Meta:Consensus

This page in a nutshell:
Consensus is the wiki's model for group decision-making. It seeks the consent, not necessarily the agreement, of the relevant parties.

Shortcuts:

Consensus is a group decision-making process. Wiki editors use consensus to efficiently get to the best solution that can be achieved at the time.

Consensus is not "what everyone agrees to," nor is it the preference of the majority. The root of "consensus" is "consent" - even if parties disagree on exactly what is best, consensus is achieved when there is overall consent to move forward with a plan that is tolerable to everyone in order to settle an issue. This requires co-operation among editors with different interests and opinions.

Objectives

A consensus decision-making process ought to be:

Inclusive and participatory: A broad range of editors should be involved in the consensus decision-making process, particularly those most affected by the outcome.
Cooperative: Editors should strive to reach the best possible decision for the wiki and for all wikians, rather than settling for a majority opinion to the detriment of a minority.
Egalitarian: All editors' opinions should have an equal weight, and all editors should have the opportunity to present and amend proposals.
Solution-oriented: The goal is not winning an argument, but resolving differences in a way that moves the project forward. Editors should be prepared to compromise and make adaptations in order to reach decisions that support the shared goals of the community.
Logical: Discussions should always be attempts to convince others using reasons. When a discussion breaks down into a mere polarised shouting match, there is no possibility of consensus.

Process

A handful of editors agreeing on something does not constitute a consensus, except in the thinnest sense. Consensus is a broader process where specific points are considered in terms of the wiki as a whole, negotiating a reasonable balance between competing views.

In general, the steps involved in consenting on a decision are as follows:

Discussion: The issue is discussed informally, which typically surfaces various information, opinions, and potential solutions.
Proposal: Based on the discussion, a formal proposal on the issue is presented.
Call for consensus: The original proposer calls for consensus. Editors state their agreement, disagreement, or comments about the proposal.
Identification and addressing of concerns: If consensus is not achieved, the dissenters present their concerns on the proposal, potentially starting another round of discussion to address or clarify the concern.
Modification of the proposal: The proposal is amended, re-phrased or ridered in an attempt to address the concerns. The process then returns to the call for consensus and the cycle is repeated until a satisfactory decision is made.

Editors who do not comment during the process may be assumed to have no strong objections, and may be interpreted as consenting to proceed, provided they had a fair opportunity to participate.

Dissent

Much of the time, the consensus process helps to identify and address concerns and reservations early, resulting in an uncontroversial proposal with unanimous support. However, agreement is not always unanimous, and constructive dissent is an important part of the process.

When a call for consensus on a proposal is made, a dissenting editor will have these options:

Neutral/Comment: Editors who are willing to let a proposal pass but desire to register their concerns with the group may choose to "comment". If there are significant reservations about a proposal, the original proposer may choose to modify or re-word the proposal.
Oppose: Editors who are unwilling to let a proposal pass without modifications may choose to "oppose", typically with an explanation and a suggestion for what they would like to see happen instead.

When dissent is shared, the proposal may need to be modified - either through minor adjustments or more substantial revisions - depending on the nature and strength of the concerns raised.

Rough consensus

Since unanimity may be difficult to achieve, especially in large communities - or unanimity may be the result of coercion, fear, undue persuasive power or eloquence, inability to comprehend alternatives, or plain impatience with the process of debate - an alternative benchmark of consensus is used: rough consensus.

Rough consensus leaves the question of consensus to the judgement of a non-partisan administrator or bureaucrat who has not voted on the issue.

The means to establish rough consensus was described by the IETF (1998) as follows:

“	Working groups make decisions through a "rough consensus" process. IETF consensus does not require that all participants agree although this is, of course, preferred. In general, the dominant view of the working group shall prevail. (However, it must be noted that "dominance" is not to be determined on the basis of volume or persistence, but rather a more general sense of agreement). Consensus can be determined by a show of hands, humming, or any other means on which the WG agrees (by rough consensus, of course). Note that 51% of the working group does not qualify as "rough consensus" and 99% is better than rough. It is up to the Chair to determine if rough consensus has been reached.	”
— IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures Wikipedia:Rough consensus

While there are no magic numbers for "how much is enough", it is generally accepted that rough consensus has been achieved if about 70% agree on the issue. Of course, a well-argued minority concern may carry more weight than a numerical majority, especially if it highlights a significant issue that hasn't been addressed.

