Wikipedia talk:Silence and consensus/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Bad essay

This essay encourages bad decision making based on the squeaky wheel fallacy. Assuming the truth of a conclusion because there is a lack of contrary evidence is not best practice. It should always be incumbent upon the person making a claim to engage in WP:BEFORE-like due diligence with the expressed goal of falsification. The original essay said, "If someone declares an statement, and that statement is notified to all relevant instances, and no one is objecting to said statement, then that statement can be concluded as consensus." Seriously, that's the worst kind of lazy logic. Silence is not and never has been "consensus" of any kind. The truth or falsity of a statement depends on the process of falsification engaged in by the proposer. It does not, and never has depended on the silence of the opposition. Honest proposals always recognize and take into account the opposing arguments; they don't ignore them as this essay is implying. Viriditas (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Why isn't this a policy?

What the title says. It seems a pretty fundamental thing to insist on - if no-one disagrees after a specified amount of time, and you think you have good reason for proceeding, then proceed. The assumption should not be that if no-one disagrees, then you should not proceed, because then nothing would ever get done.

Essay or supplement

Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, regarding this, the page shouldn't call it both an essay and supplement. But as for discussion, it was sometime ago that some essay pages became supplement pages. See this section on my talk page for detail. Flyer22 Reborn (talk)

Hi.

If I might add, both {{essay}} and {{supplement}} say "it is not a policy or guideline". So, {{essay}} is completely redundant... except in one capacity: It is notorious for being used as a badge of shame. And that is against the policy.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

"If you disagree..." text

The problem with this text has just been illustrated by the quick revert by @SmokeyJoe:. Bad text can stay in an article for a long time with little attention from other editors. It can also become outdated due to evolution of practices policies and norms sitewide, or it can be noticed long after insertion by a newcomer to the page. That happens a lot on relatively little-read/watched pages such as this one.

An editor such as myself comes along. Sees something that can be improved while keeping its intended spirit. That can be swiftly reverted basically without any reason other than "no", and the reverting editor can claim that there was consensus (due to age and neglect) for the former text. That doesn't benefit the project or promote improvement of page text. BTW, cute and gratuitous latin phrases aside, there are plenty of ways to tranlate it that would not likely lead to misinterpretation. SPECIFICO talk 21:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks SPECIFICO

A corollary is that if you disagree, the onus is on you to say so.

versus

A corollary is that if you see an edit with which you disagree, you should speak up.

Yes, a quick revert is easily done, which means disputed, we should go to the talk page, if there is not a compromise. User:Guy Macon's quick second revert to put it back is bad form.

I disagree with the edit, and would like to hear more on what was the problem with the old text. I don't think the notion that WP:ONUS has changed the meaning of "onus" is a very good reason, if anything that is a reason to change WP:ONUS. As a "minimize barriers" issue, Wikipedia should use the standard meanings for words.

The edit is a strong weakening of the imperative, that if you disagree you have to speak up. This is not restricted to an "edit", it is important for a talk page discussion. I don't think "edit" belongs in the sentence, and I think "should" is too weak. It is an onus. If you were present, and you didn't speak up in opposition, it is reasonable for all others to assume that you were in silent agreement. I think onus is the best word. "Should" is too weak. "Must" is too strong. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

0. if you disagree, the onus is on you to say so

Status quo. I think it is fine.

1. if you see an edit with which you disagree, you should speak up

Undiscussed introduction of "edit". "onus" --> "should" weakening. "say so" -> "speak up". Three changes, undiscussed.

2. if you disagree, speak up

Simple imperative. I think "speak up" is worse than "say so", because "say so" better implies to speak up to the disagreement. Speak up is too nebulous.

