Wikibooks talk:Decision making/Archive1

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Contents 1 missing word 2 More changes 3 Hang on a sec 4 Straw Poll 5 Another Vote? 6 Removing "Following this policy" 7 Does this guideline give rise to a decision? 8 Minor change, addition 9 Wordiness

[edit] missing word

Under the proposed policy, there is a sentence with a missing word that is needed to properly understand the proposal.

Any wikibookian with 20 bona fide or more is eligible to vote on any issue

20 bona fide or more what? Thanks, Gentgeen 01:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Good catch! the "what" in question should be "contributions". --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Do we really, really, really need that for consensus? It's so arbitrary, and it's not as if anything gets done with consensus without discussing the merits of the arguments made anyway. It just seems rather unwelcoming, especially since we're hopefully going to be having a lot more collaboration with wikiversity as things get going there.--SB_Johnny | ^talk 17:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The important part here is that it's for voting on IMPORTANT things. I don't see how a user with 5 or 10 edits can be familiar with the way we do things here, and while 20 seems somewhat arbitrary, making twenty good quality edits at least shows a genuine interest in becoming involved.

Perhaps an exception could be made if the user's own contributions/status could be affected by the vote, such as a module they started coming up for VfD. There should also be provisions for allowing voting eligibility to be contested on a case-by-case basis, as someone could still have a hundred edits and not have contributed anything, or (as in the VfD case I just mentioned) might have a dozen edits on their project and should be able to defend it. Xerol Oplan 04:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

A minimum good faith contribution count gives two main benefits. First, it offers some protection against sockpuppets. It won't necessarily stop a determined sockpuppet, but largely it is the weight of the argument, not numerical count that decides things, so stopping determined sockpuppets doesn't tend to be a big problem. Second, it allows us to correct newbies unfamiliar with our ways in a way that they shouldn't take personally. I would hope that should a newbie offer a good argument, or should a page contributed to by a newbie be under discussion, the newbie's comments and vote would not be removed.

The figure of 20 is, of course, arbitrary. It could be 25, 30, 50 or 100. But it's good to try to keep it low enough not to put new editors off contributing to our discussions, Jguk 06:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More changes

I've made some changes to the policy HERE. The new text removes all reference to the word "vote", which has been pointed out is not a good word to use when describing the consensus process. Also, I have removed all mention of minimum edit counts. The reason why I removed the edit count minimum clause is because I included text that says votes should be judged on a qualitative basis, not a quantitative basis. My vote isn't more important then any other vote because of my edit count alone. Even a first-time user can give a meaningful, well-thought-out opinion on a topic, and an old timer can give an insubstantial or unmotivational one-liner. A simple "yes" or "no" vote doesnt matter, regardless of who casts it.

I hope these changes are for the best, and that I haven't introduced any new problems to the policy. Because of all these changes, The previous straw poll (above) should be disregarded. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind keeping some mention of needing previous or planned activity on Wikibooks because that will keep swoop-in votes in check. I just want to see that the user has some establishment in the project before weighing in their comments. I don't think it's fair to the community for an outside voter to come in, no matter how profound their comments are. I don't vote in other countries' elections. I might know how to make a good decision in Germany, but it's still not my right. I want some Wikibooks "citizenship" and would like that included somehow. Ideas? -withinfocus 01:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if we include the 20 contrib limit, 20 contributions hardly makes a "citizen" here. A person who is making 1 edit a month over 20 months isn't conceptually any better then a "swoop-in voter". If a person knows our system, and can make relevant comments/observations within that framework, then that should be all that matters. Now, if a person says something that demonstrates a blatant disregard for our policies and our community, then we know that it isn't worth while. Also, i might want to mention that the vast majority of the wikibooks "citizenship" is most likely comprised of readers, not writers. People who have been readers here for a long time might find a discussion worthy for their first contribution. That doesnt mean that their opinions don't count, if anything, it's profound that their first contribution was input to our discussion processes. In short, people who know our policy and our community will demonstrate that knowledge, people who don't know us will demonstrate that as well. We should be able to pick out the differences, and make judgements accordingly. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hang on a sec

This proposal has, over time, expanded somewhat from being about general voting rules (ie when we vote, what are the rules, not when do we vote) to being about our decision-making process generally. This expansion of scope is making getting agreement difficult. Two possible routes - (1)contract the scope back down to voting rules alone; or (2) move the page to Wikibooks:Decision-making and try to iron out all the new concerns. Personally I'd prefer route 1. Once that is complete, it would be possible to move to route 2 later.

