Talk:Consensus decision-making/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Consensus decision-making. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Attempt to delete Consensus decision-making article

Ephix recently attempted to list this article for deletion. In his reasons, he said that as the term "consensus decision-making" is a neologism and referred to the guideline WP:NEO. I have reverted this, since Ephix did not follow the policy on article deletion, WP:DEL. Bottom line is that he did not attempt to discuss this on the article talk page (or elsewhere) prior to listing it at AfD. This is a well established article on a subject of considerable interest. Many editors, including me, have spent a great deal of time collaborating on this article. It is recognized as fairly authoritative coverage of the subject. And the subject, itself, is one of interest to many people who look to Wikipedia for basic information on a given subject. There are over 180,000 uses of the term on the Internet, many books about it, and thousands of people who practice, or attempt to practice it (neologism, or not). I have suggested that Ephix discuss his concerns here. Sunray 03:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems that he doesn't like talk pages. So we'll have to spend time dealing with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consensus decision-making instead. I think it's silly - the process of getting to consensus is different from the idea of consensus (so we shouldn't merge to Consensus), and consensus decision-making is used in quite a few situations that aren't related to democracy (Quakerism is NOT a democracy; neither is the IETF), so a merge to Consensus democracy is totally inappropriate. --Alvestrand 06:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I might also add that Wikipedia is not a democracy and consensus decision-making is continually in use here. —Travis ^talk 13:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sunray that there are other avenues that should have been explored before nominating this article for deletion. Unfortunately, however, that is an all too common problem at WP:AFD. Please see our conversation on my talk page —Travis ^talk 13:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

After some discussion with TravisTX on his talk page, I think we have found a serious bug in the Wikipedia program. If, as in this case, editors collectively put in hundreds of hours collaborating on an article and someone can drive by and slap a AfD tag on it in two blinks of a gnat's eye, something is out of whack. The principle of "everything is up for discussion" is fundamental. However, there was no discussion prior to the tagging of this article. The policy on deletion was not followed. If the wrong crowd flocked to the AfD and voted for deletion, the article would be history, just like that. Something is wrong with this picture, IMHO. Sunray 15:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Consensus decision-making AfD nomination (Closed)

A question has been raised about the nomination of this article for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consensus decision-making) as to whether this is a proper nomination or if the nomination should be deleted. Specifically, what is the policy for dealing with potentially malicious AfD nominations? 17:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I am responding to this RFC myself as the wikipedian nominating this article for deletion.

Before, reconsidering my position, which I hope you will do fairly, please read any dictionary entry on the word, sit back and think about it. Then think about Wikipedia and due to the overload within it how:

article subjects are actually revolving instead of expanding on the lead paragraph.
article subjects are evolving, becoming something else due to an environment affect.

Back to the subject, consensus is a decision-making making process. No amount of the above two factors should ever change that. Consensus decision-making if you glance back at the dictionaries is clearly a neologism.

There was obviously a point mutation in the evolution of the Consensus article which lead to the creation of this double expression term.

ephix 22:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

A) You did not respond to the central point of the RfC, which was: "Is it proper to nominate an article for deletion without any previous discussion?"

B) Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

C) Consensus is a *result* of a process. Decision-making is a process.

So I guess I disagree with you on all points. --Alvestrand 04:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Alvestrand speaks my mind on this. I too, disagree with ephix on all points. The RfC asks for opinions on the following:

whether this is a proper nomination or if the nomination should be deleted?
what is the policy for dealing with potentially malicious AfD nominations?

Whether this is a proper nomination

WP:DEL is the policy governing deletion of articles. The policy, in a nutshell, states:

Deletion and undeletion are performed by administrators based on policy and guidelines, not personal likes and dislikes
There are four processes for deleting items, and one post-deletion review process
Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion

The policy sets out the requirement that other alternatives be considered before listing an article for deletion. Alternatives suggested are: Editing, merging, discussion, other projects, and archiving. None of these alternatives were explored prior to listing the article for deletion.

The policy lists reasons for deletion. These include legal issues such as copyright infringement, problems with content, advertising, lack of reliable sources, and so forth. Among the reasons given is: "newly coined neologisms" [sic]

The stated reason for listing the article for deletion was:

"controversial neologism, a google search seems to indicate that it passes WP:N but they all quote or paste from the WP article. decision making is part and parcel of Consensus even though the Suffrage system is not applied. If this is not so then there should be an article on a form of Consensus lacking any purpose in decision making, not Consensus decision-making. too bad there are already a few such as voting and polls."

Simply put, this says that the article should be deleted because the term "consensus decision-making" is a neologism, and that the term is incorrect, since as he contends in his post on this page, "consensus is a decision-making process."

Assuming that the person listing the article for deletion had explored the alternatives and had asked for discussion over his concern that consensus decision-making should not be an article because it is a neologism, we should, perhaps, consider whether the term is indeed a neologism.

Is the term "consensus decision-making" a neologism?

Neologism is defined as "A new word, expression, or usage." (American Heritage Dictionary[1])

Consider this:

The first published use of the term was, apparently, Building United Judgment: A Handbook for Consensus Decision Making, published by The Center for Conflict Resolution in Madison Wisconsin, in 1981.[2]. Hardly new.
Some organizations claim to have been using consensus decision-making much longer than that (e.g., NATO, since 1949[3]), although it is not clear whether NATO used the term prior to 1981.
The process of consensus decision-making is used by a wide variety of organizations, including governments,[4] businesses,[5] church organizations,[6] and indigenous peoples.[7]
Consensus decision-making has been the subject of scholarly articles.[8][9]

Conclusion: The term is not a neologism.

HOWEVER, WP:NEO is a guideline, not a policy. There are many Wikipedia articles that are new terms:

Few of these terms can be found in a dictionary. Does that make them any less valid as articles?

ephix states that "consensus is a decision-making making process. Not in dictionaries that I've seen. It is usually defined as "general agreement." I agree with Alvestrand. "Consensus is a *result* of a process. Decision-making is a process."

My final comment on the question of whether this article should have been listed on AfD is to reiterate: Hundreds of hours have gone into creating this article. It is reasonably well-written and very well-sourced. It is authoritative. That is not to say that it cannot, and will not, be further improved, but the changes will likely be relatively minor, as it is a mature article. In short, "Consensus decision-making" is a good example of what a Wikipedia article should be, IMO.

Since the requirements of the deletion policy were not met, and the reasons for listing the article are highly questionable, this is not a valid AfD.

what is the policy for dealing with potentially malicious AfD nominations?

WP:DEL states:

"If you disagree: Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag. Even after the page is deleted, any editor can have the page restored by any administrator simply by asking. In both cases the editor is encouraged to fix the perceived problem with the page."

Now, I admit that I had not seen this when I first saw the tag (and perhaps others missed it too). I not only deleted the tag, but I blanked the AfD page. I was advised that this caused some problems with the logs. I apologize for the blanking. I shall now do exactly as the policy advises (and no more) and remove the tag from the article ;-) Sunray 17:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

But wait, there's more. I failed to distinguish between a proposed deletion and an article for Deletion and now I'm not only confused by this complex nuance of policy and procedure, but am back to thinking that we do have a bug in the system (i.e., attempts to delete established articles). This may just be in that category. I shall restore the tag and await further discussion. Sunray 20:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed solution(s)

One possible solution to attempts to delete established articles: It has been suggested, on the article deletion page, that WP:SK could be used in such cases. The current guideline doesn't allow for this—SK can only be applied if it is a case of vandalism or the author withdraws the nomination. However, this case could be added as a criterion for SK. WP:DEL could also be modified to permit this action. Thoughts? Sunray 17:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Much ado about nothing. Determining whether an AfD nomination is "proper" or not is done through the AfD itself; a nomination by itself doesn't mean much. Nifboy 16:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Kick

Kicks the article. Wake up. No talk for five months... I think we have a duty to bring the article up-to-date i.e. documenting our own situation wouldn't be too naval-gazing would it? There is no mention of Wikipedia within this article, which essentially, imho, defines our own approach to rule.Wjhonson (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus vs. "Majority Voting"

I'd like to update the section "Consensus as an alternative to majority voting". Presumably, the debate isn't between consensus decision-making and voting but between consensus decision-making and other decision-making procedures, so I think using the term majoritarian decision-making procedures makes more sense.