3. if you disagree, the onus is on you to speak up

"say so" -> "speak up"

4. if you disagree, you should speak up

"onus" --> "should" weakening

5. if you disagree, you must speak up

"onus" --> "must" weakening. Begs "or what". Introduces notion that it is too late now. No.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Also to note, why this corollary is important: Everything else in the essay/supplement is a non-productive academic argument. Only this corollary tells the reader what they should do. If someone has asserted a "silent consensus", it is not productive to argue that it was not, or that silent consensus is the weakest form of consensus. The productive thing to do is to articulate the substance of your disagreement. An if you are involved, you have an onus to do so. This corollary is so important it spent some time as the nutshell. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

It looks like you added the line almost 13 years ago.[1] I think it's important to use the word "onus". I started an RfC at the Village Pump to address some of the disagreements on WP:ONUS,[2] but editors do not agree on the interpretation of the policy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• The problem is that the ordinary meaning of "onus" is more general than the unrelated WP meaning of WP:ONUS, which is a very narrow and specific content principle. I'd be fine with any other word to denote what is meant in that context. SPECIFICO talk 01:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

  I favor any wording that does not contain Latin words that may not be familiar to some readers, many of whom speak English as a second language. They may read it as legal obligation, cargo, burden of proof, stigma, or blame. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

  This is understandable. "Onus" does convey pseudo-legal effect. I considered that appropriate, as a balance to "Silence is the weakest form of consensus", which could be read as imply that the slightest utterance is enough to invalidate an old silent consensus. I think it is appropriate that there is some weight of "onus" placed on the late-comer objector. I may have some bias of affection and/or old neural connection to a sentence I wrote 13 years ago and have seen silently approved ever since, until today, but I think it is logically the right word. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, your wording was validated by at most the 50 users who edited this page. So that leaves the other 40 million of us editors who might have objected if only we had known... SPECIFICO talk 03:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• "Onus" is not the right word in this context (anyone thinking it is should say which part of a dictionary definition fits the sentence). Another reason "onus" should be removed is the WP:ONUS confusion as mentioned. I'm not sure about the best wording. While this is just an essay and the wording doesn't really matter, it might not be a good idea to encourage people to speak up about everything they disagree with. We'd never get anything done if that was taken literally. It would probably be too woolly to put it in the following terms but I would like to say that people need to speak up if they have a serious objection (or see a significant problem). Johnuniq (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• “If you disagree, say so”. This feels a bit terse. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• If we remove the word "onus" here we weaken implicit consensus by making it something people only "should" respect. I think that we should use the word "onus" to make clear that we describe the same concept as the Consensus conduct policy which is summarized in WP:ONUS. Like was discussed at the page for the sanction WT:Consensus required, normally when editors dispute the implicit consensus, the onus is on them to achieve consensus for changes. Consensus is analogous to the Consensus required provision; it's just not nearly as strict. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Of course, I would like to change it to "A corollary is that if you disagree, the WP:ONUS is on you to say so.", where WP:ONUS links to a new section in consensus which I proposed in the RfC WP:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Should we move WP:ONUS to WP:CONSENSUS?. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Is all of this collateral effects of the WP:V / WP:C WP:ONUS fuss. I think "onus" is just a word, and should not be conflated with new jargon associated with a shortcut. Looking at synonyms, https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/onus, I think none are better: the best three: duty (too strong, conflicts with volunteer); obligation (too strong); responsibility (maybe, but still a bit strong). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is all a continuation of all that fuss. Well, I think that the language in WP:ONUS is just using the word as it is used here, but others may disagree. I don't want to see the onus put on the editors who want to retain longstanding text, which would be inconsistent with WP:NOCON. For instance, I do not think the onus to retain the word onus on this page is on those who wish to preserve the status quo; "silent consensus" is worth something. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I know that, as an experienced and productive editor here, you have more and deeper resources at your command than a thesaurus. There are many ways to convey the intended meaning, which will be clearer and more precise without using the problem-word onus. Further, it does appear that you're accustomed to [[WP:OWN|making quick reverts of improvements to this article whenever "your" text is edited by other users]. It's clear there's no current consensus for your preferred version, so if it's to be retained, you would need to provide a real convincing substantive reason. Not just that 55 out of 40 million WP users overlooked the problem. SPECIFICO talk 14:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Not just that 55 out of 40 million WP users overlooked the problem. Does consensus require 20 million + 1 WP users to weigh in? -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Even if WP consensus were judged by vote counts, basic 8th Grade-level numeracy would suffice to tell you the question would actually be whether 56 out of those 40 million might have disagreed. Logic must still count for something. SPECIFICO talk 21:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

You can tone down the personal attacks a bit. What's the relevance of 40 million WP users? Is there any page on Wikipedia that's been edited by anything approaching that number of editors? The threshold you're setting for consensus just means that no consensus will ever be reached on anything. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• User:SPECIFICO, you wrote "I'd be fine with any other word to denote what is meant in that context. talk 01:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)" However, all you have suggested is "should", in the midst of making it about edits thus excluding discussions, and changing "say so" to "speak up". I think "should" misses the point.

Onus fits. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/onus 1a and 1b. 1a = BURDEN entry 1 = "DUTY, RESPONSIBILITY" 1b= "a disagreeable necessity : OBLIGATION"

It is there as the actionable route for someone unhappy with the silent consensus. The onus is on them to articulate trhier disagreement. They can't leave it to others to disagree for them. They can't expect others to anticipate their disagreement and act on their hypothetical disagreement. "Onus" is a good work, implying some burden, because they have to make some effort. Does the disagreement matter enough to be worth making the effort to explain the problem?

Note that onus is a perfectly good English word, even if it does derive via Middle French from Latin, where it means "burden". Would "burden" be better? I think no, burden is something you are stuck with and does not imply a need for action. "Onus" implies a need for action, if there is something you want. Onus is not demanding like "responsibility" or "obligation".

If you discover an assumption of consensus based upon WP:Silence, and you now want to dispute that consensus, the obligation in on you to articulate the problem. "The onus is on you to say so" I think says this exactly, and concisely. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, well I did articulate my concern. You are in the minority on this issue, and yet rather than deal with the flaws of your text, you claim seniority without responding to those of us who stated specific concerns. SPECIFICO talk 01:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I think I have responded to every point, yours most directly, at least once, and more than enough.

Do you maintain your preference for your edit, i.e.: A corollary is that if you see an edit with which you disagree, you should speak up.

Do you acknowledge the three separable changes you introduced? So far I think you have only spoken against "onus". Do you wish to suggest a compromise edit, or is it to be this or the old version? Do you admit that this essay applies to discussions, not just edits?

I looked hard at suggesting a compromise, but as I have explained, for all three parts, I think each worsens the page

