User:Buster7/consensus

Consensus building is an important part of the Wikipedia experience. It is therefore most valuable to have a clear grasp of what it means. And, what it doesn't mean.

Webster's New Explorer LP Dictionary:

1---- Agreement in opinion

2---- Collective opinion

Webster's New 20th Century Dictionary (copyright 1953)(earliest 1904)

1---- Unanimity

2---- Agreement

3---- Concord

4---- A general accord of a number of people upon a subject admitting of a

diversity of views.

Latin

from..... consentio.......to be of one mind, to agree

and

from..... sentire...........to think, feel, or perceive

mot juste..............

Synonyms

noun

common consent or assent...general agreement...unanimity...consentience...consentaneity...

like-mindedness...concord...concurrance...consonance...agreement...accord...accordance...

compliance...conformity...harmony...unity...oneness...oneness of mind...single mindedness...

concert...chorus...one or single voice

3 characteristics of words that almost never co-incide; frequency, distribution and connotation.

It is a curiosity of English that it continuously acquires words from other languages in order to expand its lexicon....loanwords...

Some words do become obsolete, fall out of the common lexicon, and are dropped forever.

Most, however, remain and develope nuances that expand (for the writer and the reader and the speaker) the opportunities for expansion and expressiveness.

Slrubenstein/Arc29

The call for consensus cannot be as simple as giving any one editor a veto-power over making changes.

That would simply be absurd. For an editor's view - whether positive or negative - to count in a consensus-driven process, that editor must actively participate in attempts to build consensus.

That is why it is critical to explain your objections and explain them in addressible terms: "this sentence x violates policy y for reason z."

That is the only way that others can respond...either "Okay, we make this change and now the sentence no longer violates policy" or "oh, well, there is no way to fix it so the sentence has to go" - only on this basis can we build any consensus, whether to add or not add a passage.

And when every objection of this sort ("sentence x violates policy y for reason z") has been addressed, we are building consensus.

As far as I can tell, in every case that someone has objected that the proposed passage violates a policy, either the passage was modified or it turned out that in fact the passage did not violate any policy. This is how we build consensus.

So, please show us which sentence violates which policy in which way! If any such sentences still exist, we will either change them or delete them, but first you have to demonstrate that a specific sentence violates a specific policy in a specific way.

If you cannot do this, then that means we have consensus to include the passage. Simply objecting, on no grounds, is an attempt to veto (which no wikipedia policy grants to anyone, not even the exalted Jimbo), not a lack of consensus!

Slrubenstein | Talk 18:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

ARC 32

And whether the material satisfies those policies should be determined not just by an individual editor but by consensus.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you about consensus, but the consensus policy addresses a different issue than I was raising. My point was about what can go into articles.

Consensus says nothing about what can or cannot go into articles. The consensus policy is about interpersonal behavior and process.

The consensus policy is not about content; NPOV, V, and NOR are about content. It is NPOV, V, and NOR that determine what is acceptable and unacceptable content. The consensus policy lays out a process for resolving conflicts over content.

But it does not establish principles for resolving the conflict. The principles remain NPOV, V and NOR. When editors get into a conflict, we should consult WP:CONSENSUS for ideas about how we can better work together. But before consensus-based editing, the first step to working together is agreeing to abide by the content policies, NPOV, NOR, and V. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "whether the material satisfies those policies should be determined not just by an individual editor but by consensus," but consensus does not mean unanimity (according to the policy), it is a process of collaboration.

And to participate in this process everyone has to agree that "if content is a notable significant and verifiable view from a reliable source it will go in even if I do not like it," if they cannot say this, and mean it, they are not participating in a consensus process.

And some people above have argued that content should not go in even if it is notable, verifiable, and from a reliable source. Those people are not participating in a consensus-building process. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but continue to note that summary style is a guideline and cannot trump core policies like NPOV, V and NOR. Also, if we are going to be guided by Summary Style, let's follow what it says: first, the guideline applies only when an article gets too long. Second, splitting the article into smaller articles has to be done in a reasonable fashion. The material that most readers will most want to see stays in the main article; less notable material goes into smaller articles, and spin-offs have to be content forks and never POV forks, no coatracking. As long as the discussion about summary style foregrounds these principles I am fine with that. But I continue to insist, a style guideline never trumps a content policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, Slrubenstein. A well needed compalation of the codes of conduct necessary to maintain order and civility. As you state, early in your lead, many new editors are coming on board. Moderately experienced editors (like myself) are participating at levels they didn't expect 4 weeks ago. Let me say that the ebb and flow of discussion about core Wikipedia policies is a tremendous learning opportunity. The Editing Community shines when we find a balance between differing (dare I say it!) points of view.

<soapbox>A wonderful thing happens when I lose the "I" of my edit and give in to the "WE" of being a Wikipedia editor. I sacrifice ownership of "my idea, my edit, my contribution" and join a working community focussed on excellence and quality.</soapbox>.

Both you and Ferrylodge and many other veteran editors are providing leadership and training. Many times I have wanted to step away from this article and return to random editing. But the knowledge and experience that is going on here is invaluable...and it draws me back. Thanks to you all!--Buster7 (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well written Slrubinstein, but I'd like to add one important point. All of the wiki process, and all of the policy, operates on discussion, compromise, and the discovery of consensus between editors. Policy is important to be sure, but more important is Wikipedians talking with each other, not at each other, about policy and content. I think we've all seen enough of that in the "real world."--Tznkai (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)