The section is also very one-sided. I'd like to add claims by experts who see majority rule as a component to deliberative democracy -- a component to be preferred over unanimity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SgtSchumann (talk • contribs) 04:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure it could be better worded. Your point about deliberative democracy is an interesting but should only be mentioned in brief in this article. It seems to me that the comparison between consensus decision-making and majority rule is meant to apply primarily to either small groups or groups with a clearly specified product and goal. Beyond a certain scale, the larger the group, the harder consensus is to maintain (e.g., Wikipedia). Sunray (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm about to make changes along the lines of what I proposed several months ago. I'm making these changes according to three motivations: First, the article contains improper comparisons between decision-making procedures and voting systems (especially majority rule). Second, the article contains improper comparisons between decision rules and seat allocations rules. Third, as I noted before, the article is very one-sided. A little about some of the specific changes I'm making:

I'm changing the initial contrast between consensus decision-making and majority rule to a contrast between consensus decision-making and parliamentary procedure. If anyone decides to revert this, I recommend that you at the very least remove the link to majoritarian for the reasons I give below.
I'm removing all mention of Lijphart's distinction between majoritarian and consensual electoral systems here, because there are at least two problems with introducting the distinction to this context. First, as Anthony McGann points out, one thing that can be said about each of the "consensual" democracies that they are run by a parliament that operates by and larged by unchecked majority rule. (Yes, Belgium is a federalism, but it still puts fewer checks and balances on its majority-rule-using legislature than most other democracies.) So why not just note this? Well, the second problem is that the "majoritarian" democracies aren't called such because their legislatures use majority rule in their decision-making processes, rather they're called such because of the seat allocation rule they use. And that seat allocation rule is not even majority rule -- it's plurality. In short Lijphart's distinction here is confusing. If someone wants to include mention of it here, I recommend that they include an explanation of why it's relevant to the text of the article, rather than taking it for granted that the reader will understand.
I'm trying to provide some balance to the section that concerns consensus and majority rule, citing two works by McGann.
I'm removing the claim that consensus is the "option which enjoys the highest average preference". No one has been able to provide a citation of this since November 2007, and I don't think they ever will, because I doubt anything like this has ever been proven. However, in 1977 Straffin did show that majority rule is the decision rule that maximizes responsiveness to individual preferences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SgtSchumann (talk • contribs) 17:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality, Factual Accuracy, and Self-published Sources

This article suffers from serious problems. Perhaps the biggest is that it rests on a package deal. Namely, it fails to distinguish among the following:

consensus decision-making
consensus (as an outcome)
good deliberation practice

Here are some of the unfortunate consequences of this:

The section "What is consensus decision-making?" doesn't tell us what consensus decision-making is. Instead it more or less lists the desiderata of deliberation.
There's information about the Vatican's group decision-making process, even though this process isn't consensus decision-making.
Juries are cited as examples of polities that use consensus decision-making, even though the only non-controversial claim we can make about juries is that they strive for consensus (i.e. the outcome).

And so on.

Undoubtedly this problem is in no small part due to the fact that the vast majority of references are to article written by people who aren't experts in any relevant field, and the article reflects the shortsightedness of the polemic found in these works. In my opinion the best remedy is to delete the article. Short of that, the bulk of it needs to be rewritten.

-- SgtSchumann (talk) 04:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, let me say that I appreciate the work you have done in revising the article with respect to distinctions between consensus and majority voting. I also share many of your concerns about the article, which suffers (as many articles do) from drive by editing. I think that it is important to bear in mind that while the main editors of the article (of which I am one), may have had a coherent view when they wrote it, but have not been able to control all the content added. To do so would be to become little more than a police officer.

So let's deal with your concerns. I think it would be helpful for you to give some specific examples of problems. That includes specific examples of where consensus is mixed up with consensus decision-making all the way through to the use of self-published sources. Self-published sources are not forbidden, but must be considered on a case-by-case basis. Consensus decision-making suffers from a lack of quality academic sources, so we often have to take what we can get. But no doubt, they could stand some pruning and upgrading. Not everything needs to be reviewed here. For example, the Vatican example will disappear about one minute from now. Sunray (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and your recognition that the article has problems. Before I give specific examples of problems let me say that I've realized that there's another problem with the article: There doesn't seem to be a consistent definition of consensus decision-making. In some cases it's treated as though unanimity is necessarily the decision rule, whereas in other cases it isn't. I mention this, because in many cases it's not clear whether the writer has confused the process with the outcome or has confused two mutually exclusive definitions of consensus decision-making.

And now the examples:

From the section "What is consensus decision-making?": "The word 'consensus' derives from the Latin con meaning 'with' or 'together with', and sentire meaning to 'think' or 'feel'. Thus, etymologically, 'consensus' means to 'think or feel together'." I think this would be more appropriate to a discussion about consensus qua outcome. (Of course given that the writer seems to be committing what D. A. Carson calls the root fallacy, I think we're better off omitting it from both articles.)
From the section "Consensus as an alternative to procedures that use majority rule": "Finally, advocates of consensus frequently state that a majority decision reduces the commitment of each individual decision-maker to the decision." This would not be the case under "non-unanimous consensus".
From the section "The process of consensus decision-making": "Each member of the group usually must actively state their agreement with the proposal, often by using a hand gesture or raising a colored card, to avoid the group interpreting silence or inaction as agreement. This would not be the case if the decision rule used were simple unanimity.
From the section "When consensus cannot be reached": "Any group member may 'block' a proposal." This would not be the case under "non-unanimous consensus".
From the Section "Criticisms": "Giving the right to block proposals to all group members may result in the group becoming hostage to an inflexible minority or individual." This would not be the case under "non-unanimous consensus".

This is by no means an exhaustive list. I hope that by picking one example from each of several sections I've made my point that this is a pervasive problem.

A couple of examples of self-published documents that may have contributed to some of the misunderstandings in the article:

Consensus Decision Making: The section that's linked to is obviously polemical and makes a number of claims that are controversial or that have been challenged by voting theorists.
Consensus Decision Making This page contrasts consensus with "voting".

I'm not going to list any more. It shouldn't be hard to figure out which of the articles linked to are self-published or haven't been written by experts.

I understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, but these problems and the lack of proper citation go beyond the norm. I suspect that at least part of the reason quality academic sources can't be found is that self-published claims about CDM are often incoherent and therefore aren't worthy of investigation. In any case I think this lack of sources suggests that Wikipedians have devoted more space to it than it deserves.

-- SgtSchumann (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have read this "critique" many times in the past few weeks and am deeply puzzled by it. It seems to treat the subject as an academic discipline that can only be discussed through peer-referenced journals. If such a standard were applied to most articles, Wikipedia would be a fraction of its size. SgtSchumann seems unaware that WP is not a textbook, scientific journal or research paper. The remarks, further, seem to come from a point of view that is hostile to the topic. This is not necessarily a bad thing. However, unless there is some spirit of collaboration on SS's part, such an attitude will be very difficult to work with—which may be related to the fact that no one has ventured to reply. If I've got anything wrong here, please point out my errors.

