Wikiversity talk:Consensus/Archive 1

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.

• It may be useful to give here only the wikiversity definition of consensus, which is often somewhat vague, and discuss the policy on consensus elsewhere. Recently in zh:wp I got into an argument over what consensus is. As I understand it, consensus is "after thorough discussion, what is the community thinking", and any super-majority in the poll is only an indicator of the consensus, and not the consensus itself. The operational details in a policy page may confuse editors in this simple point. -- Hillgentleman|Talk 14:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The page seems to be the natural place for the development of a Wikiversity Consensus Policy; and it has come to be clear to this participant that Wikiversity needs to develop such a policy; so, in the absence of strong contrary opinion being expressed, he will run the risk of "an argument over what consensus is" also taking place here. His view is that the Wikipedia Article on Consensus Decision Making could provide us with some guidance; so he has already added an etymology section to the page from there and made some other edits based on the Wikipedia Consensus Policy; and, in the absence of strong contrary opinion being hereinafter expressed, he will continue to edit the page and, eventually, when the page begins to look like a policy, will add the "Proposed policy" template to the page. Perhaps those interested will work together to develop a Wikiversity Consensus policy reflecting our shared understanding of Consensus. -- Dionysios ^(talk), a Participant in the Wikiversity School of Advanced General Studies, Date: 2007-09-14 (September 14, 2007) Time: 1829 UTC

Consensus implies debate, and debate can sometimes be argumentative. :-) The point, I think, is to make that debate/argument/conflict productive - so it's less about "risking" argument, than facilitating the ongoing expression of ideas, thoughts, and feelings, in order to come to shared understandings, and construct a foundation and framework for further activity. Cormaggio ^talk 17:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; and thank you for the excellent link. You have made a fine contribution to the conversation. -- D ^(talk), 2007-09-16 (September 16, 2007) Time: 1928 UTC

What kind of consensus do we need? What are we debating? Kind of hard to work "in theory" without knowning where this is going to be applied.--Rayc 22:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it would be useful to make a list of situations in which the Wikiversity community has found it useful to attempt to measure consensus. Specific examples are useful. Towards starting such a list:

• decisions about selecting "functionaries" such as custodians are made by a process that involves community discussion and consensus.
• Policies are proposed and adopted by a process that involves community discussion and consensus.
• The proposed deletion policy calls for decisions based on consensus.
• The Wikiversity:Motto contest.
  --JWSchmidt 23:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• Pulling class notes or a panel discussion together into an NPOV summary or chapter in a text a class is creating might call for consensus. Mirwin 06:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• A difficult quantum mechanics problem might call for agreement on the likelilest or most correct answer while documenting two or three other possibilities for further research as unlikely but possibly correct pending access to further specific expertise that can authoritatively state a "correct" answer or interpretation. Mirwin 06:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I propose that

As many stakeholders as possible should be involved in the consensus decision-making process.

be changed to "all voices be heard" . For wiki is not a democracy, voice is a more accurate unit of opinion. And "all" means all. Wikiversiters with opposing opinions must have listened to each other before a consensus appears. Hillgentleman|Talk 18:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I propose that the page opens with the defintion.

It is not appropriate to start this policy page with a wikipedia definition of consensus - that would mean, in principle, that the policy is unstable.Hillgentleman|Talk 18:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Your servant agrees that in order to keep the Policy stable, the definition of consensus will need to be incorporated into the Wikiversity:Consensus page; and your servant suggests that the following be that definition:

Consensus is a specific method of decision making at Wikiversity; in those situations in which Consensus is needed, the consent by all parties is required.