I have responded to Johnuniq's criticism of "onus", but having failed myself to find an alternative wording that is OK, I think this demands that he or others propose a solution. Or do people disagree that "should" is too weak? I maintain that anybody, including the unhappy grump, is free at anytime to assert that "should" implies "optional". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:ONUS concerns disagreement over whether particular text should be included/removed and the question of which side has the burden of demonstrating that the edit is desirable, compliant with policy, and has consensus. WP:ONUS says that the burden lies with those wanting to include the text. By contrast, this essay concerns what each editor should do when they see a discussion. Experience and WP:CONSENSUS acknowledges that universal agreement is rarely possible and is not necessary. It is common for at least one person to push a view that does not have consensus—do I have the burden of replying to their every comment because I disagree? No. Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I think we can agree that no one wants WP:Silence conflated with WP:ONUS. I think that you think that the use of the word "onus" does this. I disagree, but my agreement is not necessarily required. My question to you is what to do from here? Do you support SPECIFICO's edit, or another of the several alternatives listed? Or can you suggest a different wording? Or do you prefer to cut the corollary entirely? Of course no one has a burden of replying to every comment. Maybe the following? If there is an apparent consensus, and someone thinks it is in error, and they want to their opinion considered, the onus is on them to say something. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I support (SPECIFICO's edit) ("... you should speak up"). People seem to be reading too much into the word "should". First, bear in mind that this is an essay and even if it used bold to say you must do something, it would have very little weight. Try searching for "should" on some policy pages and see that it is a widely used word which is merely a polite way of telling a volunteer that certain outcomes are expected. Johnuniq (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Johnuniq, you support his edit, but don't mention the "see an edit with which you" part. I think this is the worst part, as WP:Silence is not limited to edit reviews. Do you prefer it over A corollary is that if you disagree, you should speak up or A corollary is that if you see something with which you disagree, you should speak up? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Moreover, on a thinly edited page such as this one - we cannot say that all of us outsiders ever had the onus of rejecting bad language, because we didn't see it and had no obligation to see it or do anything else until we stumbled upon it. Most WP articles contain longstanding defects that get corrected when somebody finally notices them, or when new sources become available, etc. Except where it's evident from the talk page that editors previously considered and accepted what's now the "longstanding" text, it deserves nothing more than the respect we would give an old lady who should always be extended the courtesy of priority to cross the street or exit an elevator before ourselves. SPECIFICO talk 03:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Except that's not what WP:ONUS means. Remember, the section in WP:V is called "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". WP:V is a content policy which governs what our articles can say; Consensus as a conduct policy governs how we behave, collaborate, and make decisions. The ONUS section is a reference from a content policy to a conduct policy – it says that just because something is allowed according to the content policy doesn't mean it has to be included. And then it refers the reader to the relevant conduct policy describing how we make that decision, which is Consensus. WP:NOCON implies the (lowercase) onus is on those who seek changes to implicit or explicit consensus, whether that change is an addition, removal, or modification. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Why would "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." not mean what it says? WP:ONUS means exactly what I said. Johnuniq (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

That's only part of the WP:ONUS policy, which is reiterating part of WP:CONSENSUS. The point of WP:ONUS is that While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article. Anyway, the word "onus" is appropriately used whenever discussing consensus forming, because CONSENSUS states that editors are to give reasons beyond "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I would oppose any rewording that weakens the meaning of "silent consensus". "Should" sounds like a suggestion, while "onus" sounds more like an imperative. If the existence of a separate policy, WP:ONUS, is considered confusing, then alternative (but equally strong, in my opinion) wordings that avoid the word "onus" are:

1. if you disagree, it is incumbent upon you to say so
2. if you disagree, it is up to you to say so

It is important not to weaken this statement, because that could open it up to gaming. For context, SPECIFICO was recently topic-banned from Julian Assange by Awilley for using varying interpretations of silent consensus to game the "consensus required" restriction (AE thread, Awilley's explanation of gaming). @Johnuniq: If there's one person who is clearly arguing against the consensus, you do not have the burden of replying to everything they say. The issue is that if a piece of text is added to an article that is being actively edited and/or watched by several editors, and nobody expresses objection to the new text, and it remains there for months or years, then it is assumed that that piece of text has consensus. We don't want a situation in which a new editor arrives and starts removing long-standing material, and then demands that a positive consensus be established before each piece of long-standing text is reinstated. The recent dispute at Julian Assange was over a piece of text that had been in the lede for over a year. Julian Assange has nearly 1000 watchers, and has been edited by over 200 unique editors just this year. Anyone could have objected to the material in question when it was added, or even in the weeks and months afterwards. With hundreds of watchers and dozens of active editors, it has to be presumed that many people saw the addition, and that since nobody objected, there was a silent consensus. I think this is an important principle, and that it should be stated clearly. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I had added a reference to silent/implicit consensus to WP:Consensus required. I opened a discussion about putting it back in. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

