Wikipedia:EDITCONSENSUS

Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus, which is accepted as the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals, i.e., the five pillars. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all ors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

This policy describes how consensus is understood on Wikipedia, how to determine whether it has been achieved (and how to proceed if it has not), and describes exceptions to the principle that all decisions are made by consensus.

Achieving consensus[]

Editors usually reach consensus as a natural process. After one changes a page, others who read it can choose whether or not to further . When ors do not reach agreement by ing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus.

A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal.

Through ing[]

Image of a process flowchart. The start symbol is labeled "Previous consensus" with an arrow pointing to "Edit", then to a decision symbol labeled "Was the article ed further?". From this first decision, "no" points to an end symbol labeled "New consensus". "Yes" points to another decision symbol labeled "Do you agree?". From this second decision, "yes" points to the "New Consensus" end symbol. "No" points to "Seek a compromise", then back to the previously mentioned "Edit", thus making a loop.
A simplified diagram of how consensus is reached. When an is made, other ors may either accept it, change it, or revert it. Seek a compromise means "attempt to find a generally acceptable solution", either through continued ing or through discussion.

Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly. An has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Should another or revise that then the new will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement. In this way, the encyclopedia gradually improves over time.

All s should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page. Substantive, informative explanations indicate what issues need to be addressed in subsequent efforts to reach consensus. Explanations are especially important when reverting another or's good-faith work.

Except in cases affected by content policies or guidelines, most disputes over content may be resolved through minor changes rather than taking an all-or-nothing position. If your first is reverted, try to think of a compromise that addresses the other or's concerns. If you can't, or if you do and your second is reverted, create a new section on the associated talk page to discuss the dispute.

Be bold, but not rash. Whether changes come through ing or through discussion, the encyclopedia is best improved through collaboration and consensus, not through combat and capitulation. Repeated reversions are contrary to Wikipedia policy under warring, except for specific policy-based material (such as BLP exceptions) and for reversions of vandalism. This is true even if ors are using summaries to "discuss" the dispute every time they revert.

Through discussion[]

When agreement cannot be reached through ing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: ors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution. Consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia; it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise—with the understanding that the page is gradually improving—than to try to fight to implement a particular preferred version immediately.

When ors have a particularly difficult time reaching a consensus, several processes are available for consensus-building (third opinions, dispute resolution noticeboard, requests for comment), and even more extreme processes that will take authoritative steps to end the dispute (administrator intervention, arbitration). Keep in mind, however, that administrators are primarily concerned with policy and or behavior and will not decide content issues authoritatively. They may block ors for behaviors that interfere with the consensus process (such as -warring, abuse of multiple accounts, or a lack of civility). They may also make decisions about whether s are or are not allowable under policy, but will not usually go beyond such actions.

Consensus-building[]

Editors who maintain a neutral, detached, and civil attitude can usually reach consensus on an article through the process described above. They may still occasionally find themselves at an impasse, either because they cannot find rational grounds to settle a dispute or because one or both sides of the discussion become emotionally or ideologically invested in winning an argument. What follows are suggestions for resolving intractable disputes, along with descriptions of several formal and informal processes that may help.

In talk pages[]

In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.

Limit article talk page discussions to discussion of sources, article focus, and policy. If an is challenged, or is likely to be challenged, ors should use talk pages to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia. Consensus can be assumed if no ors object to a change. Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive ing and incur sanctions. Consensus cannot always be assumed simply because ors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated.

The goal of a consensus-building discussion is to resolve disputes in a way that reflects Wikipedia's goals and policies while angering as few ors as possible. Editors with good social skills and good negotiation skills are more likely to be successful than those who are less than civil to others.

By soliciting outside opinions[]

When talk page discussions fail—generally because two ors (or two groups of ors) simply cannot see eye to eye on an issue—Wikipedia has several established processes to attract outside ors to offer opinions. This is often useful to break simple, good-faith deadlocks, because uninvolved ors can bring in fresh perspectives, and can help involved ors see middle ground that they cannot see for themselves. The main resources for this are as follows:

Third opinion (3O)
A neutral third party will give non-binding advice on the dispute. Reserved for cases where exactly two ors are in dispute.
Noticeboards
Most policy and guideline pages, and many wikiprojects, have noticeboards for interested ors. Posting a neutrally worded notice of the dispute on applicable noticeboards will make the dispute more visible to other ors who may have worthwhile opinions.
Dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)
For disputes involving more than two parties, moderators help the parties come to consensus by suggesting analysis, critiques, compromises, or mediation, but generally limited to simple disputes which can quickly be resolved.
Requests for comment (RfC)
Placement of a formal neutrally worded notice on the article talk page inviting others to participate which is transcluded onto RfC noticeboards.
Village pump
Neutrally worded notification of a dispute here also may bring in additional ors who may help.

Many of these discussions will involve polls of one sort or another; but as consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight.

Administrative or community intervention[]

In some cases, disputes are personal or ideological rather than mere disagreements about content, and these may require the intervention of administrators or the community as a whole. Sysops will not rule on content, but may intervene to enforce policy (such as WP:Biographies of living persons) or to impose sanctions on ors who are disrupting the consensus process. Sometimes merely asking for an administrator's attention on a talk page will suffice; as a rule, sysops have large numbers of pages watchlisted, and there is a likelihood that someone will see it and respond. However, there are established resources for working with intransigent ors, as follows:

Noticeboards
As noted previously, policy pages generally have noticeboards, and many administrators watch them.
Administrators' noticeboard of incidents and general Administrators' noticeboard
These are noticeboards for administrators. They are high-volume noticeboards and should be used sparingly. Use AN for issues that need eyes but may not need immediate action; use ANI for more pressing issues. Do not use either except at need.
Requests for arbitration
The final step for intractable disputes. The Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) may rule on almost any behavioral or policy-interpretation aspect of a dispute, and has broad powers in its decisions. ArbCom does not settle content disputes or change policy.

Pitfalls and errors[]

The following are common mistakes made by ors when trying to build consensus:

Determining consensus[]

Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.

Levels of consensus[]

Consensus among a limited group of ors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. WikiProject advice pages, how-to and information pages, and template documentation pages have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process, thus have no more status than an essay.

Wikipedia has a standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines. Their stability and consistency are important to the community. Accordingly, ors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change. Bold changes are rarely welcome on policy pages. Improvements to policy are best made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others.

No consensus[]

"No consensus" occurs when good faith discussion results in no consensus to take or not take an action. What happens next depends on the context:

Consensus can change[]

Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive.

Editors may propose a consensus change by discussion or ing. That said, in most cases, an or who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion. Editors who revert a change proposed by an should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing or (or, if you do use such terse explanations, it is helpful to also include a link to the discussion where the consensus was formed).

Decisions not subject to consensus of ors[]

Certain policies and decisions made by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), its officers, and the Arbitration Committee of Wikipedia are outside the purview of or consensus. This does not constitute an exhaustive list as much as a reminder that the decisions taken under this project apply only to the workings of the self-governing community of English Wikipedia.

See also[]

For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard.

Information pages and Wikipedia essays concerning consensus:

Articles concerning consensus: