Battlestar Wiki:Consensus - Revision history

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: Text replacement - "[[Image:" to "[[File:"

2025-06-24T20:13:46Z

Text replacement - "[[Image:" to "[[File:"

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:13, 24 June 2025
Line 7:		Line 7:

	__TOC__		__TOC__
	<!-- [[~~Image~~:Consensus new and old.svg\|thumb\|right\|400px\|Wikipedia consensus process flowchart.]] -->		<!-- [[File:Consensus new and old.svg\|thumb\|right\|400px\|Wikipedia consensus process flowchart.]] -->

	== Reasonable consensus-building ==		== Reasonable consensus-building ==

LIMAFOX76: BW:CON actually redirects to Battlestar Wiki:Consision

2019-11-11T17:49:14Z

BW:CON actually redirects to Battlestar Wiki:Consision

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:49, 11 November 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Proposed Policy\|shortcut=~~BW:CON~~}}		{{Proposed Policy\|shortcut=Consensus}}

	''Battlestar Wiki'' works by building '''consensus'''. Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process. The basic process works like this: someone makes an edit to a page, and then everyone who reads the page makes a decision to either leave the page as it is or change it. Over time, every edit that remains on a page, in a sense, has the unanimous approval of the community (or at least everyone who has looked the page). "Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus — somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it. Most of the time consensus is reached as a natural product of the editing process.		''Battlestar Wiki'' works by building '''consensus'''. Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process. The basic process works like this: someone makes an edit to a page, and then everyone who reads the page makes a decision to either leave the page as it is or change it. Over time, every edit that remains on a page, in a sense, has the unanimous approval of the community (or at least everyone who has looked the page). "Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus — somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it. Most of the time consensus is reached as a natural product of the editing process.

LIMAFOX76: Adding FR link

2019-11-11T14:01:26Z

Adding FR link

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:01, 11 November 2019
Line 31:		Line 31:

	To compensate for this, people first simply check if the criterion of supermajority is achieved, and on that basis make a first order assumption on how close one is to rough consensus.		To compensate for this, people first simply check if the criterion of supermajority is achieved, and on that basis make a first order assumption on how close one is to rough consensus.
			[[fr:Battlestar Wiki:Consensus]]

Shane at 15:35, 21 February 2007

2007-02-21T15:35:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:35, 21 February 2007
Line 7:		Line 7:

	__TOC__		__TOC__
	M!-- [[Image:Consensus new and old.svg\|thumb\|right\|400px\|Wikipedia consensus process flowchart.]] -->		<!-- [[Image:Consensus new and old.svg\|thumb\|right\|400px\|Wikipedia consensus process flowchart.]] -->

	== Reasonable consensus-building ==		== Reasonable consensus-building ==

Shane: /* Consensus vs. other policies */

2007-02-21T15:35:00Z

Consensus vs. other policies

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:35, 21 February 2007
Line 17:		Line 17:

	== Consensus vs. other policies ==		== Consensus vs. other policies ==
	It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with the consensus on how to do things on a wider scale - especially [[BW:NPOV\|the neutral point of view (NPOV)]]. At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate what appears to be support for a version of the article that is actually inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving [[Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View#Undue weight\|undue weight]] to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus.		It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with the consensus on how to do things on a wider scale - especially [[BW:NPOV\|the neutral point of view (NPOV)]]. At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate what appears to be support for a version of the article that is actually inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View#Undue weight\|undue weight]] to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus.

	==Consensus in practice==		==Consensus in practice==

Shane: + save

2007-02-21T15:34:00Z

+ save

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:34, 21 February 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Proposed Policy}}		{{Proposed Policy\|shortcut=BW:CON}}

			''Battlestar Wiki'' works by building '''consensus'''. Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process. The basic process works like this: someone makes an edit to a page, and then everyone who reads the page makes a decision to either leave the page as it is or change it. Over time, every edit that remains on a page, in a sense, has the unanimous approval of the community (or at least everyone who has looked the page). "Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus — somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it. Most of the time consensus is reached as a natural product of the editing process.

			When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus. If we find that a particular consensus happens often, we write it down as a [[Battlestar Wiki:Guideline\|guideline]], to save people the time having to discuss the same principles over and over.
			Normally consensus on conflicts are reached via discussion on [[Help:Talk page\|talk pages]].

			__TOC__
			M!-- [[Image:Consensus new and old.svg\|thumb\|right\|400px\|Wikipedia consensus process flowchart.]] -->

			== Reasonable consensus-building ==
			Consensus works best when all editors make a [[Battlestar Wiki:Assume good faith\|good faith]] effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the many views on the subject.

			It is difficult to specify exactly what constitutes a reasonable or rational position. Good editors acknowledge that positions opposed to their own may be reasonable. However, stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice. (Note that in the rare case if the "eccentric" position turns out to have merit, the consensus can change.)

			Even if an editor's contributions appear to be biased, keep in mind that their edits may have been made in good faith, out of a genuine desire to improve the article. Editors ''must'', in almost all situations, [[BW:AGF\|assume good faith]] and must always remain [[BW:CIVIL\|civil]].

			== Consensus vs. other policies ==
			It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with the consensus on how to do things on a wider scale - especially [[BW:NPOV\|the neutral point of view (NPOV)]]. At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate what appears to be support for a version of the article that is actually inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving [[Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View#Undue weight\|undue weight]] to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus.

			==Consensus in practice==
			Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome. The following description of consensus, from the ''Wikipedia'' [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/026513.html mailing list], argues a difference between consensus and unanimity:
			<blockquote>
			In fact WP's standard way of operating is a rather good illustration of what it does mean: a mixture across the community of those who are largely agreed, some who disagree but 'agree to disagree' without disaffection, those who don't agree but give low priority to the given issue, those who disagree strongly but concede that there is a community view and respect it on that level, some vocal and unreconciled folk, some who operate 'outside the law'. You find out whether you have consensus, if not unanimity, when you try to build on it.
			</blockquote>

			Note: In disputes, the term ''consensus'' is often used as if it means anything from ''genuine consensus'' to ''majority rule'' to ''my position''; it is not uncommon to see both sides in an [[Battlestar Wiki:Edit war\|edit war]] claiming a consensus for its version of the article.

			== Consensus vs. supermajority ==
			While the most important part of consensus-building is to thoroughly discuss and consider all issues, it is often difficult for all members in a discussion to come to a single conclusion. In activities such as [[Battlestar Wiki:Requests for adminship\|Requests for Adminship]], articles for deletion or requested moves, consensus-building can be unwieldy due to the fact that more people participate than can effectively cooperate. These processes may have been somewhat misdesigned, in that they have not scaled cleanly. As a result, it is sometimes hard to determine what the consensus is in such processes.

			To compensate for this, people first simply check if the criterion of supermajority is achieved, and on that basis make a first order assumption on how close one is to rough consensus.

Shane at 02:36, 12 October 2006

2006-10-12T02:36:42Z

New page