That off my chest, I will make a few comments:

Failure to distinguish between consensus decision-making, consensus (as an outcome), and good deliberation practice. This seems valid to me. The cure for this is a good copyedit.
Lack of a consistent definition. The definition given in the lead is: "a group decision-making process that not only seeks the agreement of most participants, but also the resolution or mitigation of minority objections." Again copyediting. The article could be scanned to pinpoint instances where the wording is inconsistent with this definition.
Etymology. The objection to the statement "to think or feel along with" loses me. Consensus decision-making is a process of thinking together. That elaborates on the definition and seems fine to me.
Non-unanimous consensus reducing commitment to the decision. This seems to miss the point about the overall intent of consensus decision-making to increase commitment. Consensus is not unanimity. The last three examples are all variations on this theme. It makes no difference whether it is U-1, U-2 or a supermajority if the process has been followed, there should be acceptance of the decision.
Self-published sources. As I said, above. There is no rule that self-published sources cannot be used. Only that each much be evaluated on its own merits. One is always encouraged to replace a less authoritative source with a better one.

There has not been a great deal of research on consensus decision-making. Nevertheless, it is a process that is significant in an increasing variety of settings, thus notable. I stand ready to discuss further and work at improving the article, provided that there is a spirit of cooperation. Sunray (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sunray, for the time being I'm going to refrain from making a point by point rebuttal to all that you've said, because I simply don't have the time to do so.

The main point I'd like to make is this: The consensus (heh) among voting theorists is that no matter what deliberation method a group uses, the group will need to use some decision rule for those cases in which consensus can't be reached, and even if the decision rule isn't considered to be part of the deliberation method, participants will be influenced by their knowledge of which decision rule will determine the outcome. The trouble I have with the entry as it currently stands is that it references a number of articles that presuppose that this is not the case -- articles that suggest that consensus decision-making somehow transcends the need for decision rules -- and many of the presuppositions have found their way into the entry.

I suspect that what you think to be a lack of "spirit of collaboration" on my part is really an unwillingness to entertain the possibility that something that is obviously wrong and pseudoscientific deserves to be presented as factual. As a compromise, I'm going to propose that we continue to cite non-expert sources, provided that they don't contradict the consensus of experts in a relevant field. I think this is entirely reasonable and leaves a wide range of sources that can still be quoted.

On a minor note whatever the appropriateness of including the etymology of consensus in this entry, arguing that etymology provides insight into what a word means or the nature of the word's referent is fallacious. (If anyone disagrees, I'd urge you to ask yourself why we don't edit the entry on dinosaurs to say that those reptiles were literal terrible lizards.) Unless someone wants to argue that I've missed the point of the etymology's inclusion here, I intend to remove it from the article at a later date.

--SgtSchumann (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"... cases in which consensus can't be reached." You seem to be defining consensus as unanimity. (Or am I mistaken about that?). In any case, that is not the definition given in the article. However, I do agree that there must be a decision rule to achieve consensus. So an edit of the sources to eliminate those that contend that consensus decision-making transcends decision rules would be in order.
Sounds good.
We do not yet have consensus (heh) on the etymology question. The reason for including etymology in an encyclopedia article (unlike dictionaries in which it is standard) would surely be that it adds something to the article. You will need to persuade me that this one doesn't add anything useful in order for us to agree. No agreement means we leave it as is until others should happen to venture comment as well. BTW, the article on dinosaurs does give the "terrible lizard" etymology.

I appreciate you not haggling over my responses previously, though I note you do reserve the right to do that later. Perhaps we could start by working on things we agree about. Sunray (talk) 06:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

For now I'll focus on making changes I think we can agree on. --SgtSchumann (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just made the following changes to the article:

I've removed a reference to juries to remedy a problem I mentioned here some time ago.
I've removed references to questionable sources and, where this would result in unreferenced claims, the corresponding text in the main body. More needs to be done to remedy the problem of indiscriminate use of self-published sources.

-- SgtSchumann (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a particular POV here, but I think it's a POV that's backed up by reliable sources documenting how the phrase "consensus decision-making" is used in Real Life (which is why I think it deserves a Wikipedia article). That is from long experience with the IETF consensus decision making model ("rough consensus"). I concur with SgtSchumann's point that this article needs to be clear about whether it talks about the idea of consensus or the decision-making process that is called "consensus decision-making" (of whatever variety); I argue that the latter is the subject of this article - and that it *is* a decision-making process, with all the properties that such methods have.

I also think that the methods and techniques for "perfect consensus" decision-making are given overdue weight in the article, but I'm hesitant to start deleting sourced material on that basis unless there's consensus here on the talk page that it would make the article better. --Alvestrand (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. Good edit, BTW -- I wasn't aware. Given that the section you edited seems to have never been anything other than a bucket for dumping irrelevant examples, would we be better off deleting it altogether? --SgtSchumann (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The "Models" section is the section that most closely ties the article to reality - both the Quaker model and the IETF model are among the most frequently cited examples of a consensus process in Real Life. The "other" section could go without loss, in my opinion, but the continued abuse of the word "consensus" when the formal rule is "supermajority" is interesting and worthy of inclusion - I think it reflects the strong positive image that the word "consensus" has in society. (BTW, in *practice* most ISO work that I know about operates on a consensus model, but the recent Standardization of Office Open XML showed very clearly that it's possible to force the system to be about getting that last vote for the supermajority....) --Alvestrand (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Improvements to article

I am going to be bold and remove some tags from the article. I am doing this for two reasons:

Tags left too long defeat their purpose. Instead of being an exhortation to editors to improve the article, they present a barrier to readers, suggesting that the article is substandard and unreliable.
If we work at consensus, I think that we can deal with all of the issues raised by Sgt. S, above. The main point here is this: Let's deal with issues and work together to improve the article.

So let's start working on this. For starters, I've removed the tag on the etymology of consensus. As I've said above, etymology can serve to assist readers in understanding a topic. I don't see how the fallacy that Sgt S. raises is in any way a barrier to that. Rather than leave a tag hanging on the article, let's discuss this further and agree. If we agree, we simply either remove the sentence on etymology or leave it move on to the next problem. Fair enough? Sunray (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not averse to removing at least one or two of the tags. I think the most glaring problems have been taken care of (which isn't to say that the article can't be further improved).

If you're going to remove the tag I added recently, I wish you wouldn't characterize it as removing "the tag on the etymology of consensus". As I've said on this talk page and in the note I left by the tag for future editors, the problem is not with the mention of the etymology; it is with deducing a particular meaning from the etymology. If we want to include something about etymology, I think we should simply explain the derivation without making any deductions from this about what the word means -- much as is done in the lead of the article about Christianity. My point, again, is not that etymology has no use -- just that it's fallacious to use it in the way the article currently proposes. --SgtSchumann (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to simply remove the paragraph in question because (a) the paragraph as a whole is original research, (b) during the time it was tagged neither you nor anyone else provided a relevant source, and (c) because the disputed claim is fallacious no self-respecting expert would ever make it; it is therefore unverifiable. --SgtSchumann (talk) 15:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Now that's what I'm talkin' about! You did something about the problem. I agree with you that the "etymology" was wrong. I wasn't the one who added that and when I checked it, I very quickly realized you had a point. The main problem I have with tags is that they off-load work onto other editors. Usually the person who places the tag knows what the problem is. It is far better, IMO, to do as you did and correct it. Thanks. Sunray (talk) 08:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for inspiring me. --SgtSchumann (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The passage discussing cultural differences in decision making struck me as missing a citation, but it turns out that it had one [21]. The problem is the citation doesn't support the claim. "even the janitor". See the actual page of the reference on google books:

[10] The value of the paragraph in question to the article should be evaluated and reference to the actual citation should be more direct without hyperbole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.84.47.48 (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Stray asterisk

There is currently an asterisk ("*") next to the list item "Most Logical" in the section "Objectives".
This looks like a reference to a footnote to me, but it is not linked to anything nor any other explanation as to what it means.
Is this just a leftover from a copy-paste operation and should be removed or what?
85.225.86.25 (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I've removed it. Gobonobo ^T ^C 06:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Political correctness

It would be interesting of the article could mention the issue of political correctness as a possible negative effect of consensus decision-making. In modern societies, the media often play the role of consensus builder instead of the politicians, which has led to some accusations of liberal media bias. After a while, it becomes very difficult to question what are considered to be settled issues, such as abortion, immigration or state intervention, and consensus building can give dissenters the feeling that there is a kind of inquisition against their minority views. ADM (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This could be dealt with by way of intimidation and the "illusion of unanimity" or groupthink issue, but we have a much more specific set of problems and references already in the "consensus is not unanimity" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.192.106.144 (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Death by committee

I know that the cliche "Death by Committee" is not an exact problem with Consensus decision-making. But the principal still applies. I think the article needs a section on the down-sides of Consensus decision-making. Like how it tends to be slower. How if there is not structure it can be hijacked by a minority. How it can be used as a cover to perpetuate the status quo. 24.145.241.4 (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The "Criticism" section was set up to deal with perceived problems with consensus decision-making. If you have material from reliable sources, additions would be most welcome. Sunray (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The section under Criticism titled 'Consensus is not Groupthink' is disorganized, poorly written and in the main in is not even a criticism of consensus. Rather, it is a criticism of unanimity. It states, for example, "Whatever one thinks of the merits of seeking a unanimous agreement in a particular situation, in general unanimous, or apparently unanimous, decisions have numerous drawbacks." A subsequent comment about the "confusion between unanimity and consensus" seems especially ironic. Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 20:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

is it a drawback?

This question arose with respect to the National Energy Board (Canada) and changes under the Stephen Harper government to its decision making procedures to generate "approvals" with lots of conditions, rather than to delay approvals until all conditions were met. Elizabeth May & others argued strongly that such conditional approvals weren't really approvals, and merely forced the conflict into the less well prepared & flexible court system, to struggle out whether each condition had or had not been "met". It was not clear who should decide this, as many of the conditions required expertise to credibly assess & community trust to actually decide on. So in the end the "death by committee" approach was partly restored by Justin Trudeau because it was better than the alternative, which was misled investors putting $ into supposedly approved projects that then stalled out due to not meeting the many conditions, or being sued to a standstill on claims that they could not meet the conditions set by the NEB.

Therefore, it would be basically wrong to say that "death by committee" is a "problem". It is rather a "feature" in circumstances where the "decision" being "carried out" will be worse by far for those who are affected or counting on a decision to be final.

History

Historical Roots

I have heard that the more modern concept for the idea of consensus decision-making came from radical feminist groups operating in the 70's. I have also heard that it is a technique that came out of Quaker meetings. I have also heard that it is something that came out of Anti-MNuke groups in the 70's and 80's. I came to wikipedia to discover the answer. Alas, there is no history section. Anyone care to tackle a section stub for this that will get hashed out? --Rico (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

But there is a history section, currently under the title Historical examples. Granted, it doesn't give a definitive answer to your question, but I suspect this has more to do with the lack of a definitive answer in primary sources than any failing on the part of the editors here. I think we should remove the tag telling us that the article "lacks historical information". -- SgtSchumann (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The Term "consensus decision-making"

I thought 1981 sounded recent, so I went to Google Books and searched for it.

So far found:

Title of an essay published in 1968, in "Man: A Novel" by Irving Wallace: [11]
In "The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists", published 1946: [12]
Tennessee Historical Quartery, published 1942, refers to an article on "consensus decision making in the quaker tradition" written in 1815: [13]

So even with relatively little effort invested, this term seems to be at least 190 years old. Neologism it surely isn't... --Alvestrand 20:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like this to remain its own section - the history of the term might actually want to go into the article at some point, while the AfD discussion has little interest once it's over. --Alvestrand 21:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The admin closing the AfD, which is clearly going to fail, should place a tag on this page pointing back to the AfD discussion so that, if anyone has an idea to nominate this article again, the history will be easy to find. If it doesn't appear, I'll add it myself. Oh, and thanks for the excellent research! —Travis ^talk 22:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Consensus decision-making. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150407092557/http://www.starhawk.org/activism/trainer-resources/consensus-nu.html to http://www.starhawk.org/activism/trainer-resources/consensus-nu.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 18 external links on Consensus decision-making. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Consensus decision-making. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://mgrush.com/blog/2016/11/03/quantitative-swot/ https://mgrush.com/blog/2016/08/04/fist-of-five/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. /wiae /tlk 23:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Consensus decision-making. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828213829/http://www.earlham.edu/~consense/peterw.shtml to http://www.earlham.edu/~consense/peterw.shtml
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011161036/http://www.earlham.edu/~consense/pateach.shtml to http://www.earlham.edu/~consense/pateach.shtml
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081212233409/http://www.maine.gov/consensus/ppcm_consensus_home.htm to http://www.maine.gov/consensus/ppcm_consensus_home.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.otesha.ca/bike%2Btours/bike%2Btour%2Bresources/meeting%2Bfacilitation.en.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.starhawk.org/activism/trainer-resources/consensus-nu.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gameo.org/index.asp?content=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gameo.org%2Fencyclopedia%2Fcontents%2FC6667ME.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5641917&punumber=5629466&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel5%2F5629466%2F5641665%2F05641917.pdf%3Ftp%3D&arnumber=5641917&punumber=5629466

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Consensus decision-making. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071217225720/http://www.paulkeeslerbooks.com/Chap5Iroquois.html to http://www.paulkeeslerbooks.com/Chap5Iroquois.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect attribution

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi, I was reading this article and was pleased to see a reference to my book, which has a chapter on the challenges of consensus in online communities (Wikipedia specifically). However, it is attributed to Lawrence Lessig. Lessig wrote a forward to the book, but not the book. I don't want to immediately fix the mistake myself since it's close to self-dealing. Also, the book is freely available online, in HTML and as a PDF, and has a Wikipedia article itself. So the ref should reflect that. -Reagle (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I have now fixed the reference. -Reagle (talk) 10:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Reagle: Not only does Wikipedia forbid external links in article body text, per WP:EL, but on top of that, inserting an external link to your own web site in article body text, as you did in your edit, is MAJOR WP:COI. Apparently you should have waited for somebody with better judgment to make the requested edit for you. I have removed the external link from the article body text. Biogeographist (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I didn't mean to imply that Reagle has poor judgment in general (rereading my comment I can see that it could be misinterpreted that way, but that's not what I meant), only that he exhibited poor judgment in inserting an external link to his own web site in the body text of this article. Biogeographist (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Biogeographist, thanks for the edit. I didn't think linking to a chapter of a book that is the subject of the sentence as a violation of WP:EL. But I know it is unusual to do so in prose so I'm fine with the change. That said, if the reader wanted to view what was being discussed, they still have to click the reference, then the book title which takes them to the article about the book, which has an external links sections, which has a link to the free and online version of the book (on my website), where they then must click on the chapter being discussed -- if they remember. That doesn't seem very friendly or web-like. It'd be nice if we could shorten that chain of clicking. -Reagle (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Reagle: No external links in article body text, per the very first sentence of WP:EL. I hope you can see how adding a link to your own personal web site is also WP:COI. I mean, you were trying to send Wikipedia readers to your own personal web site. Let that last sentence sink in more if it hasn't already. If the goal is to provide readers with a free copy of the book, there are other ways to accomplish that goal than inserting an external link to your own personal web site in the body text of this article. For example, like this. Biogeographist (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Biogeographist: thanks for the link in the reference to the Internet Archive Version, I didn't know about that and it's better than the original Google Books link. That said, that version still sucks because it's converted from the PDF and the specific chapter is not cited. The CC Web edition (yes, on my website which has no ads, is under a Creative Commons license, etc.) is a proper Web book: each chapter, section, and paragraph can be independently cited and linked to. I don't care where it is hosted, but I think that is a better resource even if no one else is under any obligation to agree :) -Reagle (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Reagle: OK, good point. I added a chapterurl field with a link to the chapter on your web site. It's not COI if I add it! Biogeographist (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Biogeographist: perfect! had I had the savvy to do that in the first place (and no one had followed up), that's exactly what I would've done. Thanks again for your help. -Reagle (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Inherent POV?

