! Please, do not make fun of the fossil! I was really enjoying the Cretaceous Era. --Newbyguesses (talk) 06:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Notwithstanding FG's objection to 20th century technology, I've modified the chart based on NBG's FAX:

Image:CCC Flowchart 5f.jpg

I prefer the prior version acknowledging a decision after discussion, and still object to removing the initial decision box indicating the possibility to discuss as the first step, but I would not oppose this chart if it puts the issue to bed. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No bugs! That's decent! :-) The only thing I can think of that's still really missing is the ability to further edit a good faith edit when disagreeing with it. As that is one of the core parts of the wiki-model, it might help to still include that option. :-)

(If your edit was modified, and the modifier made a spelling error, this chart says you can't simply fix the error. Oops! )

Other than that, it's great! :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, this was handled in the previous versions with the "should you discuss" decision diamond. Maybe we need to return it, but take it out of the first step? --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"Should you discuss" is a complex decision. You can discover if you should have discussed by ... making an edit, and see if you are reverted... so a direct line from "do you accept the result" (#2) direct to make an edit will auto-resolve it for you. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the "think of a reasonable change that might integrate your ideas with theirs" box was the most valuable one in the old version; that pathway documents the wiki process when it's working at its best.--Father Goose (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

5f is fine! I do like the text in the discuss box. Thanks, Kevin. (Of course, we still have options). Kim, you are correct, if the "modifier" makes a spelling mistake, the path to the next edit notionally goes ~~through the Discuss Box~~ [to New consensus, momentarily, then the fix-typo is the next Make an edit! (consensus can change)]. (But there is never a strict one-to-one mapping from edits to talk-page posts). Or, Kevin's latest idea could work. Chart 5f is fine, no bugs, I am happy, or happy to discuss any further modifications. For instance, "think of a reasonable change that might integrate your ideas with theirs" or something like it goes in that discuss box? (We could get to 5z by next month lol, I don’t think so.) --Newbyguesses (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

5f would be fine, but it only covers contentious situations. It accidentally bans normal wiki-editing. (oops) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

<-- No, KimB, if you see this correction [2] I think that your point is covered, on fixing typo's and on "normal wiki editing". My understanding, when we reach [New consensus], it is provisional, that is we can provisionally accept that the new piece, even with it's typo's in an improvement. And from [New consensus] we loop straight back to [Make an edit!] because we provisionally re-cast the [New consensus] to be the starting point [Previous Consensus]. (Reaaly thought I could express that more simply, no doubt you will have objections.) --Newbyguesses (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice job

I really liked the use of the "Asking the other parent" metaphor as a section title. Keep up the good work, editors! The Piano Man (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:CCC Flowchart 5f.jpg

[3] (ironed out (one more) of the buggss in the chart -- update as necessary) --Newbyguesses (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I still like Chart 1 better, but Chart 5f is the least flawed of the replacement charts suggested so far, and rather than have to keep fighting over this issue, I'm giving up.--Father Goose (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't give up please. The plan is to get people to take all the logical steps needed, and then they'll see what chart they end up with. O:-) I could keep hammering and hammering on what I think the best practice is, but the only way to get people to believe it is if they actually think it through themselves. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

A chart that everyone can love!

Here is another suggested chart, in case it is time for one. Cheers--Newbyguesses (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I am thinking we could spruce up the text at Consensus can change (in the current chart) with some links maybe, bold, italics. Hmm. Chart 5g.

Annd lose the asterisk * there!

Even an &mdash ; — might work. --Newbyguesses (talk) 02:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, these charts are still misnamed btw, as they still have nothing to do with CCC... (just noticed) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

(LATE--) The charts are wrongly named. (See discussion below) They do not illustrate CCC. The title of the chart ought to be "Consensus in Editing" or something like that. The title of the jpg ought to be A consensus flowchart1a.jpg or something or else like that. --Newbyguesses (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Could this work, in the text box at the bottom of the chart?

Consensus can change. Each consensus is a new starting point. Think of a reasonable change that might integrate your ideas with those of other users, and make an edit, or else discuss these improvements first.

Maybe needs some work on that? --Newbyguesses (talk) 03:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It does mention CCC in the footnote, you're right. I'm not sure about the wording you suggest... not sure how to alter --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If the Chart needs to be labelled, then we can give it a Title! "Consensus can change" perhaps, or "The Consensus Process". --Newbyguesses (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The chart describes the consensus process wrt wiki-editing, or at least chart 1 does. CCC is part of that process. The process is not part of CCC. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced "start over at new consensus" is the right way to represent a volley of edits (which is common). If someone makes an edit and I think, "hmm, I agree with that but it could be improved", a) I have not agreed with the result and b) there has not been a new consensus. It's after the back-and-forth stabilizes that one can claim a new consensus has formed.--Father Goose (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This is how I think about it—If someone makes an edit and I think, "hmm, I agree with that but it could be improved", a) I have ~~not~~ agreed with the result and b) there has ~~not~~ been a new consensus. A) It is there, I might have posted it myself, with typo's yes, sometimes; I agree that the edit is an improvement over the previous revision. B) I think a New Consensus has formed, though that is not confirmed until other editors weigh in, or action is performed. --

Also I'm not convinced "start over at new consensus" is right. The wording I suggested was only rough. I reckon now we drop the words "Consensus can change" altogether from the chart, that can be explained elsewhere (in the text on the page). Still thinking, what are your suggestions? (welcome back!)--Newbyguesses (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I should have phrased that more carefully. If you disagree with a change, the change doesn't have consensus -- but you might see a way to change the change that makes it work. This might go back and forth a few times before an actual consensus emerges. This is a process of discussing with your hands, and not your fists (reverting), or your mouth (talk pages). Our chart documenting the process of achieving consensus should document it explicitly.--Father Goose (talk) 00:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks - [Editing] is a process of discussing with your hands, and not your fists (reverting), or your mouth (talk pages). - That's really good. I still have no problem though with imagining the process going straight from the bottom box back to the top one even if there isn't a path marked on the Chart.

But, why not mark it in that way? Put in a path/A loop going directly from [New Consensus] out to the left and up and returning to [Previous Consensus] (maybe re-named). That is the Process, as I envisage it, whether the chart is modified or not. If the Chart is "right" or "acceptable" maybe it could be renamed "The Editing Process", it is not meant to represent the totality of Consensus. Thinks. Thinks again, do you really think we can explain consensus in a chart, having no regard for the accompanying text. I am re-thinking - If the chart doesn't have enough in it about consensus, and thinking of an idea to integrate your work with others, then it becomes merely a How to edit this page guide, or does it? (aside- can we safely archive much of this page, pretty please) --Newbyguesses (talk) 01:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A Flowchart is a special way to write down a process. It is often easier to document a process as a flowchart first, and then to write down the plain english description. If the chart is well designed, it will contain no contradictions, and the plain-English description will be easy to formulate. If the chart does not show the totality of consensus, then expand it until it does. Or consider creating sub-charts. A flowchart is either correct, complete and accurate, or it is not. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Kim this is true for electronic processors, but not for humans. The human process at WP includes infinite loops, can jump from place to place, and can start, finish, or stall at any point. We are only trying to document a segment of what is possible and likely. A perfect chart is not attainable, and it would be too complicated if we try to demonstrate all permutations. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that, but consensus through iterative editing is a really core pathway that I hate to see omitted from the chart.--Father Goose (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have been thinking about the same matter; one thing — a "volley of good edits", with no discussion in beween, looks very similar to "a volley of bad edits" with no discussion in beween, i.e. an "edit war"! The only way to tell is to examine the final revision of the page and subjectively decide if it is improved over the starting revision. --Newbyguesses (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's not the only way. You could try asking each of the editors, or wait for further edits from new editors, or even check the noticeboards, ANI and such to see if the changes to the POLPAGE was causing difficulties, or smoothing out solutions, or was the subject of discussion on talkpages. And, actually, even by examining the Final DIFF, there may have been an intervening one which was better; again, this is judged subjectively. --Newbyguesses (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

CCC Flowchart 5g.jpg

Does this chart address the iterative editing concern? --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There might be something in that idea, Kevin. But the chart 5g now might have "buggs" in it - some of the arrows point the wrong way, I think, and I think we have an extra box again. I will look at it again. I was trying to understand the chart differently, so I am not sure. --Newbyguesses (talk) 04:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That takes things in an interesting direction. Though it should be based on 5f, not derived from the "beer" chart, which jumps from "discuss" to "is the edit accepted". At any rate, placing the box in that part of the process ends up documenting both iterative editing and revert-warring. Now the question is, do we want to counsel against revert-warring in the chart in some way?

It also makes separate boxes for "was it reverted" or "was it modified" seem even more redundant, with the exception that "reverted" flows back to "previous consensus". As I've argued before, even if a page remains unchanged, it is possible to regard such a trip through the chart as a new consensus (made up of different participants) in favor of the old result.--Father Goose (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the page for, what is the Chart for?

The project page describes (should describe) the consensus process in en.wikipedia. The editing process depends on consensus. (The chart should illustrate that.) Consensus in Wikipedia also consists of the consensus process for decision-making, the consensus process for documentation, and for "polling". So, these are not described by the chart. I think the chart is a useful "metaphor" for these processes as well, but that may be fanciful.

Even if the illustrative chart is in some way slightly less than pristine perfection, we may still use it to amplify the information on the Editing Process if it is over-all being helpful. I think Chart 1 was very helpful, and could be if it were re-added to the project page. I think Chart 5f is helpful, and it can still be improved. I think Chart 5f is superior to Chart 1, and my reasons are given on this page. I am having a few disturbing reflections (concerning the whole purpose of this policy page) that are too fuzzy to explain now -dash-

I think we can keep working on this chart, and make further progress. To my understanding, the TEXT of the project page supplies information I (and presumably other Wikipedians) can follow. The chart is an illustration of the editing process, or of consensus applying in the editing process, and that is only part of the page's job. The TEXT is paramount, to my way of thinking, (not the text-box in the Chart), the TEXT on the Project Page. That's the way it works for me. Having a think, --Newbyguesses (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

the consensus process wrt wiki-editing

A) The Chart whichever one is used, needs a title. CCC process is wrong. (See discussion above.) Can we do better than Editing process, or this section header? --

B) The text in the text-box(es) of the chart needs serious tweaking, (see discussion above) in fact we need to decide exactly what we are trying to describe in the chart, then find suitable words. Any suggestions here. --Newbyguesses (talk) 05:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheers and YES. Once we determine the flow, we can tweak the boxes. At some point I'd like to fine tune the graphics, but I'd be happy to share that task with those more qualified. --Kevin Murray (talk) 04:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The words "Consensus can change" in the blurb for the chart(s) are confusing, and ought to be removed since the illustrative charts do not explain CCC as a whole, no chart or image could do that. The svg chart never did, that image is about the editing aspect only, as are the jpeg images currently in use. --NewbyG (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Which chart (image), at this time

I'm not a big fan of TIMTOWTDI.

Further, if you intend to replace chart 1, it needs to meet the same requirements as chart 1.

Definitive
Clear
descriptive of a process in use
must actually work.
must be a valid flowchart
must not lead to contradictions, infinite loops or other logical flaws.
must be in simplest possible form (barring additional boxes for clarity where they can be explained)
Must not contradict any policy or guideline, including the 5 pillars or foundation issues.