onus is a word that has a meaning that is pretty much universally accepted. WP:ONUS is a shortcut that somebody created to point to some section of some Wikipedia page so lazy people like me can easily link to it without having to remember its address. It makes sense to let the meaning of the word onus influence where we point the WP:ONUS redirect. It doesn't make sense to let the WP:ONUS redirect influence how we use the word onus everywhere else. ~Awilley (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• So, SPECIFICO gave up on this discussion, which I read as not agreeing that there is a problem with the word “onus”, by cutting the corollary entirely. I reverted. The corollary is very important, it is actually the only actionable content of substance. Silent consensus is an academic description, you can’t appeal to it, except to say to others that we are waiting for you to speak up, to the substance of the problem. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• I've looked almost exhaustively at the options for synonyms for "onus". The closest is "burden". The difference between "burden" and "onus" is that "burden" is something you can't shirk. At per WP:BURDEN, if you add something, the burden is on you to verify it. "Onus" is weaker. Onus means that for you to do something, the onus is on you to do other things. This fits WP:ONUS, where if you have verifiable information that could be added, you still have the onus to get consensus that it is appropriate to add. I note that this consensus could be WP:Silence, and thus begins the conflation. It could be WP:Silence, because when we add material to an article, if no one objects, we assume that there is no objection.
  The shortcuts BURDEN and ONUS should not be allowed to corrupt or even disturb the language. It is nice that WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS point to concepts that match the meanings of "burden" and "onus". This does not interfere with the meaning of of onus in the longstanding corollary. Consensus is assumed from the silence. If someone, lurking, disagrees, there are no options for them but to either (a) let the silent consensus continue as assumed consensus; or (b) state their argument in opposition to whatever the issue it. There is no burden, they are not obligated, but if they want their way, the onus is on them to make their argument. In particular, no one is required to ask them, survey them, run a poll, etc, if no one has not even voiced an objection. The onus is on the objector to speak up. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I've been involved in the many onus-related discussions, from WP:V, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:Consensus required, etc. I strongly support keeping the longstanding text here. Even though this is just a supplement page, changing occurrences of the word "onus" could have a domino effect. I would have liked to have moved the ONUS redirect to CONSENSUS, but that didn't work out.[3] Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, we've got a wiki full of copyeditors here. If we need to change the sentence, someone will be able to find a way to do that. Maybe we could change it to "if you disagree, it's your job to say so" or "if you don't object, we're all going to assume that you agree".

Alternatively, we could link to Wiktionary, which would indicate that we're using the plain-English meaning of the word, or we could add a footnote that says "This is not a reference to the policy section called WP:ONUS". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it's fine. The bigger issue is that the community doesn't seem to agree on the interpretation of WP:ONUS. That dispute shouldn't trickle down here. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone really get confused by the meaning of onus? If yes, we could link to wikt:onus, Noun, #2

uncountable, Burden of proof, onus probandi
The onus is on those who disagree with my proposal to explain why.

If you disagree with the apparent consensus of nobody disagreeing, the onus is on you to state your disagreement, or people will continue to thing that we all agree.

"The policy section called WP:ONUS"? I object to that generally, the policy section is not called "WP:ONUS", it is called "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". Indeed, these SHOUTYONEWORDS do more damage than good. WP:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion is much less confusing that trying to hijack a word for a policy section. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

This doesn't answer your question, but I don't think that's the definition we want. I think we want the broader definition #1 found in American Heritage dictionary.[4] I totally agree that the shortcut word "ONUS" does more damage than good. I would like to see it at least removed from the shortcut box. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

If the wiktionary definition is not the best, improve it. The shortcut box is called a WP:LINKBOX. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

That's probably close enough to #5 on the Wiktionary page, but I don't think that we can link to a specific line on that page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the point of confusion is whether the word onus in that sentence is supposed to be the plain English meaning or the SHOUTYONEWORD of the same name. Since it is not a word that many editors encounter in their day-to-day lives, they might be inclined to assume the latter unless specifically told not to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there any claim of anybody being confused by the corollary sentence? (In comparison, I think there is plenty of evidence of confusion surrounding WP:ONUS, with no hint that the cause of confusion is on this page.) —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)