Is there such a thing? "This article may have trouble representing an objective point of view, since significant contribution to Wikipedia assumes certain positions on the issue, which may not be otherwise common". Maybe there should be. I could think of a couple more articles that could need it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.1.73.1 (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point, yes there should be such a template. Obviously people who consult or edit Wikipedia itself have at least a somewhat different view of this question, then others. It might even be correct to say that Wikipedia operates on a unanimity minus two (U-3) model, since a single dissenter who gets no traction with his or her view is usually banished to the talk page or a hidden version, while those who manage to get at least one person to engage can continue a good while longer in a dialogue and avoid 3RR censorship for instance. But it really takes about three to agree to make it impossible to remove a particular view or source or etc.

So your point stands, Wikipedia makes you think about decisions a certain way, and if you thought decisions made the way they are in Wikipedia were bad, you wouldn't devote your time to writing it or even reading it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.42.255.125 (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

a few concerns with Consensus Decision-Making article

I'm new to the discussion and editing process of Wikipedia, so I'm not exactly sure how this is done, but I wanted to make some comments about this article. There are many errors and inaccuracies that I can find, but I'll only point out a few as my first attempt at this. First, there is not much on defining what Consensus decision-making is, itself.

The section that talks about non-unanimity, I'd suggest be called "Pseudo-Consensus". Consensus minus one, etc. is a false concept. It is really supermajority decision-making.

No, the literature is very clear that there is a difference between permitting one or two specific voices to continue a debate & delay a decision, and having a "supermajority" rule based on percentages. They are only arguably similar in small groups, where say 2 out of 8 people is 25% of the group so you could say there's a 75.01% supermajority rule for that group. But in practice, groups that permit any member to raise or keep an issue alive, in a filibuster fashion such as the US Senate, operate very differently from those that apply supermajority rules where the individual or pairs of individuals have no such status. And in larger groups, there is no resemblance between how the dissenters are consulted or surveyed or report their dissent or minority opinion. You could reasonably say there is "judicial" model where the individual voice is assumed important and a "legislative" model where the voice is assumed to be merely mirroring a sampled view of those represented, but that's overlaying legal terms on a generic model. A jury or panel of judges is not a "pseudo" legislature! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.42.255.125 (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Most Quakers, from my experience, do not call their decision-making process "Consensus". It would be more accurate to call it Quaker decision-making.

A block is not a "veto". What a "block" is is not described in depth enough or accurately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boyfromthefuture (talk • contribs) 14:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking an interest in this article. We could definitely use a helping hand.

The main thing to keep in mind is that information should be referenced and should come from appropriate sources. So, for example, while you might like to call "consensus minus one" pseudo-consensus, I doubt we can include this in the article, because I doubt that any relevant expert has ever called it such.

Some replies to your comments:

It is really supermajority decision-making. Perhaps so, but (in my experience) when no agreement can be reached under CDM, the decision rule used to resolve the disagreement is unanimity, which is a kind of supermajority rule, even if the people I know who use CDM would vehemently deny it. So it seems to me that if any distinction needs to be drawn, it is a matter of quota, i.e., CDM requires unanimity while other decision-making procedures do not.
A block is not a "veto". If you were to say a block is not necessarily a veto, I wouldn't dispute that. I've heard of people who allow a sort of "blocking" that doesn't entail a veto. However, I think it is wrong to indicate that a block is never a veto. Everyone I know uses block to mean vote down the proposal on the floor, even though they'd prefer not to call it voting. Voting theorists call a minority that can vote down a proposal in this way a veto player, and on Wikipedia we need to be more concerned about their terminology.

Finally, I agree that we need a better definition. The trouble I keep running into is that it's notoriously difficult to pin down a definition of CDM. Can you find a good source for that? -- SgtSchumann (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Separate article for hand signals

How do editors feel about a separate article for hand signals? With the recent widespread use by Occupy Wall Street protesters, it has gained a fair amount of notoriety. Furthermore, the more I look into it, the more I find. See for example--Nowa (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there enough material to justify a separate article? The article you referred to is pretty good. Are are there many articles from reliable sources? Sunray (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I recommend looking up Otesha's methods for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.42.255.125 (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Something was left out in the HISTORICAL EXAMPLES

In the Parliament (Sejm) of the First Polish Republic (the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) (16th-18th centuries) any member of the Parliament, as a representative of a Sejmik (regional assembly) had the right to veto any decision of the Parliament ("liberum veto"). This is why the Parliament would debate an issue untill all parties would agree to a solution and only then proceed to formal voting. Interestingly enough, the system worked perfectly for quite some time. However, in the 18th century the Russian and German Empires started bribing the members of the Sejm to disrupt its proceedings with the liberum veto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.239.121 (talk) 06:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a great and relevant example but would need a credible reference. Can someone find one? In Polish even? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.192.106.144 (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey 99.192.106.144 and 82.77.239.121 (although I doubt you'll get these notications!) I added the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as an example based on the Liberum veto page. Douginamug (talk) 10:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

A significantly misdirected article link

It's come to my attention that there's a rather unfortunate instance of a linked page in this article that, when clicked, will take you to what is most certainly *not* the intended page. Under the examples section of the article, there's a bit of hyperlink text for "American South" that directs users to the page for South America but the text itself is actually referring to the Southern US states that enacted Jim Crow laws which were contested during the Civil Rights Movement. Since I'm extremely inexperienced with editing wikis, I have absolutely no idea how to go about fixing this, or even what specific article would be best to be linked considering the connection to Southern segregation. Can anyone fix this by any chance, since I lack the know-how?

For reference, the example in the article is about the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). TubePowered (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey User:TubePowered, it seems like that link to the American south is now directing as intended, not to South America! Douginamug (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Separating practice and philosophy

The practice and philosophy of Consensus decision-making (CDM) seem to be so strongly fused that it is impossible to separate them. However, I think it is possible, and that the quality of the article would increase if this was done. I see this issue raised in other Talk sections such as Talk:Consensus_decision-making#Neutrality,_Factual_Accuracy,_and_Self-published_Sources.

I would like to move in a direction where the practice takes priority: other group decision-making processes make competing ethical claims to fairness, participation, group intelligence, etc, meaning there is no 'consensus' about the ethics of CDM! I'm not suggesting to remove these claims, just to make clearer separation. As a concrete example of what I mean, I would suggest changing the first sentence to:

Consensus decision-making is a group decision-making process in which participants develop and finally decide on proposals with the aim, or requirement, of reaching unanimous acceptance.

