Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements/Consensus seeking processes
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements/Consensus seeking processes page. |
|
Concensus can change
edit... but some sort of mechanism for "calling the question", at least "for now", would be a very very good thing. I'd rather see punctuated equilibrium than constant not quite consensus... We have a large number of matters that seem to drag on interminably because there is no crisp way to bring closure. I urge serious consideration of the proposals put forth on the page and subsequent adoption of something that addresses this. Of course, reaching consensus about consensus process itself is rather tricky but we really should. (note that I was involved in one prior "drive around" the consensus process as a result of the roads arbitration case... I don't recommend that approach, it swings things too far the other way) ++Lar: t/c 15:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm worried that any actions to bring a "crisper" definition to "consensus" move the term further away from the intention and more towards a bureaucratic, algorithmic, vote. Consensus is greater than the sum of the votes; while what we have now may be a tad too amorphous, I think its spirit is more in line with wiki than an astringent algorithm would be. -- Avi (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Nod. I don't necessarily advocate a rules laden thing but some sort of "can we call the question now" notion might be helpful. "punctuated equilibrium"... evaluate consensus, have it stick for a while, then revisit, not a continuous long running debate that never closes. ++Lar: t/c 18:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- DRV often functions in a "deciding if we are done with the process of deciding" role, in large part because many DRV regulars have been enculturated to make their DRV decision largely based on whether or not the discussion is done. If we agree that more discussion is needed, we toss the case to AFD. Thus the DRV instructions say effectively "if significant new relevant information has come to light, opine relist so that it can be considered in the proper venue". This works with a small sub-community as a core (including almost all the closers) plus an ever fluctating group of topically oriented editors opining and commenting on specific matters. This is explicitly the attitude that Xoloz taught me, and I try to pass it on to the new DRV regulars. It was acceptable even for badlydrawnjeff, who was in his prime the most active inclusionist at DRV. If you set up a new venue with that sort of culture, this has possibilities. GRBerry 20:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Nod. I don't necessarily advocate a rules laden thing but some sort of "can we call the question now" notion might be helpful. "punctuated equilibrium"... evaluate consensus, have it stick for a while, then revisit, not a continuous long running debate that never closes. ++Lar: t/c 18:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
more is needed
editI suppose this might be a good first step, but really, the problem goes way deeper. There is no agreement on what the word "consensus" means. It is game-able in the extreme. If you have more votes, you can claim consensus. If you have less votes you can discount other votes as suspected socks, single purpose accounts, giving invalid reasons, or even simply claim that since a mere majority is not the definition of consensus there is no consensus. We need to rethink this from square one. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Types of topics
editWhat are some types of topics where this is a currently problem. Some may merit different approaches. I'm putting a numbered list right below this comment. Please add to it with one-two line descriptions, put any extended commentary further down. GRBerry 20:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Merges - AFD can recommend, sometimes gets appealed to DRV but DRV won't review merge versus keep GRBerry 20:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Policy discussions... consider this one (warning, there's a lot to read and not in just the section jumped to!) [1] ... a bit of a mess there. ++Lar: t/c 21:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- This may be a stretch, but what about long-term politically (or religiously or sexually or socially or any other strongly-felt human emotion based topic) charged slow edit wars where each side is sure that they have achieved a consensus, and the other side has not. -- Avi (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Discussions concerning the status of policies/guidelines/essays/miscellany. — xDanielx T/C\R 04:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Notorious XfDs with long histories, which bounce back and forth between XfD and DRV. — xDanielx T/C\R 04:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Typo that completely changes meaning of section
edit{{editprotected}}
Very first sentence of this section: I thought the process was "Bold, revert, discuss".... Or did we change it because of all the cruft? ;) --Jaysweet (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have corrected it. Davewild (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)