Wikipedia talk:Method for consensus building

draft proposal: Method for consensus building

We know there's a decline in participation. The Wall Street Journal put it on the front page. A WikiMedia Strategy task force is looking at improving consensus-building processes. So this proposal is WP:BOLD but based on a premise of a known critical need. What do we need to do to achieve this? Ikluft (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice templates!

I really love the templates! Nice job! --JokerXtreme (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! This is potentially a big change, even though it's trying to keep it simple too. So I expected that the idea needed to be developed enough to be presentable, and something tangible for discussion and experimentation. Starting with vague suggestions would have gotten this nowhere. For the look of the templates, a lot of credit goes to the volunteers who made the {{tmbox}} template and the commons:Crystal Clear icons. Ikluft (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, we always use tools invented by others, it's not wise to re-invent the wheel:P But, yeah, the graphic designer did a great job too, still if you hadn't use them, they would remain in obscurity. I hope this project works out, cheers :) --JokerXtreme (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice comments. And thanks for the barnstar! Much appreciated. Ikluft (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Too complicated

Sorry, but I don't think this will work. I don't think it will be tried. For one thing, people shouldn't need to learn templates just to engage in discussion.

On the other hand, your aim of dealing "spoilers" is good. Maybe that could be developed some other way. Maurreen (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• That's why the message box templates all offer help. It should be possible to participate immediately and learn by seeing others use them. Much of the learning curve of Wikipedia is that way anyway. There is room for improvement on the help offered in each template too. Ikluft (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm taking that feedback seriously too. I added a new navbox {{Method for consensus building}} to Wikipedia:Method for consensus building all the template docs pages to help navigate among them. Ikluft (talk) 04:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I appreciate the effort, but I think we'll agree to disagree. Maurreen (talk) 05:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
      • OK. I still think your comment prompted a useful improvement in the article and template docs. So it's friendly disagreement. :-) Ikluft (talk) 05:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Thanks. Glad I could help. :) Maurreen (talk) 05:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Related

I had been away from WP for a few years, and I'm wondering about something. Maybe you can fill me in. WP has processes for dispute resolution. But it seems like there might be some gaps.

1. WP:DR is focused on content and user conduct. But what about issues such as policy development? They don't seem to be addressed.
2. Is the expression "dispute resolution" the best expression? That is, "dispute resolution" indicates adversarial relationship. Maybe there's a better approach. I realize adversarial relationships often occur and need help. But sometimes a discussion is just messy and needs help, and there is no antagonism.

What do you think? Maurreen (talk) 05:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Templates need wider discussion

The community has repeatedly rejected the use of support/oppose templates with icons like these. See the original TFD discussion. There have been other discussions and several different incarnations of the templates, all deleted. This should be discussed further before people are encouraged to use them in discussions. Mr.Z-man 06:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The one discussion took place in 2005 and the other in 2008. We can safely assume consensus might have changed since then. Besides, what's wrong with having a visual aid in finding out consensus? --JokerXtreme (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this page is partly intended to engender such a discussion. Maurreen (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

@JokerXtreme, it didn't change during the 3.5 years between those 2 discussions, I don't see how one can safely assume that given that the last discussion (that I can find) was less than a year and a half ago. This has been repeatedly discussed and the same conclusion has been reached every time. In addition to the 2 I linked to earlier - July 2008 DRV, October 2007 TFD, July 2006 TFD, September 2008 DRV, January 2009 DRV.

@Maurreen, it might be, but until I changed it a few hours ago, it just encouraged people to use them, and until now there really hasn't been any discussion. By discussion I mean there needs to be a clear consensus that the community wants these before they are used. Mr.Z-man 21:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Does this have to do with "voting is evil" or is it simply a usability issue? --JokerXtreme (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