No consensus

In any discussion on this wiki, there are two possible outcomes: consensus for some specific course of action, and no consensus. When there is no consensus on the proposal, the current status quo prevails. In the event where no consensus is achieved, it becomes the responsibility of the dissenting editor(s) to modify the original proposal if they wish to. However, it is also possible for the proponents to come up with an alternative proposal which addresses the concerns raised by the dissenters.

A few vocal dissenters do not necessarily mean that there is "no consensus." A small number of dissenting voices, even if strongly expressed, do not override a broadly supported outcome — especially when their concerns have been acknowledged and reasonably taken into account.

Silence and consensus

In some cases, consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident. For example, an edit has consensus when it sticks, is built upon by others, and most importantly when it is used or referred to by others. However, in many situations such as discussions regarding policy change, silence may not necessarily imply consent.

Silence may also indicate uncertainty, lack of information, discomfort, disengagement, or lack of trust to speak honestly. Silence can only imply consent when conditions are healthy.

Most of the time, editors will find that it is fine to assume consensus, even if just for now, as it is more important to keep editing and co-operating smoothly in good faith as much as possible. However, when people are adversely affected by a decision, such as with blocking users, explicit confirmation is preferred.

In any situation, and especially when there was weak or implicit consensus in the first place, dissent might show up later — even after days or years. After all, consensus is not permanent.

Corollary

If you disagree or feel uncomfortable with a proposal or its alleged repercussions, the burden is on you to say so.

Rationale

It is impractical to wait forever for affirmation: in the meantime, it is best to assume that silence implies consensus. Users can continue to hold that assumption (hopefully safely) until someone comes along and voices their concerns. The more visible the statement, and the longer it stands unchallenged, the stronger the implication of consensus is.

Silence is the weakest form of consensus

The wiki is huge and our editors' time is limited. At any given time, there are many open discussions on many different topics across the wiki. It is always encouraged that editors be bold. It is highly likely that editors will eventually find themselves affected by the outcome of some decision that they did not know about, or did not have the chance to join. Where a decision is based mostly on silence, it is especially important to remember that consensus can change (see Consensus is not permanent).

Closure

Consensus may or may not be reached, but either way, the discussion eventually needs to come to an end.

Legitimate discussions must remain open for a minimum of one week. The discussion may only be closed if one or more of the following has occurred:

The topic has unanimous or near-unanimous support or opposes and discussion has ran for at least a week or two.
The topic's arguments have been refuted and there is general consensus on which is the better and more accepted option.
The topic has been open for a long period of time and the discussion has reached a standstill with no sign of consensus forming. The topic should be closed, on a basis of no consensus.
The topic is listed on Forum:Forum Grove/Previously rejected proposals and no new arguments have been brought up, or the author is unaware that it is listed.
The topic does not affect most or the whole community and is irrelevant and/or unnecessary.
The topic is meant to be in another area of the wiki, such as the Meta:Requests for adminship.

Only administrators may close discussions, although all users are welcome to request closure if they believe one or more of the above has occurred. Other users may support, oppose, or comment on the closure; an administrator will eventually decide on what action to take based on the above guidelines.

Canvassing

Shortcut:

M:CANVAS

Canvassing is sending messages to multiple wikians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion. Under certain conditions, it is acceptable to notify other editors of on-going discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive.

Campaigning

Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, through the use of non-neutral tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of an individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages.

Votestacking

Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a pre-determined point of view or opinion (for example, based on a userpage notice such as a userbox, or from user categorisation), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion.

In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result), it is similarly frowned-upon to send mass talk messages to those who expressed only a particular viewpoint on the previous debate.