(s) Dionysios ^(talk), 2007-09-21 (September 21, 2007) Time: 2038 UTC

I disagree strongly that "the consent by all parties is required." Perhaps there should be no "consensus policy" at Wikiversity. It is easy enough for disagreeing parties to retire to different pages or schools and encounter each other only at formalized discussions or debates considering opposing views. The importance of "consensus" at Wikipedia arose from the community's desire that there be no redundant or multiple treatment of the same material in the Encyclopedia articles. It was felt that forcing people to cooperate on building NPOV material for each article was a better way to concisely introduce/produce information for the anticipated readership. It is not clear to me that this approach is best or appropriate for a learning institution where the goal is participation in learning processes rather than publishing a consolidated summary of human knowledge. Certainly writing policy such that a single anonymous voice can deadlock any process is asking for a non functional community. Mirwin 15:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Greetings Mirwin and thank you for your comment on the proposed definition of "consensus" by your servant, disagreeing strongly that "the consent by all parties is required." In proposing such a definition for "those situations in which Consensus is needed", your servant does not mean to send disagreeing parties off to different pages or schools to then encounter each other only at formalized discussions and debates to consider opposing views; but, instead, your servant hopes to propose a procedure for those limited circumstances in which Consensus needs to be obtained to resolve difficulties. When your servant comes in contact with those with whom he disagrees, he is inclined to seek to become closer to them, not more distant; and he knows that disagreement can often be a prelude to growth and understanding. In his humble opinion, there is most certainly a need to define "consensus" at Wikiversity and to establish a Wikiversity Consensus Policy. It is true that your servant has good and sufficient reason to believe that Wikiversity Community does experience and will tend to experience differences of opinion about the appropriateness of maintaining certain pages at all at Wikiversity; and it is true that your servant knows that seemingly redundant or multiple treatments of similar material often is and may very well always be appropriate at Wikiversity. As subscribers to the proposed Policy on Scholarly Ethics, you, as one, and your servant, as another, display the "Scholarly Ethics Template" on our user pages and are therefore eligible to edit pages that exist outside of the confines of the Wikiversity NPOV Policy. So, it is not to to destroy work that your servant offers an exacting definition of Consensus. Rather instead, his goal seems to him to be in harmony with yours: to facilitate an academic environment in which "the goal is participation in learning processes". The idea of your servant is that a very strong agreement, such as that outlined in the Wikipedia article on "Consensus Decision Making" should develop before a regular Wikiversity Participant is impeded in the exercise of a Right. There is no intention that the Participant so far removed from being a regular Wikiversity Participant as to be "a single anonymous voice" should be included within "all parties" in such a way as to permit the single anonymous voice to block Consensus; and your servant thanks you for demonstrating this defect in his definition. If we are to move along the lines suggested by your servant, we will need to amend "all parties" to add language such as to make that part read "all registered Wikiversity account holder parties", thus making it clear that for the purpose of any Wikiversity Consensus Policy, while Wikiversity welcomes the contributions of anonymous users, for the purpose of the Wikiversity Consensus Process, participation in Decision Making would be limited to a close Community: Registered Participants. But, you suggest that "Perhaps there should be no 'consensus policy' at Wikiversity." Your servant inquires: In the absence of a Wikiversity Consensus Policy, how will Wikiversity address some issues, including some pending issues, in which the proposed Wikiversity Policy is that the matter should be "decided by consensus"? -- Dionysios ^(talk), 2007-09-22 (September 22, 2007) Time: 2117 UTC

Rather than "consensus" we might consider ways to close a conversation with a decision applicable until the next major community discussion. Perhaps a super majority of 75% could be enough to declare a decision as having arrived and implemented for a minimum of 3 months. Mirwin 21:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

A discussion should never be closed. A discussion has arrived at a result when the various voices have reached consensus. Hillgentleman|Talk 01:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• "Certainly writing policy such that a single anonymous voice can deadlock any process" - No. In wikimedia, consensus is different from unanimity. Hillgentleman|Talk 02:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• And, if the one objection comes with good reason, there are all the more reasons to digest it before taking any action.Hillgentleman|Talk 02:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"Consensus usually means that a large majority of community members who have discussed a proposal have provided good reasons for either adopting or rejecting a given proposal - however, any majority of opinions in a discussion or poll is only an indicator of consensus, and not the consensus itself. Evaluating consensus, therefore, is a complex process of ascertaining what the 'mood' of the community is, attempting to reflect the mood of the community as a whole, and not simply a majority within the community." This statement is nonsense and should be replaced by a clear quantitative definition of super majority rule. The idea that some individuals are more equal than others and are empowered to consider the mission statement of Wikiversity and mandate decisions at odds with a simple majority of the participants at Wikiversity should be developed very carefully, if it is pursued at all, and clearly articulated in our community charter .... not weasal worded into individual policies one concept at a time. Personally I trust simple majority rule. If others feel better about super majority rule or custodian rule then it should be articulated clearly not embedded or enshrined in mystical magical traditions such as "consensus" and fuzzy "concensus evaluation" non criteria. Clearly as long as the Wikimedia Foundation controls our servers the Wikiversity community is subject to override by the Foundation's staff and Board. Thus there is an external guarantee that Wikiversity will remain true to its approved proposal, no need for local oversight and override capability as well. Mirwin 16:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• " This statement is nonsense and should be replaced by a clear quantitative definition of super majority rule" <--- of course not. Definition of supermajorityrule should go to supermajority rule. Consensus is beyond any simple definition. One may give examples but it is almost impossible to give a clear cut defintion. In short, the definition is intentionally vague, and it should be so. Hillgentleman|Talk 06:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• For want of a better explanation, consensus is arrived only through thorough communication amongst the participants who may begin with different view points. Simple-majority rule, in principle, requires no communication between opposing views. If somebody's views get more weight, it is not because he is a custodian or a board member, but because the views are good. Hillgentleman|Talk 06:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