If we are to go down route 2, I'd like to see the whole process section removed and replaced by the flowchart. The flowchart does need some amendments - replace "block" with "oppose/opposition" and replace "synthesize concerns" with "outline concerns". I'd also like to see that as a suggested, not a forced, route to getting consensus.

Finally, I'm still not sure about VfD. I'm not at all convinced that we look for consensus - I think we weigh up the arguments as to whether a module or book is consistent with our inclusion criteria. Comments unrelated to that point, whilst not quite ignored, are downgraded. Ultimately 3 votes for deletion and 8 votes against may end up with the article being deleted, depending on the nature of those votes. And compromise here is often impossible - either the text stays or it goes - there is often little middle-ground, Jguk 07:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I should add that I'd quite like a bit that says we should aim to follow the spirit of the policy, not necessarily the letter. Principle-based rather than rule-based policies are far better. Maybe even remove the 20 edit minimum and replace it with "regular good faith contributor" or something along those lines, Jguk 08:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I was wondering if the name of the page shouldn't be changed. I think both option 1 and 2 would be good, but is there really that much to talk about if we're only talking about votes on topics that already have established rules?

As far as the VfDs are concerned, I think consensus is more valuable than voting, especially as the criteria for keep and delete seem to be based on the debates held on that page (we seem to be precedent-oriented), rather than on more "formal" guidelines. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that the option 1 is better as it simplyfies the discussion and allows for faster consensus. That being done, there could be another guideline/policy on the decision process which relies on the voting guideline/policy.

I agree with the following the spirit rather than the letter of the policy. As such, these should rather be guidelines than policies. Once the guidelines are up, they can be polished depending on how well they work. If they need to be enforced more strictly, they can be changed into policies.

As for the "20 edits" vs. "good faith editors", I stongly favour the second.

• An editor may come to Wikibooks and study its policies before taking an active part in the project and finish his 20 "bona fide" (this very term is going to cause trouble) edits.
• An editor may have been editing his quiet little corner of Wikibooks without any interest in policy.
• Given that we are trying to reach consensus, it is not the sheer number of votes that counts but rather the quality of the arguments.

--Swift 01:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I am against making this a guideline, because I dont want to see people saying "We dont need consensus, it's just a guideline, and we can just use a majority rule here to make a decision if we want." I also don't want wikibooks to run on an oligarchy system, where older or more active users demand more respect and authority then other users. Every user, from 0 contribs up to 10,000 or more all get an equal oportunity to help shape wikibooks, and minorities should never be disenfranchised by the majority. The way of doing business here at wikibooks is through community consensus, and we should make this an official "policy" instead of simply a guideline, because this is the official way in which things should work: There are no acceptable alternatives. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If there isn't a consensus and the majority pushes it's view on the rest, there will be a full out edit war (unless all the admins are on one side...). Consensus isn't just a good idea. It's a necessity. I think that will be a good part in "enforcing" the guideline. I do see your point. I'm just not sure it's a problem and think it would be better to start out with a guideline. If it doesn't work, changing to a policy shouldn't be too painful a process.

"I also don't want wikibooks to run on an oligarchy system[...]". Wholeheartedly agree!

"minorities should never be disenfranchised by the majority" Which is the reason for consensus, sure, but this can also be used to argue for a minimum numer of edits or "established user" etc. since it could place the "regulars"/"old-timers" in a minority if there were a rally vote of new users. That said, I do like the ideal of not barring newcomers from taking full part of the community, but I do eye some potential hasards (in a guideline, these could be addressed as needed).

