Wikipedia talk:Silence does not imply consent when drafting new policies

Name change

I would support this essay. There seems to be some underlying problem that I'm missing, though. I never liked the "silence equals support" thing. Probably a better name exists, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree the name doesn't represent the essay's true value. I haven't been able to come up with a better one yet, at least not a practical one ("WP:Silence does not equal consensus when drafting new policies" seems rather cumbersome). If anyone has any suggestions please don't hesitate. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:06, 6 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I take it back, "WP:Silence does not imply consent when drafting new policies" seems concise enough. I'm going to make that move. Forgive me for doing it rather hastily but I think the title of this essay has caused so many problems that getting it changed is the biggest priority. If anyone has objections please do state them, but I'm going to go ahead with the move for now. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:18, 6 Feb 2009 (UTC)

"WP:Silence not editorial consent" ? -- Fyslee (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought of something along those lines, but that implies that it applies to all discussions rather than just to the promotion of new policies, which I don't think is the point of the essay. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:32, 7 Feb 2009 (UTC)

True enough, but isn't it therefore also true for policies? Maybe this is limited to policies, but it could be expanded to apply to all editing. Whatever... -- Fyslee (talk) 07:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it could be changed that way. It's not what the original author intended, but if that's what everyone wants to do then sure. An across-the-board "silence does not imply consent" essay would certainly stir things up around here (as if we need more of that :) ). It'd probably also seem more relevant to the general community and gain more support. I think there are likely to be lots of people who aren't crazy about "silence implies support" being the standard by which important decisions are handled. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:44, 7 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Let me share my thoughts on this. I think that having "silence does not imply consent" as a general rule would slow down changes within wikipedia and articles. Having a "wide consensus" as a general rule for editing would also slow down changes for articles, and I am not sure how useful it would be. Almost any change could be opposed with "prove a wide consensus". (edit. not that I would not like a wide consensus on everything, just don't know how feasible it would be)

The initial problem that I encountered was specific to the rule making process -- few people would label something a guideline and start imposing it on others claiming consensus, when in reality most editors didn't even know about a "guideline" and could not therefore contribute to consensus. Wide consensus requirement from this page has a purpose to make sure people have found out about the proposal so that they could provide an input, whatever that input may be. Further assumption is that if community has become aware of the proposal/guideline/policy, there will probably be enough editors of diverse opinions watching the page in the future, so that even smaller changes will be discussed by a "real sample" of the community consensus editors.

I personally think that "wide consensus" requirement in every occasion would be a too bureaucratic requirement in itself.

I am not sure about "silence does not imply consent" though. But you can see the difference between these two, and they both are required in rule making in wp:nomore.

ps. on articles, little wider consensus can already be achieved by RfC and similar actions, well, if you make sure that "silence does not imply consent"...

212.200.240.232 (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Another note. Rules affect how we can edit Wikipedia, and therefore we should be asked whether we agree with new rule that will affect us. "Silence is not consent" is I think necessary there. Simply posting a thread at VP once should not be enough, as most editors may simply miss to see it. Articles on the other hand do not affect how we can edit, and therefore I am not sure whether someone should "ask" me about and wait until s(he) gets an answer, even though I may not be interested in the subject, say Roman history? 212.200.240.232 (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Anon, why not edit under your real user name? Edits to this page, which show a strong grasp of wikipedia bureaucracy, were this anon's very first edits. Ikip (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Because it is my personal preference, and also one of fundamental "philosophies" of this project [1]. I would actually like to see everyone edit anonymously. I would never even create a username if it was not needed at one point for creating articles, but I'm not creating them any more, so i don't need a username... now since you asked me this for the second time, i will give you more elaborate reply on your page... 212.200.240.232 (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Your argument for anonymity is so convincing, that I was planning to refactor out these comments, but you have already responded. You are welcome to delete my two comments and your response if you wish. Ikip (talk) 10:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If he had deleted them. I would not have read them. :-)

I agree with 212.200's position entirely. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I like this essay

It sums up something which has come up several times in various guises when trying to establish, demote or significantly change new policies or guidelines. I think we should keep this around for a while; I would support adding something like this to WP:Policy, as well.--Aervanath (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It already is in WP:CONSENSUS, and here I suggested clarification is made in WP:POLICY too. 212.200.240.232 (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

An interesting opinion

But not really true. Most of our policies came about through documenting existing best practices. If something is our best practice then that is what our policy should reflect. Silence on the issue does not negate that fact. Chillum 00:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

does this include changes to already existing policies...

...or does it only refer to the creation of new policies? Charles35 (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised this question was even asked. Why would one ever consider that it did not? A silent consensus is not a true consensus. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)