In practice, how do you demonstrate some views are given more weight because they are better? Generating confusion and then doing as one pleases is a well known political ploy of political power structures throughout history. What will make "consensus building" with no formal quantitative way of measuring "consensus" work better at Wikiversity than it has worked elsewhere? Mirwin 00:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Before replying to your questions, let me point out that it might be better to seperate the page describing what consensus is on wikiversity may better from how to implement consensus decision making on wikiversity. Yet since the two are related. So let it be. Hillgentleman|Talk 01:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Your questions are on the implementation. So here are my answers. "In practice, how do you demonstrate some views are given more weight because they are better? "<---There is no other way than to discuss in good faith. We discuss until we understand each other. Hillgentleman|Talk 02:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• "What will make "consensus building" with no formal quantitative way of measuring "consensus" work better at Wikiversity than it has worked elsewhere? " <--- I do not know what you mean. What has worked elsewhere? Hillgentleman|Talk 02:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• A wiki is by its nature a meritocracy; one who can reason better has a stronger voice. Any attempt to Generating confusion and then doing as one pleases will not pass the many watchful eyes. Hillgentleman|Talk 02:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus can be described only in cases, but it is hard to define in general. Attempts to "quantify" it do not work; however you define it one may easily find a counter-example. Hillgentleman|Talk 02:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The consensus in the traditional sense means unanimity. It cannot work on a wiki. So its accepted meaning in wikimedia has shifted to allow some who strongly disgree but acknowledge that a decision has to be made. However, it has never meant supermajority. For example, if someone holds a poll on a proposed policy, forbids discussions, and receives 99% support, consensus has not been reached. The degree of supermajority gauges consensus, but supermajority is not consensus.Hillgentleman|Talk 02:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"Consensus usually means that a large majority of community members who have discussed a proposal have provided good reasons for either adopting or rejecting a given proposal"

Proposed change

Consensus appears when the significant voices in the community converge, for example, in adopting or rejecting a proposal.

Hillgentleman|Talk 20:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The undersigned approves of the proposed change. It is congruent with the notion that consensus is not a supermajoritarian concept, but a convergence concept. -- Dionysios ^(talk), Date: 2007-10-05 (October 5, 2007) Time: 2109 UTC

Lovely. Who decides, and how, who is "significant" in the community? Mirwin 00:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

As above. It is discussed in every individual case. In the same way that the NPOV policy does not define exactly what are significant view points, we can give examples.Hillgentleman|Talk 02:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• "the significant voices in the community" <-- I'm not sure that it is constructive to try to define consensus. The reason for using the term "consensus" within wiki communities is that its conventional meaning roughly matches the kind of decision making process that often arises when a group of wiki editors collaborate to achieve the mission of a wiki. We can discuss how to make use of consensus without having to define it: all we need to do is keep in mind "conventional" and "every day" meaning of the term. In a wiki-based project, having a policy about consensus serves to remind wiki editors about the importance of using discussion and cooperation to find ways to work towards the wiki project's mission. A policy for consensus can usefully include a record of the community's past experience and collective wisdom with respect to when and how to rely on consensus. In some cases, such as responding to a vandalism attack or making a conventional page edit, we NEVER want to delay action by taking time to seek consensus. For some collaborative decisions, we set up mechanisms that automatically trigger a search for consensus every time before the decision is made. For example, when making decisions about selecting functionaries, we automatically try to attract the attention of a wide range of community members, get a wide range of inputs, and we seek reasoned objections to possible future courses of action. We count on the power of multiple points of views and perspectives to produce a better decision making process. In other cases, a search for consensus may become part of a decision making process as a last resort. In such cases, discussions and collaborations can have recognizable "stages" or "phases" leading up to the use of consensus as a way to guide decision making. Often there is an initial stage during which differences of opinion are expressed and discovered; this might start with just two individuals. In many cases, it is a waste of time to immediately call for community discussion and decision by consensus. If a small number of people take the time to state their positions then it is often possible for them to discover a reasonable course of action without calling in additional participants to the discussion. However, if discussion and negotiation among members of a small group of editors fails to find an acceptable course of action, then it might be time to call in additional members of the community and try to work towards a broad consensus. In my view, this is best done within a formalized "request for comments" system in which the problem (editing dispute) is clearly described, differing positions are explicitly stated, and a call is made to the broader community for additional ideas and suggestions for how to resolve the conflict and make a decision that best promotes the interests of the entire project. In summary, I suggest that we not get bogged down with definitions of "consensus". I suggest that the Wikiversity policy on consensus first state the general principle that consensus seeking naturally arises within wiki project decision making then list the specific situations for which consensus is always sought and then list any special purpose mechanisms for seeking consensus (such as "request for comments" systems) that the Wikiversity community decides it needs to have available for "emergencies". I say "emergencies" in reference to disputes that normally can be resolved by simple discussion and negotiation between a few editors.....sometimes a small group of editors reaches a deadlock that can only be resolved by seeking consensus among a wider group of interested parties from the wiki community. Seeking consensus in such situations really should be a "last resort" because consensus seeking often wastes a lot of time and just ends up back at the same conclusion that should have been decided upon by the original parties in the dispute, and would have been reached originally if there had been good faith editing in support of the mission of the project. In general, any "request for comments" system requires that the parties in the dispute explain how they have tried to resolve the dispute before seeking a broader community consensus. If the parties in the dispute cannot point to a past discussion where they tried to resolve the dispute through reasoned negotiation then it is probably not yet time to seek a wide consensus. For most editing disputes, community consensus seeking should be a last resort. I think the Wikiversity policy on consensus should make this clear. --JWSchmidt 04:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• We can discuss how to make use of consensus without having to define it <-- As I know it, the meaing of the word consensus in wikimedia (meta:consensus) is different from what most people have in their minds. And it is adventageous to have in mind the difference between consensus and unanimity. As a practical matter, it is convenient to have in hand the explanations of "consensus decision making on wikiversity", and how it works. And yes examples are very useful.
• As described in the flowchart Image:Consensus_new_and_old.svg, the common editing process is itself a way of forming consensus. It is usually unneccesary to explicitly call for community-wide discussion to reach consensus. Hillgentleman|Talk 01:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