But if "consensus" is only a guideline, people can choose do disregard it, in favor of other decision methods. It's a small semantic difference, but it is very important. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I see this as a strenght. It does not bind us into a policy that may prove inappropriate in some (as yet unforseen) cases.

Perhaps our difference of oppinion comes from how we see the guideline implementation. I've always understood the policy/guidelines as the "must"/"should"s of IETF RFC 2119. A policy tells us what must be done, the guideline what should be done. As can be read in the RFC, the definition of should states

"that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course."

According to this, no-one will be able to disregard the guideline without a very good reason. I don't see the guideline as a weak "this would be cool, but do what you like" (that's more what an essay is) nor as a "weak" policy. I see it as a ruleset for situations where there (may) exist exceptions and where the spirit of the law is more important than the letter.

I think it could be a very useful first step in adopting what will be a very important part in Wikipedia's decision making. The guideline allows us to learn from experience using different decision methods depending on the situation and, as I mentioned earlier, respond to unforseen situations. --Swift 06:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, i'll accept your argument, on the understanding that if instantiating this proposal as a "guideline" fails, we can reconsider it as a policy. I am still unsure whether we can pass this as a guideline even, much less as a policy. Wikibooks currently doesnt have many (if any, at this point) "guidelines", so it might be good for us to put into explicit writing the relationship between policies and guidelines, perhaps on WB:WIW. I still don't think i quite understand why it must be a guideline and not a policy, especially with the inclusion of the "follow the spirit of the policy" text that has been included at the end. When following the spirit, the letter of the policy can be disobeyed, so long as the philosophical principles behind the letter are understood and obeyed. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 12:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we do have a number of guidelines (not all are explained with their own pages, though) and near the top of the page, the two terms are defined (though I find "guideline" to be rather poorly so).

"why it must be a guideline and not a policy". It's not that it must be. It is simply my oppinion that it may be too restrictive. I think the mentality should always be: "Why must it be a policy, not a guideline".

"especially with the inclusion of the "follow the spirit of the policy"". Especially with this, it should be a guideline, since this pretty much renders the policy as that. --Swift 19:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Every change that is made, it seems, makes a few users happy, and a few more users unhappy. I'm starting to wonder if this community is capable of creating a voting policy at all. As to your first concern, it has been pointed out to me that the process of making a decision via consensus rarely involves any actual "voting". To that effect, it's been my philosophy since we began this discussion that a voting policy (or, better yet, a "decision-making" policy, as you have pointed out) should be short, vague, and open to interpretation. All I wanted to do was specify consensus as the primary decision tool, not majority voting. By keeping it simple and general I think we can create an effective policy, but avoid too much instruction creep. Our "voting" here should be done by consensus, and any policy about it therefore should describe the consensus process (which is the "voting process"). Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it) "consensus" is a broad term, and latitude needs to be given for it.

I will add a bit about "the spirit of the policy" right now. I've already removed the 20-contrib minimum rule, and replaced it with text that prizes quality comments over quantity comments. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, as to your comments about the VfD thing, I still maintain that VfD is a "high impact" decision, although the rules outlined here for "high impact" decisions don't necessarily fit the way VfDs work. I don't think this is an issue however, especially not with the addition of the "spirit of the policy" text that you suggested. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straw Poll

Should Wikibooks:General voting rulesWikibooks talk:Decision making be an enforced policy?

Yes

1. Bring it. -withinfocus 15:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
2. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
3. This is a step forward and allows for consensus decisions. RobinH 09:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No

1. In a true consensus based system, these rules should not be needed. --Cspurrier 00:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

   The only way to specify that we are on a consensus system, and not on a majority voting system is to put it in writing. We need to specify consensus so that people don't try to do things another way. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

   Care to elaborate? Kellen ^T 09:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

   This policy works off of the idea that consensus requires a poll or a vote. A poll or a vote is probably the worst way to form consensus. Consensus should be formed by community discussion, in most case just discussing a issue in visible place is enough to determine if there is community support for an idea.--Cspurrier 16:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