I'm quite new to wikipedia editing, so I'll mention User:Sunray who appears to be one of the few 'old-guard' of this article that is still active, if you have any advice or warnings? Cheers in advance, Douginamug (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

OK! I went ahead and rewrote the intro. I apologize for how many edits it took me to do so. I tried to neutralize the POV as best I could, and updated a broken reference. In particular, in reference to my above post, I removed all ethical claims, and tried to just keep it to the technically verifiable. Feedback welcome! Douginamug (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

'Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth' exampel source from 'Liberum veto'

Hi all, I want to acknowledge that I made the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth section as an (unfortunate) example of Consensus decision-making by using content I reshaped from Liberum veto. Let me know if you have questions/suggestions. Douginamug (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Considering a general restructure

Hello consensus interested Wikipedians! Further to my comments above, and after doing some restructuring already, I'd like to try and shape the existing content into a more coherent flow. Right now, examples, ethics, criticism and practice are overlapping: I would hope to reduce the size by better grouping theses things together and condensing degenerate text. You can see my working draft on my sandbox. Feedback wanted! (Pinging @David notMD and Biogeographist: if interested) Douginamug (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Douginamug: I oppose your reorganization as you have described it in your paragraph above and in your sandbox, because you don't give enough justification based on the major works in the literature (e.g. textbooks and tertiary sources). Your only justification so far is original research, which is prohibited on Wikipedia. If you really want to do a major reorganization of the article, you need to provide a more cogent argument for the reorganization supported by evidence from major works in the literature. Biogeographist (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I also oppose your proposal. This article is more than ten years old and has accrued more than 1,000 edits. I know Wikipedia advice is be BOLD, but in this instance I recommend be CONSERVATIVE. Perhaps copy a section into your Sandbox, revise wording, add ref(s) if needed, and then paste back into the article with a good Edit summary of what you did and why. A couple of years back there was an editor who decided to completely revise the article on the Grateful Dead, as one massive edit. This did not end well. David notMD (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Douginamug, welcome to Wikipedia! I encourage you to be bold. The current article isn't easily readable, in my opinion. Agreed with the above to base the article structure on what reliable, secondary sources have to say about the topic, but I don't think you need to mind the article's current structure. Start chipping away in your sandbox and ask for feedback! My only suggestion would be not to have a list of examples but to instead provide a history of its usage, which would touch on prominent examples. Also "Analysis" (whether as a section or dispersed into the sections on each type) would be more useful than a dedicated "Criticism" section. czar 03:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Czar, David notMD, and Biogeographist: Thank you all for your feedback! I think it's easier for me to reply to everyone/thing together. Firstly, I think I may have given the wrong impression about the scale and pace of changes I was thinking of. Although I have a general goal to improve this article, and can imagine changing many things, I only intend to do so gradually. I think this makes it far easier to identify bits that people are unhappy with, and to make those specific changes. I appreciate this article has a legacy of a lot of hard work put into it, and I mean to respect that. I hope this is apparent from my recent edits! What I put in my sandbox was really just to help me organize my own thoughts, and think about where to go next. So I hope this first concern about 'changing too much too quickly' is addressed.

The second thing regards Wikipedia:Verifiability and not using original research. I thought I understood these policies to refer to content, not structure. The book I'm reading now states "There is no definite normative model for any of the paradigms" in reference to Consensus, Majority and Counsel.^[1] Additionally, much of the Consensus literature that is used by groups which I've read through is self-published and doesn't conform to some normative definition. I'm a bit confused about how/if I should transfer the _structure_ of published content to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douginamug (talk • contribs) 14:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Douginamug: That is a good question about how WP:NOR applies to content versus structure. For some subjects Wikipedia has established article structures: for example, standard article structures for many medical subjects can be found in MOS:MED. For other subjects, and I assume this article is one of them, there is more freedom, but it would be wise to take a look at the structure of articles on similar subjects that have reached good article and featured article status to get a sense of how the best Wikipedia articles on similar subjects approach the problem of article structure.

Per Wikipedia:Core content policies § History, the no original research policy evolved out of the neutral point of view policy, "which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". WP:NOR reinforces WP:NPOV by emphasizing that Wikipedia articles should not be promoting fringe views or an editor's own view (WP:NOTSOAPBOX is also relevant), but should reflect as much as possible established knowledge. I can imagine that an editor could write an article with content that is perfectly verifiable but with an overall structure that promotes the editor's own original or fringe view instead of established knowledge, and the structure of that article would violate WP:NOR even if no individual sentence or paragraph, taken separately, does. So WP:NOR applies both to content and structure, but obviously one can't cite sources in the article to prove that the article's structure represents established knowledge; one just has to argue on the talk page that it does, if challenged. Establishing a good structure is not necessarily a simple process of mechanically "transferring" the "structure of published content" as you suggested in your last sentence above; it's more a process of explaining or arguing in more detail on the talk page why your proposed structure is good (or perhaps just arguing for the sake of finding out what structure is good: argument as inquiry instead of argument as advocacy), with reference to the best available reliable sources, thereby establishing a design rationale for the article structure that is clearly not a fringe view or merely your own personal view.

It may be true, as you said above, that much of the consensus literature that is used by groups which I've read through is self-published, but we should try to rely on non-self-published sources as much as possible. For example, look up those self-published sources in Google Scholar and see if any of them are cited by more mainstream non-self-published WP:SECONDARY or WP:TERTIARY sources, since those are the sources we should mostly be using. Biogeographist (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Douginamug: Here is a more specific comment about the current content of your sandbox: I don't understand why you think the first section of the article should be about "ethics". Wikipedia's article on ethics says: "Ethics seeks to resolve questions of human morality by defining concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime", and the "English word ethics is derived from the Ancient Greek word ēthikós (ἠθικός), meaning 'relating to one's character', which itself comes from the root word êthos (ἦθος) meaning 'character, moral nature'". Why should an article on consensus decision-making start by discussing this? What sources suggest that "ethics" should be the first of the two main sections of this article?

I can understand what you proposed above in § Separating practice and philosophy, because it is common in many subjects to separate "theory" and "practice", and I imagine that such a general distinction in this article could be easily justifiable with reliable sources, if anyone required any further justification at all. But proposing to separate the subject of consensus decision-making into "ethics" and "practice" strikes me as unusual, since "ethics" is much more specific than "theory" or "philosophy", and leaves me wondering why we would ignore all the other theoretical aspects of consensus decision-making in favor of just "ethics". More than anything else in your sandbox, it is this (over)emphasis on ethics that strikes me as unusual original research. Why not just call the first section Theory or Philosophy? Biogeographist (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Biogeographist: Thank you for providing context about NPOV and (N)OR apply to structure as well as content—I appreciate the level of detail.

Regarding my use of 'ethics', the book I referenced above suggests collective decision-making is first and foremost an ethical problem, and pragmatics only secondary. My understanding was that 'ethics' goes more in the direction of initial, axiomatic values upon which philosophies and theories can be built. The idea struck me when I considered how many other texts (especially the persuasive, self-published ones which I don't think we can ignore) also place initial and continued emphasis on values and objectives. However, this is just one book (which is not public), so perhaps you're right that 'theory' or 'philosophy' would be more appropriate.

In any case, I'm grateful for all the input and look forward to the challenge incorporating all that's been talked about into my next edits. Douginamug (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Douginamug: We should avoid making major decisions about the structure of this article based on one book by Andy Blunden, a book which doesn't appear to have been very influential yet in scholarship of collective decision-making, judging by its low citation count on Google Scholar, and which is written (according to published reviews that I skimmed) in a writing style that is more personal than scholarly, with few footnotes, and which is infused with the author's Marxist view. I am not dismissing the book, but just warning that one should not become too enthused about one book that one happens to be reading and decide to restructure this whole article based upon it. That would give WP:UNDUE weight to Blunden's point of view.

