This page documents an official English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. If in doubt, consider discussing changes on the talk page.

Shortcuts: WP:CON WP:CONS

This page in a nutshell: Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. Policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it.

Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process. Consensus is typically reached as a natural product of the editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. In essence, silence implies consent, if there is adequate exposure to the community. In the case of policy pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected.

Use the talk page to discuss improvements to the article, and to form consensus concerning the editing of the page. In cases where consensus is particularly hard to find, the involvement of independent editors or more experienced help in the discussion may be necessary. If discussion on the talk page is disrupted, or consensus cannot be found there through ordinary discussion, there are more formal dispute resolution processes.

When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'consensus within the framework of established policy and practice'. Consensus among a limited group of editors can not over-ride community consensus on a wider scale.

Reasonable consensus-building

A chart illustrating the basic flow toward reaching consensus. New flowcharts are being discussed on the talk page, and a new version shows up here once in a while, as a kind of meta-example of the consensus editing consensus process in progress. You find out if your edit has consensus when you try to build on it. Convincing arguments are those that can be expected to sway the larger community.

Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can be reached through discussion, action, or more often, a combination of the two. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality - remaining neutral in our actions in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on.

Participating in discussions

Community discussion takes place on various pages such as noticeboards, Requests for comment, Requests for Adminship and the Village pump. These processes require collaborative effort and considered input from the community in order to form a consensus and act appropriately upon the consensus that can be discerned.

In determining consensus carefully consider the strength and quality of the arguments themselves, including the evolution of the final positions, the objection of those who disagree, and in complex situations, existing documentation in the project namespace. Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and the logic may outweigh the logic of the majority. New users who are not yet familiar with consensus should realize that a poll (if one is even held) is often more likely to be the start of a discussion than it is to be the end of one. The outcome may be decided during discussion. This is a good reason for providing a rationale during a poll, not just a simple vote.

Consensus can change

Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding.

Wikipedia's processes remain flexible for several reasons including:

• new people bring fresh ideas,
• as we grow we evolve new needs, and
• sometimes we find a better way to do things.

Sometimes a representative group makes a decision on behalf of the community as a whole, at a point in time. More often, people document changes to existing procedures at some arbitrary point in time after the fact.

Forum shopping

See also: Forum shopping

It is very easy to create the appearance of a changing consensus simply by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people will discuss the issue. This, however, is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works. Wikipedia's decisions are not based on the number of people who showed up and voted a particular way on a particular day; they are based on a system of good reasons. A good sign that you have not demonstrated a change in consensus, so much as a change in the people showing up, is if few or none of the people involved in the previous discussion show up for the new one.

Exceptions

There are a few exceptions that supersede consensus decisions on a page.

• Declarations from Jimmy Wales, the Board, or the Developers, particularly for server load or legal issues (copyright, privacy rights, and libel) have policy status (see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Sources of Wikipedia policy).
• Office Actions on a specific article (such as stubbing or protecting it) are outside the policies of the English Wikipedia.
• Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to override consensus on a wider scale very quickly - for instance, a local debate on a WikiProject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline. The WikiProject cannot decide that for the articles within its scope, some policy does not apply, unless they can convince the broader community that doing so is the right course of action.
• Foundation Issues lay out the basic principles for all Wikimedia projects. These represent the largest consensus decisions achievable among all Wikimedia projects. These consensuses are fundamental and affect all other Wikimedia and Wikipedia agreements. This means they evolve very slowly.

See also

• Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle
• Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot
• WikiEN-l mailing list Jul 2005