   I disagree. This policy specifically redefines the word "vote" to mean a discussion with multiple possible outcomes. In this sense, we aren't talking about "majority voting" as the word is commonly used to describe. Now, I conceed that perhaps there is a conceptual difficulty in using the word "vote", but we could change that word, and not affect the meaning of the policy. Polls and votes are described by this policy as possible methods for determining if consensus exists or not, but strictly speaking, decisions should not be made based on a poll or a vote only. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

2. I don't think it's quite there yet. I've made some alterations see here, but I don't think the section on process is right yet. The process expounded is reasonable, but I'm worried that it is too dogmatic. Who did the flowchart earlier - could we replace the whole "process" section with that flowchart? I've also moved VfD from high impact to low impact. Largely the decisions are low impact - they don't affect the project as a whole. Occasionally, key points on how to interpret our inclusion criteria are raised. Where that is the case, I agree the point of policy may be high impact - but for most nominations, the decision does not have sitewide importance. I'd be prepared to support this proposal once my concerns have been addressed (and personally I still prefer version 4 out of the 5 versions), Jguk 06:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

   You mean VfD by majority rule? I don't think thats a good idea. The wikiversity folks are rather alarmed at our VfDs already, and are talking about archiving all the books just in case we decide to wipe them all out. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

   Version 5 was supposed to be simply a prose rewrite of version 5, in an effort to use more "language" and fewer bullets. It was my intention that the text of version 5 should mirror the intent of version 4. I apologize if my goals were not met in this regard. Is there any specific text we can change on here to make it better reflect the points of version 4? If we replace the process with Kellen's flowchart, would that be more acceptable? I also disagree with you about VfD. Votes to delete can have a profound impact on our community. Look at the votes to delete the videogame guides. Look at the initial VfD to delete Wikiversity. Entire groups of people can be disenfranchised from our project if we vote to delete their books. Look at the growing debate on VfD right now, where we are discussing deleting a single page out of the Chemical Synthesis book: That discussion is helping to shape this very policy, in addition to testing our current deletion policy. I think that VfD discussions should stay high-priority for all these reasons. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

   That's probably why I prefer version 4 - I think it's better using fewer words and being punchier. Why have longer prose if it doesn't add anything? On deletion (the proposal refers to deletion, not just to VfD), I think there are a number of clear-cut cases where deletion can be summary (ie speedy deletions). When we have a VfD discussion, we discuss whether the module/book meets our inclusion criteria. Many of these discussions are relatively humdrum - they do not have a sitewide effect. Others, as you note, are more important as they get down to the crux of what exactly are our inclusion criteria. We decide, and we should decide, deletion matters in a way that takes account of the relevant importance of that decision. Any comments on deletion in this proposed policy should take account of that, Jguk 08:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

   I did the flowchart and wrote the initial edit of the process (version 4). The flowchart is here: Image:Consensus2.png. It may not be a perfect chart for wikibooks as "blocking" doesn't really exist here and that has caused trouble in discussions in the past. I would be willing to make a new chart that is more wikibooks-specific if people would like that. Kellen ^T 09:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

   Oh I like that! Simple, easy to understand... excellent! --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

   I changed a bit of the process back, but hopefully it's clearer as to why it's in that form. Kellen ^T 09:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose - way too narrow and restrictive of community-building and consensus-building. SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

   Weighing arguments is more important than weighing who makes them. If there's a VfD for "dirty jokes", for example, and 80 users with more than 20 votes say "keep... they're funny", vs 4 or 5 users (with however many editcounts) voting to delete and giving good reasons (fill in the blank: there's plenty of them), would we decide to keep? SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

   It's also good to keep in mind that wikimedians from other projects depend on our project for what we do here: write textbooks. Wikipedia needs us because articles can't tell the whole story. Wikiversitans (or whatever they're calling themselves this morning) need us for textbooks to support their courses and schools. And we need them to help provide content, context, and even PR for our project, not to mention adding content as new contributors on this project. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

   I guess another way to put this is that Wikibooks aren't for the wikibookians, but rather for the people who will (hopefully) be using the books. While we should all hope that the enduser will also become a wikibookian and help write more books, it shouldn't be a requirement for them to do so, even when it comes to valuing their opinions. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

