 | 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: Let us call a spade a spade. Although I do not know what to call this :P |
Consensus - what it means and how practical it is
editBy definition, consensus is an "Agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole". That is, consensus is achieved by a group on it's own, through discussion and by addressing various concerns raised by the opponents of a process. Or as our own Wikipedia article on consensus states, "Instead of one opinion being adopted by a plurality, stakeholders are brought together (often with facilitation) until a convergent decision is developed" and "they work together to achieve agreements based on willing consent". I have read somewhere that a group can be said to have achieved consensus when there is absolutely no dissent to a given proposal or solution, which I think is an apt summary.
Why this definition of consensus is impractical: We, by our very different natures, are incapable of totally agreeing with each other all the time. Thus consensus building in practice is time-taking and might not always be successful. Consensus building, by definition, requires that both supporters and opposers are convinced by each others' arguments and find a mutually acceptable solution. But often views are so divergent as to make such an agreement impossible. Either the proponent or the opponent has so much conviction in his or her beliefs that he or she is unwilling to "dilute" (as perceived by him or her) their version of the solution. In addition, consensus-building assumes a certain amount of logical competence, complete good faith and total objectivity on the part of all the participants, which are often not true in practice.
Wiki-consensus
editBecause we can not (or do not want to) spend endless hours trying to build a consensus for such trivialities as insert your favorite non-topic here, and because we can not ensure such logical competence, good faith and total objectivity in every user, Wikipedia has apparently evolved its own version of what is purportedly a consensus mechanism, where only a majority needs to be in agreement for a proposal to achieve "consensus", i.e., there is no necessity for unanimous consent over the final decision.
On WP, we have an administrator (or bureaucrat in the case of RfAs) acting not just as Facilitator and Timekeeper but also as someone who "determines" consensus. Because of this god-like role that befalls the admin or crat, they are expected to be uninvolved in the actual discussion and are supposed to come in only after all the arguments are made. This is a major departure from the conventional definition of consensus, as here, the group requires an uninvolved individual or an "outsider" not only to guide them through the mechanics of the process but also to reach a decision. Thus, in effect, it ceases to be the opinion of the group as it is colored, consciously or subconsciously by the opinion of the one who is supposed to be just an enabler of the process and an executor of the decision.
Thus we have something midway between a consensus and a vote, which makes it easier for the group to achieve "consensus" and in most cases makes it is obvious to everyone "which way the opinion lies" (which is again an inherently non-consensus concept; when consensus has been achieved, it is understood that everyone agrees with everyone else; there are no "two ways in which opinion lies"). But again, it is neither a consensus nor a vote, because in the few not-so-obvious cases, the administrator (or crat) is supposed to "weigh" each argument and judge which is valid and which is not; here is where the bias sets in. An outsider (or non-participant if you prefer, someone whose opinions or biases are never brought into the open) decides which argument is valid and which is not. And such "judgements" as to the validity of an argument are inherently biased.
WP's XfD process is the closest we get to a truly consensual decision-making process, where we have a possibility of Identification and addressing of concerns and Modification of the proposal through DRV or multiple XfDs. When it comes to RfA, bureaucrats give the appearance of a "wiki-consensus"-based decision (basically a majoritarian vote with a benevolent "overseer"), which is not always so, although it is true in most cases. In the "difficult" cases, such an appearance of wiki-consensus is kept up by the 'crat by not explaining how they arrived at that decision (which is a different matter altogether; it suffices to say that not explaining things is probably a good idea in this context, to avoid wasting a lot of time on any one decision), because such a decision is almost always arrived at by the so-called weighing of the strength / validity of an argument, which I believe is inherently biased. The RfA process as of now thus depends on total trust (or blind faith?) in the benevolent dictators, the bureaucrats.
Why do I say all this?
editSo what is the point of raking up all this? Is it just a rant?
Well, my gripe is this: why call a process something that it most certainly is not? The RfA process is neither a consensus nor a vote. It is not even a wiki-consensus. Calling it a consensus when it suits us or when we do not want a hue and cry about what could be controversial decisions is deluding ourselves. Let us call it something else. Maybe even coin a new word if necessary, for the purposes of WP. This becomes more pertinent in the case of the bureaucrats; we say on one hand that it is a consensus, a decision arrived at by the group, and on the other hand that the there is a "bureaucratic discretion". There can be no real consensus when a single individual has discretionary powers. Calling it a consensual process is a red herring, throwing us off from the fact that we are giving one individual a benevolent dictatorship effectively.
Conclusion
editI am not against the idea that admins or bureaucrats should have the discretionary powers. I just do not think it is a good idea to use the completely fallacious word "consensus" or even "wiki-consensus" to describe the process because it gives a completely opposite impression: that the admin or 'crat is just an enabler, when in fact they are much more than that. Let us give powers to people we trust but let us also make it clear (to ourselves) that we are giving those powers. So that we realize that when an admin decides on a difficult XfD or a bureaucrat decides on a difficult RfA, it is by exercising the discretionary powers (we) vested in them, not based on the apparent presence or absence of a consensus or wiki-consensus.