If you are not confident enough that your chart meets these requirements, please don't substitute a weaker chart, and don't weasel-word your way out of it. None of this "one of" , "only an illustration" crap. Stand for what you write, and be prepared to defend it vigorously! :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC) and most importantly, have fun :-)

Not sure what to make of that post. Being not a fan of "more than one way to do things" — is that sort of like "not a fan of reality"? puzzled, checks for signs of inter-galactic kitty-litter --NewbyG (talk) 05:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the idea I believe he's embracing, namely, don't suggest something, then apologize for it being not-necessarily-right. Leave the reader with confidence that it's a good suggestion, even if you also point out that it's not the only one.--Father Goose (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If nearly everybody seems to continue to be in favor of Chart 1 instead of any of the 5 family, why on earth are we leaving Chart 5x on the policy page? It's fine to give experimentation a chance, but not indefinitely, and not on a policy page.

Resolve the objections to Chart 5x before it is put back on the policy page.--Father Goose (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Chart 1 never went through the scrutiny that the Chart 5 series has encountered and could never have met the criteria demanded of the replacement. It was a good starting point but not a superior visual aid. --Kevin Murray (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Chart 1 has received scrutiny concurrent with the 5 series: each of them have been scrutinized against Chart 1, and it seems to me Chart 1 is still holding up to scrutiny better. I continue to support Chart 1 not because it's the status quo, but because I think it's better -- specifically, more helpful and instructive -- than any of the 5 series. You are pushing, pushing, pushing to replace Chart 1, and most of us are not agreeing, agreeing, agreeing.--Father Goose (talk) 10:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if you're a fan of TIMTOWTDI or not, Kim, because the fact is that there is more than one way to do it. -- Ned Scott 05:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, true to an extent. I'm still putting off that page on wikiediting, that I really should write :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see... there's some edits in page history. ...Well, none of those ways are documented. If those ways are documented, I have no objection to either showing all of them, or linking to them from here. No objection whatsoever. But such documentation is not written AFAIK. Ned Scott: can you show such documentation, or are you willing to write some? I'd really appreciate it! --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Father Goose: please don't set a bad example, kay? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Join me, and together we can rule the galaxy!--Darth Goose (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It might be wiser to evolve the charts elsewhere, and keep chart 1 up for now, but I'm going to hold off on that for a little longer. I have a feeling I know where the charts are leading to anyway. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take either of "Previous consensus" or "New consensus" as an endpoint as long as it's actual consensus.--Father Goose (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[4] Chart 5g wasn't any better than 5f at this stage, but the svg chart is not the best option, especially until we know what the chart is for, whether it illustrates one section or the whole page, for instance. --NewbyG (talk) 05:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Chart 1 is basically supposed to be an executive summary of what is known about consensus at this point in time (as well as some other things besides, perhaps) and I've been using it in lectures, among other things. Where the page does not agree with chart 1, changes might still be needed, in fact. I hope that you see the other charts in the same light! You are responsible for them, so I hope you're proud of your work. :-)

As with all project namespace pages, we need to be doing our best to describe the optimal best practice. If anyone is confused, please say so, else what we're doing is useless. (I guess by now we're run dry on new discoveries with the charts though. We have learned some very important things about how consensus works by playing with them :-) . They're obviously not just pretty pictures, just like a policy page is not just pretty letters :-P ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Placing the flowchart on the page

[5] The illustrative chart is in a new section of its own, with some text incorporated from the old svg image. The title of the section may need tweaking, but it is definitely NOT "Consensus can change". However, it is a case of update as necessary. --NewbyG (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is how Wikipedia:Consensus currently goes about describing the editing process.

Consensus is typically reached as a natural product of the editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it.
Whether the change or addition to the page is reverted, or modified or not, any refinements or objections can be discussed on the discussion page. When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite reasoning and cooperation.

I think that is pretty right, and that Image:CCC Flowchart 5f.jpg illustrates that process; as did Image:Consensus new and old.svg, though not as well, as it has unnecessary boxes. Incorporating the best bits of the svg with Flowchart 5f is possible. --NewbyG (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The flowchart can go in a section of its own, at least till we figure out exactly what it is meant to be describing, or maybe we have. A little higher, or lower on the page? Back at the top? --NewbyG (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

5f fails to document an entire existing subprocess. Small detail there. :-) (flowchart has to document what is there, especially things like foundation issues or built-in wiki-functionality). I know, headache headache. :-P

Which boxes in chart 1 are unnecessary, according to you? Since it's svg, we can actually edit it fairly easily :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, is there a better alternative wording than "Previous Cons.." and "New Conss..", or maybe even delete them as boxes? --NewbyG (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the boxes are mandatory :-). Every flowchart must have a "Start" and an "End" and they have a special shape. Figuring out what the relevant label is can be tricky. Note that a flowchart is not simply a visual aid. They represent the logic behind a system. Flowcharts that are very strictly designed can even be directly executed by a computer, for instance. (Sure we're being a bit sloppy here, but we're not supposed to get lazy ;-) ). --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

START 0 Previous consensus. 1. Editor A makes an edit! 2. edit a not reverted. 3. edit a not modified. ( 4. New consensus ) end. start ( 0 Previous consensus. ) 1. Editor B makes an edit! 2. edit b modifies edit a. 3. edit b not modified 4. New consensus END.

Now mentally zero out the zero steps (they are notional, not physical). There is the good volley of edits process! --NewbyG (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorporating this wording [6] into the text accompanying the visual aid addresses Kim's fundamental objection, or the volley of good edits process, I think. (Into the volley of good edits.) --NewbyG (talk) 04:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus new and old.svg

Can some clever coder fix the text which spills untidily out of two boxes in the svg image? Extra boxes, count'm; there are three. [Was the article edited further], [Take it to the talk page], [Find a reasonable (if temporary)compromise]; though that last box contains good advice, it clutters up the chart. Those last two boxes duplicate the [Think of a reasonable change that might...] box, which makes mincemeat of any argument that this flowchart is definitive and perfectly clear.