   If i understand you correctly, you want to abolish the 20-contribs rule? I personally didn't like that rule either. Perhaps we should delete that, and see if we can get more support. Does anybody feel strongly that we shouldnt delete the 20-contrib rule? What if we removed it, but included a clause that says a minimum-contribution rule could be implemented in the future to combat suspected sock-puppetry? --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

   I think that's all that really needs to be said. Keep it simple, and thwack the sockpuppets when you know what they are (we really need an active admin with checkuser, BTW). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 17:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

   If the specific number goes away, then something needs to be said for having at least some motivation to be a contributor here. We can't allow voters who vote and do nothing else. That opinion is useless. I've made a minor change reflecting this "current or future activity" which is general yet makes it known that there should be some activity here, not just swoop-in votes. -withinfocus 18:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

   That's certainly fair. We'll know when this kind of thing goes on anyway... not too many dummies around here :). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 18:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

   Even though this is not a legal venue of any sort, we still need to have some things "in writing" to provide a strong basis for decisions. All the users being created to vote on that great debate we're having over at VfD could possibly claim that their arguments should have equal weight even though they're not real editors here. There needs to be something on our virtual paper here to handle that. -withinfocus 19:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

   I like your addition. I don't think we should accept votes from people who don't care about our project, but on the other hand, we shouldn't bite the newcomers either. By specifiying that people should have at least some past or future contributions, we can get around this. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

4. Let's make it a guideline. It seems that many are in agreement that there should be a certain degree of lenience and the spirit of the policy should take precedence over the letter. Even the policy as it stands now, says it will work "more like a series of general guidelines". I also support the recent suggestion that the decision part be taken out as they could well be a different guideline. --Swift 01:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another Vote?

Can we get this in as a policy now? There seems to be only one user dissenting as of now and others' concerns seem to have been addressed. We need to have something put in place and maybe we can discuss a smaller point later, but let's at least get something going. It's becoming so complex with the minutiae of this topic that I'm not even sure how close we are to success. -withinfocus 19:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a good point. I'm going to suggest that we attempt to ratify this as a "guideline" instead of a policy, even though that's not the outcome that I personally want (I would prefer it to be a policy). I think that many members of this community would prefer to use the term "guideline" here, and that simple distinction should (i hope) gain more support for the policy. Let's try and start another quick straw poll, to see if there is enough support for making this a guideline. I'll advertise this straw poll on the staff lounge, and try to get some more users in here. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you proposing we just change to a guideline, or that we also go down either of Jguk's proposed roads? --Swift 22:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Mostly I am saying we should change this to a guideline. If we need to alter the title to be more reflective of the content, we can do that at a later point. Also, I think the current text of the policy is generalized enough that we shouldnt have to be more or less specific on any points: more specificity qualifies as "instruction creep", and less specificity would make this policy disappear entirely. I certainly don't think we need to add anything to this policy, because we don't want to prescribe what people must do, but instead we just want to show them the correct way to make decisions (and hope they do things correctly). --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Whiteknight, make this into a guideline. --Panic 15:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is dissenting, so i'm going to be bold, and use the fancy new {{guideline}} template I've created to make this one official. If people still have signficant disagreements, we can deal with them later. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing "Following this policy"

I think the section Wikibooks:Decision making#Following this Policy is now redundant. Firstly it's not a policy, so at the very least that should be changed. Secondly, this section was introduced as a compromise for those that thought the proposed policy too restrictive. This was addressed by making it a guideline. I suggest that we remove the section (possibly merging some content into other parts). --Swift 11:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Just in case this suggestion got lost in the chaos of the next section I'm just bumping the issue. If no-one objects in the next few days, I'll remove the section. --Swift 04:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point, i'm going to change the text right now to reflect the fact that this is a guideline. If you still feel the section should be deleted after i've made the changes, that's fine. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I think it looks good after your edit, and quite possibly useful. --Swift 16:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does this guideline give rise to a decision?

Swift has just removed the text that provides an end point to the decision making process (on the third repetition of the process a majority vote would prevail). Now, either we need a guideline for decision making or not. A guideline that explicitly does not end in a decision is fatally flawed; it is not a "decision making" guideline at all.