In general, policies exist to deal with situations where there is possible confusion and conflict. Policies formalize strategies for avoiding and resolving conflicts. For the most part, "the common editing process" at Wikiversity does not involve conflict....editors just make use of wiki technology as a tool that facilitates collaboration and the building of learning resources. Within wiki communities there are dynamic groups of editors, some small, some larger. Small groups of wiki editors (often just two editors) can come into conflict and they might fail to reach agreement about how to edit a page. Many wiki websites have established processes by which small groups of editors can call upon additional members of the wider wiki community to look at disputes and help resolve them. Such community-based, consensus-seeking decision making processes are what I think could be usefully defined by the Wikiversity policy on consensus. Rather than seek a general definition of consensus, I think we should identify specific types of problems that Wikiversity can seek to deal with by "requests for comment" procedures. --JWSchmidt 19:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Custodianship should be no big deal in theory. What can cause it to become a big deal?

For major changes that affect pages or items on the wiki that have substantial traffic (this could be operationally defined in theory i.e. a certain percentage of total page views of the wiki) and that only custodians can modify, then it is mandatory that discussion be offered for a period of time to come to explicit consensus. Otherwise the stage is potentially set for wheel warring between custodians. Emesee 06:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Jade Knight, I am doubtful about this [1] proposal of merging. Consensus is a learning resource for a general idea, and it may not have much to do wikiversity. Even if it has little content at the moment, it would benefit from the freedom to develop further. Wikiversity:Consensus more about what we mean by "consensus" (since this word has multiple meanings) on wikiversity and how we may apply it. In time, these two pages may become complementary. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 00:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Someone should put a fork notice up at the top then; I can see the reason for having two separate projects on it, though the fact that "Consensus" is currently not much more than a collection of links made me think a merge might be appropriate. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 05:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure! I see you point. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 12:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, there is also a suggestion at Wikiversity:Think tank to create a project on Developing consensus in a wiki environment. --mikeu ^talk 12:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Which would leave us with 3+ consensus projects. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 19:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The think tank page has now been renamed to: Consensus in a wiki environment. They are not really the same. WV:CON is a proposed policy, while Consensus looks like more a generic learning page on the topic. There can be more than one project on different aspects of the subject. --mikeu ^talk 00:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the {{merge}} template and applied the {{guideline}} template. We have to start somewhere. --CQ 15:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Was any voting done? Or even a discussion about making this a guideline? I'm somewhat wary of unilateral action, even though I agree that this should be a guideline. Perhaps even a policy. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 02:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree that Consensus meets the definition of a guideline, though I wonder how many people would have a different idea of what that means. I would like to see this become a policy, and I agree that there should be some discussion on how to classify these pages before they are tagged. Or at least some general agreement about when to use the {{guideline}} tag. --mikeu ^talk 19:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This guideline is the subject of a Community Review. --JWSchmidt 15:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)