YOU CAN EDIT THIS PAGE! Just click any blue "Edit" link and start writing!

Wikitravel talk:Consensus

From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search

When do we use consensus?[edit]

We use consensus to determine pretty much everything on this site, and we have avoided majority-rule voting like the plague. But we have not actually noted this (as far as I can tell) in any policy. Would anyone object/add to this reworking of the intro:

Wikitravel determines virtually everything by consensus. The one exception to this rule is on the votes for deletion page, where nominated articles are presumed guilty until proven (by consensus) innocent. No decisions are made on this site by majority-rule voting. Please remember that the result of any Wikitravel article will be the consensus view of all the contributors to that article.

Does this look good? Are there any other exceptions in which we use something other than consensus? And should we mention this categorical use of consensus anywhere else? --Peter Talk 12:53, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Alright, I decided to just plunge forward after months of no response. If anyone objects, please comment here. --Peter Talk 16:15, 18 January 2008 (EST)

How to build consensus[edit]

I've felt for some time that this article had not received enough attention. I've just added a substantial amount of content about (my understanding of) how our consensus practices work, mostly regarding how to build them. Does any of this strike anyone as controversial? --Peter Talk 16:15, 18 January 2008 (EST)

The nature of a consensus debate[edit]

In striving to reach a consensus on an issue each side of a debate has to either present a reasoned position, or express a reasoned objection to another position. Otherwise, we just get into 'yes' and 'no' style arguments, which are likely to ever progress to understanding and agreement. Is it ever reasonable to head off a consensus by disagreeing without presenting a reason for that disagreement, or a reason for an alternative position? --inas 17:43, 6 December 2009 (EST)

I don't think so. If someone agrees, we can assume that they support whatever the proposed argument was as it was written and for those reasons. If someone opposes, then no assumptions can be made as to why , and an explanation is needed. Nothing should be assumed to be self-evident. If the opposition says only "No", then I think it should be dismissed until it is elaborated upon. ChubbyWimbus 17:56, 6 December 2009 (EST)