You wrote: My understanding was that 'ethics' goes more in the direction of initial, axiomatic values upon which philosophies and theories can be built. But this is only one of various views of ethics; for example, in a different view of ethics, pragmatic ethics, ethics is not based on initial axioms, but is an ongoing process of inquiry into the most appropriate norms for solving "ethical" problems, not greatly different from inquiry into other kinds of problems: in pragmatic ethics, inquiry is the foundation of ethics, not vice versa. I say this not to start a tangential philosophical debate but just to show how what may appear to you, while reading Blunden's book, to be a self-evident and neutral basis for restructuring this article is not.

You also wrote: The idea struck me when I considered how many other texts (especially the persuasive, self-published ones which I don't think we can ignore) also place initial and continued emphasis on values and objectives. Actually, we can ignore self-published texts on Wikipedia, per WP:SPS, unless they are described in reliable non-self-published sources, in which case we follow what the non-self-published sources say. (To be clear, Blunden's book is not self-published; it is published by Haymarket Books, a small independent leftist publisher.)

Thanks for raising these issues, as I'm sure the article will benefit from the attention. I haven't looked closely at the sources that the article currently cites; they may need more attention from a critical eye. This is a particularly important article for Wikipedia given the policy of WP:CONSENSUS. Biogeographist (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I do not plan on restructuring this article all-at-once, ever. It's scary to even think about doing that! My hope is that I can contribute to the collective effort of improving this article—perhaps even into Good article one day. I will do my best to be bold while maintaining a neutral point of view, avoiding original research and self-published sources, and instead use reliable sources. Thank you for your advice, and expect more edits—wish me luck! (I don't plan to continue discussion in this section.) @Czar, David notMD, and Biogeographist: Douginamug (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

References

^ Blunden, Andy (2017). The Origins of Collective Decision Making (1 ed.). Chicago: Haymarket Books. p. 8. ISBN 978-1-60846-804-1. {{cite book}}: External link in |ref= (help)

Poor introduction to why decision rules can't be simple

This version attempts to solve a serious problem in the article which is that "decision rules" was literally just a list of different sets of rules, with exactly zero discussion of why there would be more complex rules than in consensus (computer science). There are very good articles in Wikipedia on the reasons why, including:

dissenting opinion - the minority that is against the consensus, their rights to be recorded and to have their dissent referred to later
groupthink - the problems that arise when dissent is suppressed or not accurately recorded, and the group has the power or protocol to coerce agreement, especially informally
political theory - how one views consensus, democracy, harmony, unanimity, resistance, etc in real life
political virtues - the skills people need to deal with people not liking decisions that affect them

Now, not saying my intro is great or cites the correct sources, but a list of decision rulesets without this introduction is incoherent given that there are so many good articles in Wikipedia about these complexities. So if you find any aspect of that intro uncontroversial, just move it here and discuss, but bald reverts claiming that other Wikipedia articles don't have adequate sources, just shouldn't happen. 16:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.161.10 (talk)

(Untitled)

Decision making system in international organizations depends on how much the member countries intend to weave their sovereignty in some cases for achieving the predicted goals. The difficulties experienced by decision making based on unanimous votes and majority of votes during the life of international organizations have caused these organizations move toward another way of decision making which is known as “consensus”. Decision making based on consensus is a suitable solution for solving irreconcilable problems in most international institutions and sovereignty of the states considers the difference between real benefits and inequalities. Consensus method is based on decision making without resorting to any voting and it is based on this constructive principle that during taking and approving a decision, no Member, present at the meeting when the decision is taken, formally objects to the proposed decision. Consensus method was first introduced into international institutions, informally and de facto, and gradually entered in the administrative regulations and rules of procedure, and finally it has been predicted as decision making method in Statutes and establishment documents. Today, decision making by this method has transformed to standard procedure for many organizations and international conferences. This research has used deductive and comparative study of similarities of consensus in different organizations and institutions to reach more knowledge about the decision making based on consensus.|شهرام آکویی محصل|درسواره هایی در خصوص آیین کنسانسوس|مجله محقق|سال اول |بهار ۹۶| — Preceding unsigned comment added by شهرام آکویی محصل (talk • contribs) 14:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Possibly Misattributed Quote

The quote in the Criticism/Groupthink section is possible misatributed. The quote attributed to Starhawk reads "Many people think of consensus as simply an extended voting method in which every one must cast their votes the same way. Since unanimity of this kind only rarely occurs in groups with more than one member, groups that try to use this kind of process usually end up being either extremely frustrated or coercive. Either decisions are never made (leading to the demise of the group, its conversion into a social group that does not accomplish any tasks), they are made covertly, or some group or individual dominates the rest. Sometimes a majority dominates, sometimes a minority, sometimes an individual who employs "the block". But no matter how it is done, it is NOT consensus." However her article is openly adapted from one by Randy Schutt which reads "Many people think of consensus as simply an extended voting method in which everyone must cast their votes the same way. Since unanimity of this kind rarely occurs in groups with more than one member, groups that try to use this kind of process usually end up being either extremely frustrated or coercive. Decisions are never made (leading to the demise of the group), they are made covertly, or some group or individual dominates the rest. Sometimes a majority dominates, sometimes a minority, sometimes an individual who employs “the Block.” But no matter how it is done, this coercive process is not consensus." These quotes are obviously not identical, but I'll leave it up to the editors to decide what to do --101.165.114.232 (talk) 11:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the tip. I updated the quote and citation just now. DougInAMugtalk 16:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Switch to 'List-defined references' format?

Further to above discussions on the importance of good referencing, I started to sequentially read through the existing references. I noticed that several links were broken, so I began to update them to available Wayback archives. However, working with the references in their current, inline form was painful enough that I'd like to change the citation format to List-defined references in order to reduce Inline clutter and improve editor experience.

Would anyone oppose me doing so? Best, Douginamug (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Since such a change would require the extensive work of completely restructuring the references, I would recommend simultaneously converting references to citation templates if they do not already use citation templates: see Wikipedia:Citation templates § Examples for examples of the syntax for each type of reference such as {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}. One of many benefits of citation templates is that there are bots that will automatically fill in some kinds of missing information or update information. It would make little sense to put so much work into restructuring the references without simultaneously standardizing the citation style in this way.

For example, here is a reference from the article that does not use a citation template:

<ref>Starhawk [http://www.consensusdecisionmaking.org/articles/#NotUnanimity Consensus is not unanimity] - a practitioner's interpretation of Schutt. {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080213035359/http://www.starhawk.org/activism/trainer-resources/consensus-nu.html|date=February 13, 2008}}</ref>

It would be converted to:

<ref name=Starhawk>{{cite web |author=Starhawk |url=http://www.starhawk.org/activism/trainer-resources/consensus-nu.html |title=Consensus is not unanimity |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080213035359/http://www.starhawk.org/activism/trainer-resources/consensus-nu.html |archivedate=13 February 2008 |accessdate=8 August 2020}} A practitioner's interpretation of Schutt.</ref>

This is an unusual example in a few ways:

The author only has one name (Starhawk), not a first and last name. For people with a first and last name, it is better to use, e.g., |last=Smith |first=John Allen instead of |author=John Allen Smith since it can eliminate ambiguity: Is his last name "Allen Smith" or "Smith"?
Strangely, the archive URL didn't match the original URL in this example from the article, so I changed the URL to match the archive URL above.
This is a self-published source and should be replaced with a non-self-published source per WP:SPS, or the sentence it supports should be removed. Starhawk is a published author—in addition to many chapters in edited collections, her book The Empowerment Manual (2011) is published by New Society Publishers—so if one of her published texts is relevant, it should replace the self-published source. If there is a reliable WP:SECONDARY source that discusses her relevant work in the larger context of other work, the secondary source would be even better.