The image, Consensus new and old.svg is useful, but it is not a superior visual aid. That flowchart is neither definitive, nor actually works, correct, nor a valid flowchart, nor in the simplest possible form. Despite these defects, it could still be helpful, or useful as an illustrative chart, or a visual aid, if needed. It is not now nor ever has been a page handed down from a holy book, and shouldn't be regarded as so. I like the svg, but it aint gospel, and it probably aint even kosher, just a good mock-up of a flowchart.

Actually, isn't ~~[Take it to the talk page]~~, Discuss --> [Find a reasonable (if temporary)compromise] just one box? --NewbyG (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And, for instance, ~~instead of a box~~ there at all, just a path is needed, with an arrow to the Discuss box top right. I think. --NewbyG (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to be a clever coder to fix an SVG image. Just download Inkscape :-)

Consensus new and old was not intended to be a visual aid specifically. It was intended as ... <drumroll> a flowchart </drumroll>. It details which steps must be taken in which logical order. I follow the flowchart strictly for every single edit I make, so I'm pretty sure it works. It is a valid flowchart, It has a start point, an end point, all boxes are valid decisions, all arrows for flow of control are labeled. I'm not sure why you think it isn't valid? There are no infinite loops, and not situations where it can halt unexpectedly. The only quibble you might have is that it's not structured (urgh, computing and systems design has fallen behind. a redlink in 2008? wow! External link then: [7] ), but it's also very short, so structuring it might be overkill. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well if Consensus new and old.svg is considered as a flowchart, then it is certainly not in the simplest form. Two boxes at least are redundant, as I have pointed out. --NewbyG (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Where do facts stand in developing NPOV CON?

Being unfamiliar at these lofty heights and having come here as a result, of this latest post [8] on an ethnic infobox talk page, I have some basic questions concerning simple numbers, (facts), and their standing relative to an existing consensus versus an NPOV consensus. If this question might fit better elsewhere, please say so.

Must the consensus include consideration of simple basic facts (populations in this case) concerning their arrangement?
If numbers are the technical basis for arrangement, is numerical data of primary or secondary importance in the proper development of a NPOV consensus on arrangement?
If numbers are the technical basis for arrangement, may ‘other things’ be allowed to take precedent over a numerically logical arrangement of the facts?
If numbers are the technical basis for arrangement, should the numbers be allowed to speak for themselves in such an arrangement?
If there are two generally equal and significant numbers, should these be separated artificially to make one look more important or central than another?

I had expected some discussion of facts, and how they fit into building consensus in Wikipedia; this seems very basic for an encyclopedia. The few occurrences of ‘fact’ on the article page, however, are as ‘factoid in an article’, ‘after the fact’ and ‘in fact.’ It would seem, as presently described, that simple facts have little to do with the development of an NPOV consensus. I believe they are a most basic consideration, when these facts are simple numbers. Your elucidation is respectfully requested, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

These are good questions, but difficult to answer. Each editor has to work it out with other editors on each occasion; taking into account that circumstances vary. That is the consensus part of it, I think.

Wikipedia:Consensus has:

Negotiation on talk pages takes place in an attempt to develop and maintain a neutral point of view.

Wikipedia:Consensus#Reasonable consensus-building

Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can be reached through discussion, action, or more often, a combination of the two. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject.

Wikipedia:Verifiability (on the inclusion of content) has:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

Is there a reliable source for the information, or to support a particular argument?

Is that any help? Would you like to explain a little further the guidance you think might be needed, you may be on to something important. --NewbyG (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

All wikis use a similar consensus model, as far as I'm aware. Wikipedia happens to use this model to create an encyclopedia, but the same basic model has also been used to create much silliness (uncyclopedia), scientific collaboration environments (OpenWetWare), repositories for Design Patterns and Agile Programming philosophies (the first wiki:), dictionaries, multimedia stores, and many many other things.

Consensus and NPOV are strongly correlated. The outcome of a wiki-based consensus process is thought to lie fairly close to neutrality as it stands, needing only a bit of tweaking. (Hence the suitability of wikis for making a neutral encyclopedia).

This page just describes how the wiki based consensus part of the system works. See WP:NPOV for NPOV. Perhaps we need some kind of document that ties it all together too... hmmm... User:Filll keeps making comments to me to roughly that effect. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC) as to facts themselves, have you asked at the talk page for our verifiability policy ... they seem to adhere to verifiability, not truth , which means that wikipedia just documents what other people write, which is not exactly the same as "facts" or "truth" (though it is close). We're getting into some epistemologicaly tough ground here...

Hmmm, reading the current version, NPOV *is* actually mentioned. Since consensus applies to areas where there is no NPOV requirement (project namespace, etc) ... hmmm... ---Kim Bruning (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, WP:NPOV pretty much applies in all namespaces, I think you will find by perusing the talk page guidelines and other policies and guidelines. I think, though, one needs to look into it to convince oneself it is a workable and sensible approach, and the subtleties of this are such that I urge you to consider the matter for yourself, as I am only expressing an opinion here, and can point to no exact policy statement we could refer to. Thanks --NewbyG (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the input, but it does not quite get to the question I asked in the title. Is this the right place? It might be better to read the whole section, but I will try to set the stage. I arrived there from the bottom up as an outside editor, saw how the facts were presented, and had NPOV objections. As a scientist, I rely on numbers (facts) and in that realm, the numbers speak for themselves; that is NPOV. How someone reads those facts is subject to perspective and POV; that is different. Concerning your comments about CON, how it should be developed, and what I have tried to do.

Since I had NPOV concerns and these can quickly get heated, I posted at the lowest level of rhetorical violence that I could conceive to be effective; there are other methods and these were avoided. I posted my concerns with logical, structured arguments based on the presented facts, which I consider basic to NPOV through the CON process.
There are no questions of verifiability that I raised, although that may remain a question among others.
I believe my basic approach, fact-based arguments, and rebuttals have been reasonable, polite and calm.
This, however, has not led to “[n]egotiation on talk pages … to develop and maintain a neutral point of view.” It has led me here, because the existing CON is not open to an NPOV presentation of the facts; they seem to be quite firm in their current representation (re-presentation) of the facts, for some reason.