In the absence of an end point the guideline says discuss the problem, discuss it some more and if you cannot agree unanimously forget it. Of course, this just means that if one side feels sufficiently self important or is part of a gang they will just bully dissenters into accepting their view (see above). Alternatively, if none of the parties are inclined to gang behaviour there will be no decision. RobinH 11:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"No consensus" generally does kill the action in question, yes. It's aggravating sometimes, but that's just how consensus works... slowly and very carefully. There can come a point in the discourse where the decision becomes rendered as "consensus with notable objections", and we'll know when it's time for that.

The kinds of decisions we're talking about are either (a) making a policy that somehow or another restricts all wikibookians, (b) removing a restriction that will change the traditional structure of wikibooks, or (c) deleting something a wikibookian worked on. Seems to me that these decisions should be difficult, and shouldn't have an arbitrary limit. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there either is consensus or there is not. Consensus can be either positive or negative, such as "yes, we all agree" or "no, we all oppose". Either situation is a definative end-point to the discussion (at least until somebody later wants to reconsider the matter, and reopens the discussion). If there is no consensus, the discussion is not over; not, that is, unless people all say "we can't agree on this, so we will all drop it", which is effectively similar to saying "No, we all oppose". Barring this (if everybody doesnt "give up"), the discussion can continue ad infinitem until one of the 3 outcomes is acheived. Consider the US supreme court (for those of you familiar with it): The supreme court can choose to hear a case from a lower court and then pass judgement, or it can choose not to hear the case at all. This third option (judge "yes", judge "no", ignore) works like a tacit agreement of the previous ruling, which reduces the possible outcomes to "yes" or "no". If the supreme court then chooses not to hear a case (analogous to our being inable to acheive consensus), the matter never gets "judged" per se, but there is still a definate outcome where the status quo is maintained.

I think a trap that some people are falling into is thinking that matters can be decided by concrete metrics, and that once a matter is decided, it is over and done. Wikibooks policy is (or should be) a more organic process where people are free to discuss the issues forever, and to come to compromises. Also, once a policy is proposed, it should be harder to institute it then it would be to reject it. Changes to the status quo require that not only does our "supreme court" have to hear the case, but that they have to decide in favor of it. In essence, to institute a change, we must reach consensus on the matter, and that consensus should be in favor of the change. There shouldn't be a way to "force" the outcome one way or the other. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 12:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, this may be a semantic problem. Certainly, absolute consensus would never work in practice (frankly, I don't even like it in theory). I understood it as implied that consensus should be used as an approach to a lofty ideal.

In my defence, I believe most others here who agreed with it had the same understanding. Perhaps this is due to interwiki-ing of concepts and practices. Wikipedia calls the method Wikipedians use to make most decisions consensus — and it works. Consensus driven debate drives people to compromise which brings people together rather than tear them apart. See simply the discussion on this guideline. If we had a certain percentage for decisions, many would bury themselves into trenches and we'd be voting on every single thing hoping to reach that magic number. There would be rallying, not of experienced users, but of like minded ones banding together to achieve each others goals. Consensus weighs the quality of the arguments, not just the number. I thought this was clear. I see how I was wrong and apologise.

"just removed the text that provides an end point to the decision making process". I removed text that was added after the proposed policy was accepted as a guideline. Yes, it was done rather hurriedly, but it had been under lengthy discussion and was an hindrance to other pressing business. Furthermore, even in your stringent understanding of consensus, it is no less an endpoint in a decision making process. It simply shifts the necessary portion of those in agreement to 100%. --Swift 12:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there are huge problems with semantics here.

SBJohnny said "consensus with notable objections" is required. This is a majority vote after lengthy discussion.

Whiteknight said: "Consensus can be either positive or negative, such as "yes, we all agree" or "no, we all oppose". This is unanimous decision taking. Why not call it unanimous decision taking?

I do not really understand what Swift means by consensus. Swift seems to be suggesting that consensus is 100% support for a proposal but I am not sure.