When making a large-scale change to an article such as what you are proposing, I find it helpful to use an external text editor with a split screen mode, with the top pane focused on the article body text and the bottom pane focused on the references section. Then it is easy to copy and paste between panes without having to constantly scroll up and down. Some text editors such as Atom have a MediaWiki language plug-in for wikitext syntax highlighting as well as the split screen functionality. Biogeographist (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC) and 19:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Biogeographist: Thanks for all those tips! Yes, I did notice that even between the existing citations, there were inconsistencies. I will use the citation templates as suggested. I hope I have enough time and energy to do both at once! I would still see an advantage in just reaching a list-defined state. Douginamug (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Biogeographist It looks like I did this work shortly after I replied last. For now I'm going with the visual editor, so inline clutter is not an issue. As such, I wouldn't convert to list-defined references. Thanks again for the tips. DougInAMugtalk 16:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Consensus Voting section

The section on Consensus Voting seems to describe some particular instance of the technique but does not cite any sources. Liam McM 23:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@Liam McM There is now a reference to a book which describes the process. DougInAMugtalk 18:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Redirects

Douginamug informed me that he opposes my addition of "consensus politics" to the lead in this rather old edit; however, that edit was just a housekeeping edit to add existing redirects to the article body as required by WP:R#PLA. Please look at the list of existing redirects to this page. Any redirects that are not utterly obvious or do not redirect to a corresponding section or anchor should be added as boldface terms to the lead per WP:R#PLA. If a term should not redirect here, then change the target of the redirect. Do not just remove a boldface redirect term from the article. Please keep the redirects in order. It looks like further work needs to be done on this. For example, Consensualism redirects here, so I duly added it in boldface to the lead in the aforementioned edit, but somebody removed it. Don't do that, my fellow editors! If you remove a boldface term from the lead, change the target of the redirect page. Douginamug, since you have expressed interest in this issue, please take up the task of fixing the incoming redirects to comply with WP:R#PLA. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Biogeographist Thanks for your detailed response as always. I will take this on as my next task on this page. DougInAMugtalk 11:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Biogeographist I have redirected "consensus politics" and "consensualism" to Consensus democracy, and added those synonyms to the introduction of that page. I included "consensus process" in the introduction of this page, since it is used frequently in the article.

4 redirects to this page remain which seem to me more than "misspellings or other obvious close variants of the article title" per WP:R#PLA. These are: "consensus gathering", "Negotiation and consensus-building skill", "Rational consensus" and "Overwhelming consensus". I'm a bit confused how to proceed with them, and wonder if tagging them for deletion might be the most appropriate action. I notice you didn't include them in your old edit. Do you have a suggestion how I might proceed with them? Cheers, DougInAMugtalk 14:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

If it is possible to work "consensus gathering" and "overwhelming consensus" into the article somehow in boldface, that could be helpful. Those would be simple terms to define. The term "rational consensus" suggests that the relation of consensus decision-making to rationality should be discussed somewhere in the article. "Negotiation and consensus-building skill" looks to me like a good candidate for deletion since there is a separate article on negotiation and I don't see how that redirect term adds value. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Biogeographist I am curious to know more about redirects. Are there similar requirements for notability as for main articles? It feels odd that increasingly obscure reference terms should boldfaced. Do you know of any policy documents I could refer to? As to the particular examples:

I would then delete "Negotiation and consensus-building skill".
As for "rational consensus", I will try and read more into this, and find a suitable place to write about it, if it belongs to this article.
"Overwhelming consensus" appears only to be used in the broad, societal sense, like "overwhelming consensus on climate change". This is a significantly different use of the term compared to a known group of people using a particular process to reach a decision. I could perhaps try and include this broader use in the article.
"Consensus gathering" seems to be a particularly rare term, but I will try and work it in.

DougInAMugtalk 11:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:R#PLA says: Normally, we try to make sure that all "inbound redirects" other than misspellings or other obvious close variants of the article title are mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs of the article or section to which the redirect goes. It will often be appropriate to bold the redirected term. So it may not be necessary to bold every redirect term. But the term should be mentioned if it's not an utterly obvious variant of the article title. Boldface is good because it reduces the amount of work required for a reader to find a term that sent them to the page. I have often been grateful for bold redirect terms in my own Wikipedia reading. Biogeographist (talk) 01:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Movement for a New Society

This article should discuss the role of Movement for a New Society in spreading consensus decision-making among left-wing activists. Daask (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Daask Thanks for this tip. Do you have any good references which clearly link Movement for a New Society with Consensus decision-making? DougInAMugtalk 06:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@DougInAMug:

Cornell, Andrew (2009). "Anarchism and the Movement for a New Society: Direct Action and Prefigurative Community in the 1970s and 80s". Perspectives on Anarchist Theory. The Institute for Anarchist Studies / AK Press. Archived from the original on 1 April 2010. Retrieved 19 May 2022.

Though rarely remembered by name today, many of the new ways of doing radical politics that the Movement for a New Society (MNS) promoted have become central to contemporary anti-authoritarian social movements. MNS popularized consensus decision-making, introduced the spokescouncil method of organization to activists in the United States, and was a leading advocate of a variety of practices—communal living, unlearning oppressive behavior, creating co-operatively owned businesses—that are now often subsumed under the rubric of “prefigurative politics.” MNS was significantly shaped by aspects of anarchist thought and practice developed both in the United States and abroad. Participants synthesized these elements with an array of other influences to develop an experimental revolutionary practice that attempted to combine multi-issue political analysis, organizing campaigns, and direct action with the creation of alternative institutions, community building, and personal transformation. Although MNS never claimed more than 300 members, it bore an influence on 1970s radicalism disproportionate to its size, owing both to the strategy and skills trainings the group specialized in and to ways in which MNS vision overlapped with significant developments in the broader feminist and environmental movements.

As anti-authoritarian activists have widely adopted practices and perspectives that MNS promoted, some of these practices—such as the use of consensus process, and a focus on establishing new ways of living—have become so hegemonic within movement culture that they are frequently taken as transhistorical tenets of anarchist politics, or of radicalism more generally.

Daask (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

"Blocking" section doesn't describe blocking

The heading "Blocking" explains pretty much every step in the flow-chart *other than* blocking, although it dances around what blocking is by describing various ways to avoid it. Should the heading be changed? Or should the bulleted list be expanded to describe the blocking action in the flowchart? 2620:15C:2D3:205:A6D6:D3D0:9CE2:2EE6 (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 14 September 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – Material Works 16:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Consensus decision-making → Consensus – Given that Consensus already redirects here, and that Consensus (disambiguation) exists, I would like to seek "consensus" on whether we should move the article on Consensus decision-making to Consensus (sorry for all the puns). I'm convinced that consensus is a more WP:CONCISE title while making minimal noticeable sacrifices to WP:PRECISE. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - While I think that that might match how we on Wikipedia use the term, I think that "decision-making" is important for clarity. The name is for our readers' understanding. Compare to: Group decision-making, and other members of Category:Decision-making and Category:Group decision-making. - jc37 17:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose I actually think the disambiguation page should be moved to Consensus instead. I don't think consensus decision-making is any more the primary topic than say scientific consensus. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[1] Blunden, Andy (2017). The Origins of Collective Decision Making (1 ed.). Chicago: Haymarket Books. p. 8. ISBN 978-1-60846-804-1. {{cite book}}: External link in |ref= (help)

[1]