So I must re-state my original question: Where do facts stand in developing NPOV CON? I believe the answer should be quite simple, but can also see some trepidation and therefore, difficulty. The question is simple; getting there might not be easy, but the two questions are different. I believe it is your responsibility to answer this simple question. I firmly believe that it is basic to Wikipedia’s credibility as an encyclopedic source, therefore I am at this level. It also might indicate some necessary edits to the CON page concerning inclusion of the word ‘fact(s)’.

You may have questions about exactly what these basic facts are. I present them below in what I consider to be a neutral way (let them speak for themselves, unformatted).

Country1, 5.30 million people
Country2, 5.27 million people
Country3, 0.49 million people
Country4, 0.37 million people
Etc. with continuing smaller numbers

How the current CON re-presents them is shown at the article; I believe the current consensus’s re-presentation of facts is *not* NPOV, and therefore un-Wiki. NPOV is another question to a different page; I just understood, based on what Wiki says, that CON should be near it. This not a mole-hill/mountain thing, but may be a somewhat circular chicken/egg thing. I believe CON must start with facts, plain simple facts, numbers, etc. and build NPOV CON from there. Respectfully,CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is the means by which the policies are enforced. If there is a consensus that an article (or, in this case, template) is neutral, then that is the closest thing to "neutrality" we can achieve. Likewise as to whether or not WP:V is being upheld. There may be concerns about the reliability of a given source, or how to reconcile sources that contradict one another; these concerns can only be resolved through the mechanism of consensus. Occasionally, a "local" consensus (such as a group of owners) will disregard the broader consensus that underlies the policies; in such cases, the issue can be raised elsewhere (such as at WP:3O). There may also be a broad consensus to ignore a policy when it does not apply well to a given situation (nothing wrong with that).--Father Goose (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Editors responding here would do well to be advised of what CasualObserver has been on about for a couple of weeks now at Template Talk:Infobox Jew. He has two objections.

First, the Jewish population of Israel is centered while that of other countries has the country name left justified and the population figure right justified.
Second, the Jewish population of Israel is followed by the phrase "Other significant populations:"

I am not making this up. This is actually what he thinks is NPOV. A previously small talk page now goes on for thousands of bytes over this nearly non-existent issue. No amount of pointing out that consensus is against him or that the format is very common in other ethnic infoboxes has any effect. If anyone here can find a way to make these simple ideas penetrate, I invite you to take your best shot. Unfortunately no one at the template talk page has had any success. CO is in sole possession of the WP:TRUTH and the template has got to be either changed or tagged because he's right and everyone else is wrong. I wish you all the best in your endeavors. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 11:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, tidied the page a bit

I've gone through from the top down to consensus can change, and shortened, tightened, and tidied the wording some more. I might do some more later. For now... it's back to coding for me :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

--Good work, Kim [9], you shortened it, though I made some changes.[10] Good luck with the coding! --NewbyG (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Your joint work looks good to me.--Father Goose (talk) 10:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Reverting causes the process to slow down"

O RLY? But the chart shows that reverting or editing is equally fast. What's going on here? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

We could continue on from this point of discussion.[11]

That is, discuss reverting as an addition to the text. Does reverting need to be discussed in conjunction with this or any flowchart? Or just have it in the chart, linking to no discussion in an accompanying section? Dunno? --NewbyG (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather than disagreeing by reverting, see if you can improve on other's changes. Trying to "meet in the middle" in this way is an important part of a productive conflict.

That was on the project page as at Revision of 04:45, 17 March 2008. Don't think we need any of that? But maybe expand on it? --NewbyG (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is Global not Local

This policy used to have felicitous wording in the summary:

When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. Even a majority of a limited group of editors will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within policies.

I propose this be restored, since we find that editors with local topical interests tend to coalesce around these subjects to promote an internal bloc - ten presented as "consensus" - that can be fundamentally at odds with wider practice. Eusebeus (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I see this as an important concept. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal, as global consensus is tends to be stable and will last into the future; my view is that local consensus is fickle, short lived and is probably based on the presumption that popularity is the same as notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't love that wording, but the concept's vitally important. So many of Wikipedia's problems are due to local consensuses being enforced which go against what the community at large would embrace.--Father Goose (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It probably should go somewhere, but that's an entire paragraph! Give it a heading on the page and explain what's up. Have fun!:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Kim, did you remove it? I have the impression that you did and so was hesitant to just reinsert it since I assume you would have had a good reason, as you usually do. Btw, 2 sentences is hardly a full paragraph, even in these illiterate times. Eusebeus (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with this. Since policies and guidelines is expected to lag behind consensus the above wording contravenes WP:CCC. It's also important to remember that WP:IAR is part of the "framework of established policy and practices". I would propose;

When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. Consensus among a limited group of editors should not outweigh community consensus on a wider scale. So decisions that contravenes established project wide practice needs to be founded in arguments that can be expected to sway the larger community.Taemyr (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[12] (last) 19:35, 8 March 2008 (15,791 bytes) (undo)

A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined. An editor who thinks there are good reasons to believe a consensual decision is outdated may discuss it on the relevant talk page, through a Request for Comment, or at the Village Pump or Third Opinion to see what points other editors think are important, and to compare and examine the different viewpoints and reasons.

[13] (last) 22:07, 27 March 2008 (12,607 bytes) (undo)

Sometimes a representative group makes a decision on behalf of the community as a whole, at a point in time. More often, people document (changes to) existing procedures at some arbitrary point in time after the fact.

However, if one person or a limited group of people can reasonably demonstrate a change in consensus, then it is reasonable to effect the change at a process page. Boldness is encouraged, but good judgment should be used. Remember that we try to document actual practice, not prescribe rule-sets.