Everybody seems to be using the word "consensus" to support their own view without defining it. I propose that we stop using the word "consensus" in this discussion and assume that all participants would like the decision making process to be fair, take into account the views of all parties and not allow preemptive action.

A guideline for decision making should outline a process and describe an end point at which a decision is either made or rejected. (Rejection could occur because most people are against the proposal or because the proposal cannot be agreed). Can we define such a guideline?

The current guideline has no end point. Perhaps this is deliberate but in this case there is no real need for a guideline. Those inclined to obstructionism or bullying and gang behaviour will simply get their own way. RobinH 18:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I still disagree with you on these points (and frankly, i doubt that you and I will ever agree on this subject!). Let's consider the (admittely flawed) example of a VfD discussion. Some people want the module in question to be deleted, some want it merged, some want it transwikied, and some want it kept unscathed. In a majority voting, worst-case scenario, a given faction could make a decision on the fate of the module with only 26% of the total votes. Decision making based on a 26% "majority" is simply unacceptable. That rules out majority voting. Note also that "unanimous decision making" won't happen either: it is unlikely that 100% of all people will up and change their vote. Some of the deletes might change to transwiki, and some of the keeps might change to merge, but will 100% of everybody agree on what to do? I don't think a unanimous decision process is acceptable either: it is unlikely that anything would ever be decided. Remember, we want a decision-making process that actually enables decisions to be made, and unanimous decisions won't fullfill that role. Consensus can exist even in the presence of objections: people can agree to disagree, people can compromise, people can bow to the will of the community, they can ask that the decision be made on a trial basis, etc.

I also would like to point out that from my perspective, this guideline does have a specific end point, and that it is necessary for that reason and for others. This guideline has end points on step 5 (affirmative decision) and step 6 (bullets 1 and 5 lead to a "no consensus" result, which is an implicit "reject", and bullet 4 which is an "accept"). Discussions themselves do not need definitive ending points: discussion can be continued forever until a suitable decision has been reached, and discussions which have previously ended in a decision can be reopened for discussion at any time. Remember, the community must work harder to make change. Failure to come to a consensus is an implicit ending point: no consensus means change cannot happen.

Also, as to your "can we define such a guideline" comment, it's my full understanding and belief that this is such a guideline, and that it addresses all your concerns specifically. We could alter the text perhaps to make that more clear, but i don't agree that we need to make any substantive changes in the underlying principles. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. Based on recommendations from several users, this was made into a guideline, and not a policy. While I feel the distinction is small (and perhaps unnecessary), the text of the {{guideline}} template states that this "should" be followed, as opposed to "must" be followed. In extenuating circumstances where this policy seems to break down, it is permissible to do things a different way (with the understanding that the spirit of this guideline be well understood, and the reasons for breaking from it be significant). --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"Failure to come to a consensus is an implicit ending point: no consensus means change cannot happen." As you know, this worries me because it allows blocking and encourages gangs to take action if they consider that they are being blocked in bad faith.

Will the guideline be a problem in its current form? I think there is little risk this year that people will use it to block decisions. Perhaps in the future if Wikibooks becomes more popular. So I would be happy to "not oppose" the guideline and simply abstain for the moment.

Incidently, the current form of the guideline means that the paragraph on what users should do if they oppose a decision is superfluous - all they need do is oppose it and it will not occur! They certainly will not need to leave the project. RobinH 15:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

SBJohnny said "consensus with notable objections" is required. I didn't say that... I said that consensus might be said to be rendered, even if there are notable objections. It's not about 100% or nothing, n% or n+1% don't come into it at all really, because it's not a vote. It's weighing the arguments, and seeing what makes sense. When the adoption or repeal or a policy would end up changing the project so that it becomes a different project, it can be held up indefinitely, yes. And those who insist on the changes will just end up going to another project, because they'll want to do what they want to do. They'll probably get mad about it too, and stomp a bit. But that's how the project is preserved. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

But suppose one user does block a decision. You believe this will occur indefinitely. But read the comments above about stopping people who do not "act in good faith" - a single user can indeed block the entire community until they gang up on him like in the school playground. He will then be beaten up unceremoniously and kicked out of Wikibooks. Your lone defender will not win even though he should win according to the current text of this policy. The text is flawed and encourages anarchic, bullying behaviour. The way round this is to have a proper decision point in the policy. RobinH 09:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

