FamilySearch Wiki talk:Consensus

From FamilySearch Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
(added heading)
(added heading)
Line 5: Line 5:
 
:I saw "proposed consensus" used in some documentation on Wikipedia. Perhaps there is a proposed consensus written up and a period of time to allow for approval.. I think the opinion box that was added to the History/Local History discussion was a good way to get to a consensus.[[User:Franjensen|Franjensen]] 21:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 
:I saw "proposed consensus" used in some documentation on Wikipedia. Perhaps there is a proposed consensus written up and a period of time to allow for approval.. I think the opinion box that was added to the History/Local History discussion was a good way to get to a consensus.[[User:Franjensen|Franjensen]] 21:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  
== Procedure needed ==
+
== Procedure needed ==
  
There are several things needed in a process to establish consensus. I suggest we establish a procedure/policy for reaching and documenting consensus. It sounds simple, but such a policy or procedure would need to address the following questions/issues:
+
There are several things needed in a process to establish consensus. I suggest we establish a procedure/policy for reaching and documenting consensus. It sounds simple, but such a policy or procedure would need to address the following questions/issues:  
  
 
#Where should the discussion, question, or statement of guideline needed be posted? (just manual of style, just discussion page somewhere, both, or ?  
 
#Where should the discussion, question, or statement of guideline needed be posted? (just manual of style, just discussion page somewhere, both, or ?  
Line 19: Line 19:
  
 
:Sorry, no solutions proposed, just more problems stated.[[User:Alan|Alan]] 22:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 
:Sorry, no solutions proposed, just more problems stated.[[User:Alan|Alan]] 22:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 +
 +
== Governing body needed ==
  
 
The consensus issue seems to me to be critical to the whole Wiki concept. If the Wiki community approach is correct, who is going to "police" what consensus is and when it is reached? It seems to me that this goes back to having to have a governing board to make basic policy decisions. [[User:Jbparker|Jbparker]] 22:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)  
 
The consensus issue seems to me to be critical to the whole Wiki concept. If the Wiki community approach is correct, who is going to "police" what consensus is and when it is reached? It seems to me that this goes back to having to have a governing board to make basic policy decisions. [[User:Jbparker|Jbparker]] 22:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)  
  
 
<br>
 
<br>

Revision as of 11:44, 8 June 2009

What is consensus?

In order for an item to migrate from a Manual of Style discussion to a Manual of Style guideline, it needs to have reached consensus with the community. But what is consensus? Wikipedians say it is not unanimity. But what is it? A 60-40 vote? a 70-30 vote? 80-20? What kind of majority does an issue need to show in order to have reached consensus? Possibly, as Jbparker said, we don't have to worry so much about getting a huge majority on an issue because what we're making with the Manual of Style isn't policies, but guidelines. They're like strong recommendations. If someone doesn't want to follow them, they aren't compelled to do so. So community, what is consensus? Ritcheymt 21:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw "proposed consensus" used in some documentation on Wikipedia. Perhaps there is a proposed consensus written up and a period of time to allow for approval.. I think the opinion box that was added to the History/Local History discussion was a good way to get to a consensus.Franjensen 21:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Procedure needed

There are several things needed in a process to establish consensus. I suggest we establish a procedure/policy for reaching and documenting consensus. It sounds simple, but such a policy or procedure would need to address the following questions/issues:

  1. Where should the discussion, question, or statement of guideline needed be posted? (just manual of style, just discussion page somewhere, both, or ?
  2. Some sort of vote or consensus reaching on whether a guideline is really needed. If not, it never becomes a guideline, but the discussion of the need is preserved in an archive/linked inactive page.
  3. How long the discussion should be open before the guideline is drafted (perhaps this is variable and the length should be part of the raising of the issue, with certain lower and upper limits for time length)
  4. Once a deadline is reached, who will summarize the decision and write the proposed guideline as modified by the discussion comments?
  5. How long the proposed guideline is posted before becoming an accepted guideline.
  6. If someone contests that consensus was actually reached, what is the process for voting or establishing that consensus is indeed reached on the content of the final guideline.
  7. How the discussion leading to establishment of consensus should be preserved & linked.
  8. A policy for proposing changes to or deletion of guidelines.                
Sorry, no solutions proposed, just more problems stated.Alan 22:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Governing body needed

The consensus issue seems to me to be critical to the whole Wiki concept. If the Wiki community approach is correct, who is going to "police" what consensus is and when it is reached? It seems to me that this goes back to having to have a governing board to make basic policy decisions. Jbparker 22:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)