--These previous revisions. --NewbyG (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that Third Opinion is intended for cases where the number of existing opinions is two, ie. it is for specific issues in the backwaters, not for issues where "groups" are involved. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been trimming heavily, and may have removed something from one place, and not replaced it elsewhere by accident. If you think a particular concept is important enough to keep it, please add it back in. --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[14] DIFF --NewbyG (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Copy edited, further discussion

I'm not sure I agree with the wording anymore. From my experience on Wikipedia, you tend to have a group of editors who edit say, all the Foo articles, and a different group of editors who edit the policies. Which group is supposed to represent consensus? Until we start some sort of polling on policies, which IMHO is badly needed, we can't really state that policy and guidance does represent global consensus. I challenge anyone to list every policy and guideline we have, without peeking. Bear in mind you have endorsed each and every single one. Also consider this: one may write a guideline with a group of editors, and then go to edit Wikipedia in line with what you have just written. Editors who object to this amend the guidance, and are reverted because they are changing the guidance to weigh in their favour. Isn't that what party one did too? Consensus is defined by practise and convention, and our policies and guidance are supposed to reflect that. Where the community is split down the middle, there is no consensus and therefore no guidance or policies. We need to find a method of deciding what to do when the community is split, because inertia is not a solution. The current state of affairs encourages too much game play to the detriment of the encyclopedia. I recognise this is a radical position, but some form of polling on disputed policy or guidance has to be accepted. Hiding T 14:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the thing. You don't write a guideline and then edit in line with the guideline (prescriptive). You edit, and then write a policy/guideline/essay in line with how you edit (descriptive). This turns the problem on its head. :-)

Polling (a perennial proposal) doesn't help. A poll still only polls the same set of people, but now it's also only a snapshot in time (and a poll doesn't write documentation either :-P ). Even if a document is no longer in line with how you edit, folks could just go "sorry, the poll closed last week, no changes", even though you just encountered a new good way to do stuff today. In short, (binding) polls are democratic, but not consensus-o-cratic. That's also why there's a rule about there being no binding decisions (aka consensus can change), and why that rule is so important.

But once you turn the problem on its head, you're suddenly just allowed to edit a policy page, even if you're "just an ordinary editor", and you're allowed to make improvements, just as if it were *gasp* a wiki page! Amazing! ;-)

Editing a page doesn't "change the rules", it just describes what people do more or less accurately. Do be sure to remember that we try to describe best practices, not just common practices. If a good method is uncommon, describe it, so more people can learn (that's the definition of good documentation eh?). If a bad method is common, describe why it is bad (so people learn why they shouldn't do it). Some people think they should describe all common practices as good, but that fails the common sense test ("edit warring and vandalism are GOOD!" ... erm... hang on a minute there, mate ;-) ).

Basically you're applying a weaker form of NPOV, verifiability, and reliable sources to writing a "best practices encyclopedia" for wikipedia.

If people have been preventing you from maintaining documentation somewhere, give me a yell. :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC) perhaps we should rename policy/guideline/essay pages to "wikipediapedia", or some such... hmmm!

Kim, I know how it is supposed to work. I also know how it works in reality. Take WP:FICT. Look at the talk page there and the guideline's history. Now go and look at something like Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters. Look at the participants in a project like WP:COMICS. Cross reference editors back with WP:FICT. Work out who is writing guidance and who is creating the methods. Tell me how you decide what is best practise and what isn't? Pick between WP:PAPER and WP:N. Tell me who represents consensus. Those seeking to shape editing patterns, or those already editing? Tell me how you decide which side is right. What do we want? A well written encyclopedia, or a well written encyclopedia which refers only to multiple reliable independent secondary sources? Where's the middle ground? Do we want editors to protect their own positions, or strive to reach a consensus? Meh. Polling isn't just a perennial, we've polled a vast number of times on a large number of policies. Possibly, some of the polls on naming conventions are still running that were set up back in 2003. I haven't checked. At some point, the community has to accept that WP:CONSENSUS is either not being followed since people no longer seek to build one on terms other than their own, or it just doesn't scale. Hiding T 15:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The people already editing determine consensus. What's on the page may or may not be in line with that. Want me to go take a look? We do do polling at times, but that's to find out where consensus lies. Polling is not used to actually determine the outcome. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree quite fundamentally, if respectfully, with Hiding's larger point above. We actually have surprisingly few official policies at Wikipedia and most editors should be able to name them. Moreover, those policies have remained stable. Yes, consensus can change, but at the level of basic policy and the more important guidelines (e.g. WP:N), it doesn't change that often. Talking about "sides" is unhelpful, because that is what consensus is designed to transcend. These policies are vitally important to head off the anarchy of unfettered cross-talk on every issue - conspiracy theories, evolution v. creationism, pseudo-science, fansite-style fiction contributions, BLP additions - that remain and will remain difficult and controversial. It is unreasonable to expect a large diverse community to weigh in at the microscopic level of individual page disputes. It IS reasonable that we express ourselves at a global level and expect these consensus rules and practices to be observed. Consensus is global and should always be observed in the instance. If we follow Hiding's reasoning to its logical conclusion, we revert back to the kinds of flamewar disputes over numerous issues (Roads or Schools anyone?) that provided the impetus for sitewide policies and a consensus of observance in the first place. I am glad to see the wording has been restored and a general endorsement of the principle. Eusebeus (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- We may not be able to get the larger group of editors "out there" to participate in policy/guideline discussions, but we can instruct P/G editors to describe instead of proscribe when writing the P/G's. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- With respect, Eusebeus, we don't have guidelines with more importance than others. Also, you state we have "few official policies at Wikipedia". Off the top of your head, no peeking, how many? As to talking of sides is unhelpful, I'm sorry, but attempting to sweep such talk under the carpet because Granny's coming for dinner is even more unhelpful. Yes consensus is designed to transcend that, but if you look at occasions when consensus is used in the real world, outside of Wikipedia, there tends to be time constraints on forming a consensus. That sort of means a consensus forms because of the pressure of having to form one. On Wikipedia we have allowed ourselves to accept inertia as an outcome. And you have missed my point exactly. I don't mind if we all discuss once and form a global consensus, that's exactly what I am arguing for. What I am arguing against is one local group calling their version of consensus "global". And this stuff is older than roads or schools. It goes back to things like "spaces after periods between initials" and "AD or CE" or even the old Pokeproposal. But back then we used to get the whole community to interact on the issue, and then we'd have a true global consensus. Consensus won't work if half the community is doing one thing and the other half is doing another. Like I say, people cross reference editors to WP:FICT with active members of WikiProjects on works of fiction and draw their own conclusions. I'm tired of people making claims that aren't evident. If someone wants to declare a consensus global, they need to have evidence to show it is global. It isn't global just because it is in the Wikipedia namespace with a shiny tag on top. Hiding T 09:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