Posting a friendly notice on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g. everyone who participated in a previous debate on a given subject) may be appropriate on a case-by-case basis.

Stealth canvassing

Because it is less transparent than on-wiki notifications, the use of email, in-game messages, or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged unless there is a significant reason for not using talk page notifications. Depending on the specific circumstances, sending a notification to a group of editors by email may be looked at more negatively than sending the same message to the same group of people on their talk pages.

Forum shopping

The term "forum shopping", or "asking the other parent", refers to repeatedly asking for opinions until a desirable opinion is obtained. For instance, if the user is blocked, they can ask for an outside review of said block; if this review concludes that the block was proper, it is generally inappropriate to ask for yet another outside review.

This also includes bringing up the same issue at the same forum multiple times, or asking a different administrator to perform an administrative action when one administrator already decided against it.

Consensus is not...

A majority vote

Consensus is not a majority vote. Voting has (at least) one inherent flaw when used in wikis, which is that votes are semi-permanent, and community sentiment is not.

Community sentiment shifts with time as members come and go. Votes, on the other hand, are nailed to the wall - and, worse still, the best way to really be rid of a vote is to have another vote against it.

Votes are especially unfair to those who come after. Someone walking into a situation in which the dice have already been cast does not even get the chance to vote.

An initial vote (sometimes called a "temperature check") may help to organise discussion around specific proposals or to get a conversation started, but this should be done with caution. Voting can discourage the creativity required to find a middle ground alternative. Voting can also hamper real discussion as voters do not have to justify their position with explicit reasons.

An option preferred by 51% of people is generally not enough for consensus; in fact, an option that is only narrowly preferred is almost never consensus. The best way to determine consensus is to actually read and understand each person's arguments, even if they are divided on the surface. A consensus can be found by looking for common ground and synthesising the best solution that the group can achieve at that time.

Unanimity

All or nothing

Consensus is not all-or-nothing. If the group can identify only some areas of agreement, they should still move forward with those pieces.

A complicated dispute might involve several issues, and some issues may be more controversial than others. A disagreement on one issue should not prevent consensus on another issue. It is not helpful to expect complete and total agreement on every aspect of the dispute. Work with the issues where there is common ground, and revisit the lingering issues later if necessary.

Permanent

Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding; changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for making or reverting an edit, or for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action.

The wiki remains flexible because new editors may bring fresh ideas; growing in scale may surface new needs; editors may change their minds over time; and we may find a better way to do things.

A representative group (such as administrators and bureaucrats) might make a decision on behalf of the community as a whole. More often, editors might document changes to existing procedures at some arbitrary time after the fact. But in all these cases, nothing is permanently fixed. The world changes, and the wiki must change with it. It is reasonable and indeed often desirable to make further changes to things at a later date, even if the last change was years ago.

A walled garden

Consensus is not a walled garden; the process depends on broad engagement. Even where there is a consensus among a group of editors, their preferred outcome is not always best for the whole wiki. For example, a decision made on an article's talk page by a small group of editors does not override community discussions and consensus in the forums.

In numbers

Consensus is not merely numeric. Editors can easily create the appearance of a changing consensus by "forum shopping": asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of editors discusses the issue. This is a poor example of changing consensus, and is anti-thetical to the way the wiki works. The wiki does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons.

It is normal to invite more people into the discussion in order to obtain new insights and arguments. However, the invitations must be phrased in a neutral way and addressed to a reasonably neutral group of people (e.g. sent to all active editors or posted at the sitenotice).

A contest

Consensus is not about "winning" an argument, and gaming the system will not be tolerated. What matters is the quality of the reasoning and how well it aligns with the goals of the wiki.

Hypothetical

Consensus cannot take hypothetical opinions into account. While everyone on the wiki has the right to be heard, this does not mean that discussions remain open indefinitely. Nor does it mean that a consensus should be overridden by an appeal to "wikians out there" who silently disagree (see silence and consensus). Either prove an opinion exists by referring to an existing discussion, or suggest starting a new discussion with a wider audience.