 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: All editors should always work towards building consensus. |
In Wikipedia, as in many other team activities, there are times when it's tempting to seek a draw rather than a result.
In some team sport competitions, this is seen as not in the best interests of the sport. Fans and sponsors like a result. In others, even in other competitions in the same sport, it is an accepted and even commendable tactic in the right circumstances.
Wikipedia is different. To actively seek a no consensus decision is always behaviour to be avoided.
Why to play for a draw
editIn Wikipedia, there is no good reason to play for a draw. However there are some discussions in which it can be a successful tactic.
Such discussions most often arise in connection with move or deletion requests. In any such discussion, there is a default position, a result that is the effect of lack of consensus. The rules that cover these situations are quite complex, but those who know them can use a lack of consensus to achieve the result that they themselves favour.
Why not to play for a draw
editQuite simply, lack of consensus is not consensus. The aim of all talk pages is to build consensus.
A no consensus decision is always unfortunate and undesirable. It means that there are valid concerns or arguments that have not been answered.
It may even be (and hopefully is) that the better course of action is the result, but choosing this action by a no consensus result leaves doubt as to this, and a greater likelihood that the result may be challenged and even overturned.