#A thought. A thought. --NewbyG (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but sadly Wikipedia guidance has allowed filibustering and reverting to become entrenched. That's why we need to implement polling. I don't buy that polling would set anything in stone. Not when you have editors vehemently defending policy and guidance "as is" as sacred text that cannot be altered. Hiding T 09:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

We're actually been discussing filibustering and reverting . We're now working hard to start pushing back those practices, and it has started to work. We've managed to stop the practice here, for example. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

A prime example

A poll of 53 editors has now set a global consensus that "Placeholder images should not be used at all on the main page of articles". In short, the wishes of 35 editors now dictate to the many active editors on Wikipedia what is occurring. We are no longer engaging with the wider community. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. We need to better organise and advertise this stuff. Like I say, we need to formalise polling and have watchlist notices of open polls, designated minimum participation for poll results to be actionable, length of polling and regularity of polling on the same issue. If we don't recognise what "global consensus" actually means, we're stuffed. It doesn't mean 35 editors. And this isn't because I disagree with the outcome, this is because 35 editors cannot dictate global consensus, whatever they happen to declare. What will happen now? I'd imagine editors who disagree with the poll result but missed the poll will be upset, edit wars will happen and the 35 editors will point to their poll as somehow being the end of all debate. Yes, I appreciate that's a very bad faith assumption, but I've been around the block too many times. Hiding T 10:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be pretty cool if MediaWiki allowed some easy way to poll people. Imagine taking random samples of editors or even readers and giving them easy to click checkboxes that are automatically summed. Something that scales will require software changes and I imagine it will happen someday. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There actually is a way to test consensus already. See WP:BRD for more extensive details. But be careful, that method is fairly powerful, and you can burn yourself easily. --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that poll did not set global consensus. That's a local consensus of 35 editors. Feel free to ignore it or discuss further, if you think others will support you. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Though, 35 editors is a rather large number... possibly there is some amount of global support for that position eh? Also it seems like they did apply some amount of reasoning, check the reasoning to see where you actually agree or disagree first. You might want to consider carefully before deciding if/when and where to actually ignore. Based on the information provided, you may find that global consensus actually might be pretty close to what these people found, and you might not be able to gain consensus for anything wildly different.

Actually, I'll just ponder what the point is. I wouldn't want to disrupt anything or be accused of owning the issue or otherwise vandalising or upsetting people. Maybe you could do me the honour of assuming I considered their reasoning. And feel free to explain to me what happens if actually the consensus is that there is no consensus. Typically we have to flip the position to invalidate it. That's what makes a mockery of the whole system. That and filibustering. Hiding T 16:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course you have considered their position, User:Hiding, and no one accuses you of these other faults. I think, if there is no consensus, we make no change, whether that is a "keep" or a "delete" depends upon the process.

Your position is also well-stated and deserves consideration at any proper forum. I dont have any unbeatable answers, for sure, and neither does Kim, but thanks for asking. --NewbyG (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hiding is demonstrating what I see as a huge problem at WP. Guidelines etc. are springing up like weeds with the justification that a "consensus" was formed among the three people who were aware of an obscure proposal. Also policies etc. are in constant flux for the same reason. Keeping this in check is like pushing a rope uphill. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That's because the system is designed to keep policy in flux (I know because I pushed for that), and to make keeping guidelines in check like pushing very large weeds uphill. :-)

As to why the system is designed that way? Hmmm, that might be a fun lecture to give sometime. :-)--Kim Bruning (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That it is designed this way is not that it is well designed this way. As this project contnues to grow and mature, that which served well in infancy may be a detriment in adulthood. Many of us outgrow suckling in public and deficating at will, is that bad? --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Everything we do around here is like pushing rope up a hill. Things still get done. If there are too many guidelines, simplify them. If there is missing information, assemble it. If policy is in flux, go with the flow, it doesn't stray far, just keep to principles. --NewbyG (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[...] If there is anything close to harmony, the word consensus is not used; consensus is a euphamism for "majority" or "persuasive" which is dragged-out when the outcome is contested. Otherwise, things are just done and there is no label given to the process (95% of the time). [...] -per --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC) (Wikipedia talk:Consensus/Archive 4)

I knew I had seen this somewhere, I think it is a really good observation. --NewbyG (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No, what Hiding objects to is people assuming the position is defined just because they happen to have polled a few people. Hiding T 20:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

CCC Flowchart 5f.jpg and discussion #How consensus emerges during the editing process

CCC Flowchart 5f.jpg

How consensus emerges during the editing process

Some text accompanies this visual aid, or probably whatever visual aid is used. The 'chart' and the text are now in a section #How consensus emerges during the editing process.

Does reverting need to discussed in that text? See #"Reverting causes the process to slow down" section above.

How is the concept (that consensus can change) tied into the text in this section? Is Consensus can change a suitable title for the chart? What else? --NewbyG (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I am thinking that ~~* Consensus can change~~ works. The text is better without that --NewbyG (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

some links to strange places

Removed some wikilinks that were going off to strange places (like to a depreacted page and soforth)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I might undo myself on some of those... --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Tools used to create flowcharts

What tool was made to used to make those pretty flowcharts? I've been trying to spiff up this one. 129.174.110.153 (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been cutting, pasting, and patching in Photoshop, working from and old graphic. But when we are done fussing, I would like to remake it in Excel, which has a very nice flowcharting system allowing easy changes of colors, text, background, etc. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please make your document in SVG. The program Inkscape can allow you to do that. The original flowchart has been copied in many different languages, because SVG allows easy editing.

If you don't think your work is good enough to conquer the world, feel free not to do that, of course. O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

What about Visio? That's what I used. 129.174.91.119 (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Does Visio support SVG output? --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, and a lot of other outputs as well. Strangely, though, Meta isn't letting me upload it. Says it's corrupt or an incorrect extension. It lets you do regular SVG and compressed SVG, which has an .SVGZ extension. Neither will upload (the latter because of the extension). 129.174.91.119 (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey interesting. That might be a bug... does the SVG show ok in firefox? Can you upload a copy someplace else for me to look at? --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

From a guidline to an abstract article

I have not looked at this page for some time but it strikes me that it is moving further and further from a practical guideline into an abstract article that is becoming harder to understand and that has very little in the way of practical guidance for new users who are the ones that need the guidance most. end of 2005, end of 2006, End of 2007 and now (29 April 2008)

For example I think the sections and contents of the 2006 version "Consensus vs. other policies" and "Consensus vs. supermajority" should not have been deleted because both are relevant to the Wikipedia decision making process and how a Wikipedia Consensus fits into that overall system. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you make a good point. I'd like to see where we come out on the discussion of the concepts and the do a major cleanup cutting the bulk by 50% for clarity. It seems that wea re winding down on the disputes over content. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Philip: You and I don't see eye to eye on consensus. I know that you would like to change wikipedia into a (super-)majoritan democracy instead of a consensus system. You also know that I disagree with that most strenuously. Don't pretend that the two systems are the same. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

However, it would be a good idea to mention that we do use polling and supermajorities as a substitute for consensus when the number of participants in a discussion is too large to produce a coherent result otherwise (RfA, Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll, etc.)--Father Goose (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA actually is still the consensus process, but with a time limit, and a tie-breaker... (in many circumstances it gets close to a straight vote, but you can still break out of the format if you want/need to because it's not officially a vote... and that's the only way it's still alive... too many people have promised to kill it if that ever changes :-P ). It's not really a best practice, now is it? But ok, we could document some of how that works too, as long as we explain it's suboptimal (and are we going to get new politic-ing on this page when that happens? Yes we are :-P Can we handle it? Good question!) . The ATT poll was an abortion. How to document that is an interesting problem all on its own. :-) So Hmmmm <scratches head> --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I get the sense that the "abortion" of ATT better represented a consensus outcome than the means by which it was briefly instituted. But like you say, that's a problem all on its own.--Father Goose (talk) 06:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is built up of calm, informed opinions based on adequate debate in which everyone participates. None of those 3 requirements were really present for ATT, so while the ATT poll went through some of the motions, and looked really spectacular and all, it didn't really do anything useful WRT consensus. Does that make sense? --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:CON

If I for example post on a talk page that I believe the page should be moved and leave it a reasonable amount of time for example a week, if no-one objects or supports the proposal is it fair to save i have formed WP:CON or is support of a other user needed to say WP:CON exists ?Gnevin (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd give it at least 2 weeks (as not everyone checks into Wikipedia regularly). But yes, if there are no objections in the given timeframe, that's considered consensus for a move. If there is an objection, then it becomes necessary to generate a consensus through discussion first. -- Kesh (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I generally leave a week or two before moving a page if there's no reply. Even if someone does see it after the move has been performed, it can always be undone if that's what the resulting consensus decides. For non-controversial moves, you can always just move the page and leave an explanation on the talk page for anyone who has the page on their watchlist. I would suggest though, that that approach only be used for clear-cut cases where you're moving the page to conform with policy and such. Parsecboy (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

In cases such as the one you're trying to drag up again, however, you should take note of when you are reverted and attempt to make sure what the consensus is before continuing. You have been told about this before, Gnevin, and bringing it up again with people unfamiliar with your past actions does not mean you can interpret this guideline however you like. Everyone else, please see User_talk:Gnevin#National_sport for further reference. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don;'t think User_talk:Gnevin#National_sport has much baring on this question as the Admin used his Admin powers to ignore my wp:con which lead to a foolish on my behalf edit war, however if you wish to discuss it the moving admin was also wrong to ignore my con as per above But yes, if there are no objections in the given timeframe, that's considered consensus for a move. I had consensuses where was the admin's con ? Gnevin (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ps I object too you use of the word trolling as per WP:NPA and WP:Civil, this was created a week ago , i've given it a week for discussion to develop, and then I decided to inform the admins of the errors of their interpretation of policyGnevin (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This is interesting. The advice here and at this user's talk page is to discuss first prior to action, which indicate the use of an earlier version of the flowchart 5 series which suggested but did not mandate discussion before change. What is the real practice at WP? --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
No. Gnevin posted on the talk page. No one noticed the post. No one replied, either for or against the move. When Gnevin moved the page, (which was fine) people noticed and objected. At this point it became clear the move was contested. After that, Gnevin should have discussed with those who objected. Instead, he edit warred, violating 3RR, and when several admins tried to advise him to discuss the change, he claimed he had "consensus" although no one at all but himself had said anything about the move. One editor does not "consensus" make. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this went too far, but it seems that the advice above was to post a proposed change and leave it for some time before acting. This is at least an invitation to discuss. On the other hand, I see the harm in suggesting discussion first as leading to hair splitting down the road. Cheers and have a great weekend! --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This has come up again at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(flags)#Suggestion_related_to_sports_players, can I suggest that WP:CON be changed to state that, the lack of objection or approval after a reasonable time is WP:CON Gnevin (talk) 08:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Categories: Wikipedia talk archives