From what I've read, they seem to be taking too many of the resources. Isn't there a way to store the images client-side? --JokerXtreme (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The idea of a small set of small icons being a significant drain on server or client resources is a holdover from an early to mid 1990's mentality. That idea was already obsolete a decade ago and is positively ancient in 2010. Remember, the web browser only accesses each image once and caches it, usually for days or weeks. Corporate and ISP web caches may already have a copy too. Such accesses won't be repeated, or will be quickly satisfied by an "if modified since" request, until the icons expire in the browser and corporate/ISP caches. A more realistic matter today is to clean the viruses, worms and spyware off of Windows boxes, in case anyone expressing that concern is experiencing performance issues. Ikluft (talk) 10:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That was also pointed out back in the original discussion. There other arguments against the templates. Mr.Z-man 12:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• This is about much more than just support/oppose templates. Read the essay. It's a proposal for how to apply expert recommendations on consensus-building techniques. A number of the recommendations are derived from the book "Breaking Robert's Rules: The new way to run your meeting, build consensus and get results" by Susskind and Cruikshank (linked via Wikipedia ISBN tool) and also from my experience developing online meeting procedures for a non-profit corporation board. Improvement in Wikipedia's broken consensus process has been identified by the Wikimedia Strategy Wiki as a necessary step for the health of this online community. See "Outline: improve consensus-building processes". After all, the ongoing and long-term health of the Wikipedia community has to be a major concern during the current precipitous decline in participation. So, what's going on with this proposal? It's going to be a few days before I have time to write up some more ideas related to the addition of link anchors to some of the message box templates (the ones which have titles). This could lead to a variant of the consensus-building method proposal which has templates which may be all-text or lighter graphics, using the idea of subsection titles as link anchors the same way they're in these templates. The idea will need more discussion and experimentation. I still think the templates with some form of links to instructions will be necessary in order to make this acceptable to newcomers and old-timers alike. Ikluft (talk) 10:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  • How is something that the community has consistently rejected for nearly 5 years going to make it "acceptable" for the "old-timers"? If you want to get consensus to use the templates, that's fine. But the page was telling people to ignore a long-standing consensus based on no discussion whatsoever, which is not acceptable for a proposal. Mr.Z-man 12:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
    • There is nowhere on the page that it recommends ignoring anything. Ikluft (talk) 05:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, there was a recommendation before. Someone else must have put it. Although, I see nothing wrong with that and in fact I'm using some templates already. --JokerXtreme (talk) 08:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

        The recommendation. Mr.Z-man 17:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I've nominated the templates for deletion, the discussion is here. Mr.Z-man 17:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• That was a very effective move making that nomination while I was too busy to look at Wikipedia. Oh well. I knew that any proposed change to Wikipedia's consensus building process was going to meet some resistance. But revision of that consensus building process is what Wikipedia needs to survive. I draw the line at deleting this work. So I will abandon my effort to help Wikipedia save itself. And I really don't see much motivation to continue to contribute after this. Ikluft (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Please assume good faith. People edit at different times of the day. There was no ulterior motive for the time I chose to make the nomination; it just happened to be the time that I was online. I didn't ask for it to be closed early. If you think these templates are so critical to building consensus, why can you get consensus before using them? The unwillingness here to get consensus for something that's supposed to encourage consensus building just boggles my mind. Mr.Z-man 19:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Your deletion of so much of this work while it was still in the discussion stage is apparently much more discouraging than you realize. I knew that any change to Wikipedia would be an uphill thing. Before I started, I had set the limit of what I would accept at deletion of this proposal or a significant part of it. That line has been crossed - my decision to give up is more or less automatic as a result. I give up trying to help Wikipedia since this was a last-ditch effort to improve on what is so unsatisfying about it. If you shoot down everything where anyone is trying to help, Wikipedia's current precipitous decline cannot possibly be abated. Ikluft (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
      • It was not "in the discussion stage" - I posted here before nominating them for deletion in the hope that people would be willing to discuss it with the wider community before using them. When it became evident that that wasn't going to happen, I took the next step. Mr.Z-man 19:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Changed from brainstorming proposal to essay

I see this wasn't deleted or rejected during the year and a half that I was away. Others have actually added links and done some tidying. I made clarifications so this does not depend on the deleted templates. I changed the heading from a brainstorming stage proposal to an essay. As discussions come up where these are appropriate to use, I'll see how well the embedded instruction links work for getting others to use them as well. Others are also encouraged to do so. Let's see what usage it gets just from spreading it around. Ikluft (talk) 03:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Reading this literally, I find it contravenes policy. Specifically, NPOV says small-minority views should not be mentioned in the article, but you won't get consensus, as defined in this essay, to do that if a proponent of such a view is editing. Peter jackson (talk) 11:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

If WP:NPOV was an issue in any given article's content, any editor would be able to bring that up on the talk page or simply remove the offending text. As things are right now, a small minority can simply refuse to cooperate and block a discussion by outlasting their opponents. This method allows a way to reach consensus even when there is one or a small group of spoilers. So on that point, it would perform as well or better than current methods. Ikluft (talk) 07:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

One thing which could be simplified

I am new to this process, but I think it could be simplified.

Why not combine these two steps, and then "loop over them":

• "Editor posts a position"
• "Editor posts a proposed resolution"

Example: There is only one step called "Editor posts a proposed resolution" and then all are iterating over this step. This would simplify the flow chart (image on the right side), too.

What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guettli (talk • contribs) 05:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Time to remove the templates section (or mark it historical)

I think the essay is useful AND I’d like to see the historical/rejected template section and its references in the sections that precede it removed or marked historical. —¿philoserf? (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)