But I would consider you to be a "lone defender" in this situation (at least, the only one voicing a dissenting opinion at the moment), and you have been neither bullied nor kicked out of the community. The very fact that this discussion is still carrying on as it is, that we haven't stopped it arbitrarily and said "Whiteknight and SBJohnny versus RobinH, RobinH loses by majority decision" is proof that the concept works, and there is no bullying involved. You are allowed to continually speak your opinions, you are allowed to disagree with me all you want: We will likely never come to an agreement, consensus will not be acheived, and the status quo will not change. If we went through your process, and tried to acheive consensus three times (assuming you would continue to dissent) but failed, the matter would simply be put to a majority vote, you would lose, and it would all be a waste of your time: That kind of majority-rules BS is exactly the kind of bullying that we should be watchful of. However, under this system, "achieving consensus" cannot fail three times, because the process can continue, without resolution ad infinitem. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

In the UK we describe opposition parties as "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition". Even though I am a republican (anti-monarchist (inc. constitutional monarchy)) I still agree with the idea of loyal opposition. I can argue against a policy but still be a loyal Wikibookian, accepting the majority view. As I said above, I am not opposing in this case, if it came to a vote/final decision I would abstain rather than block. But I do feel that this policy is missing an opportunity to define a real decision making process.

In normal circumstances I would indeed be prepared to accept a majority decision. I would encourage you to change the text so that on the 3rd attempt over 6 months the majority wins, I will then accept your majority decision(!) RobinH 13:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent)I definately understand you, and I would never accuse you of being disruptive or not "loyal". But, there is a difference between rational, "loyal", opposition and disruptive opposition. If you are acting rationally, it is assumed that you are dissenting with the best interests of wikibooks in mind, and that does need to be taken into accout. First off, I can't agree with your wording about "consensus being blocked 3 times", because that simply cannot happen: Even if a user opposes, we don't say "No consensus, we were blocked, let's try again from the beginning". The original discussion continues until a decision is reached (or until the idea is abandoned, which probably won't lead to an additional attempt). Now, the primary reason why I agreed to make this into a guideline, and not into a policy is to address such concerns as yours. Uner the guideline, people should try to do things this way, but if this method fails, especially over a long period of time, people can choose to make the decision in another manner (so long as everbody understands that a decision that is not made through consensus may not carry as much weight as one that is). If you feel that the consensus process isn't working, you can feel free to try an alternate method, if all parties can agree on that alternate method. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I am not opposing this guideline becoming accepted. RobinH 09:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor change, addition

I've added the following text under the "Low-Impact Decisions":

Creating or altering the content, structure or scope of a particular book

I think that's precisely one of the kinds of low-impact decision situations that arise here on wikibooks, but one that strangely didnt make it into the text of this policy. I have been bold and added this text as I felt appropriate, although we can remove it again if there are objections. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wordiness

Maybe it's all those kid's books I've been working on, but this guideline seems overly wordy and long to me. Guidelines and policies should strive for brevity. For example, the second paragraph reads:

Issues at wikibooks can be divided into two different categories, depending on the extent to which they affect the wikibooks community over time. The decisions that have a large, long-term effect on wikibooks are called high impact decisions. Otherwise they are low impact decisions.

Couldn't this be rephrased:

Some decisions that have long term effects are high impact decisions, others with more limited effects are low impact decisions.

The text as it stands has a Gunning Fog index of more than 17 (indicating that a person would require 17 years of formal education to understand the text on the first reading.) It is also more than 1100 words. I reworked the document quickly and got it down to less than 840 words and a GF of 14.8 without changing the meaning of the document (or so it seemed to me). Surely we can do better? --xixtas 06:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

To be clear I recognize I'm something of a fanatic on this issue and will confess to having fallen asleep a few nights ago trying to figure out how to simplify "A is for Apple". I wouldn't block adoption of this policy based on this objection. --xixtas 06:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)