Anarchopedia:Consensus building

Attempt to engage fellow editors in Civil and Logical discourse

Attempt to engage fellow editors in Civil and Logical discourse. On Wikipedia, if that failed, there was little recourse. This guideline is an attempt to codify procedure in order to keep consensus building from failing in the first place, and offers direct access to means of remedy should it fail anyway

Create a new section in Talk:Bobblesqueak (name of article) called #Record of Consensus building on "floomery", floomery being the description of the issue in question

Talk:Bobblesqueak

Floomery

Record of Consensus building on "floomery"

Subsections:

Conceded

Very important, so at the top. While it is known what is conceded, it is much closer to known what is currently agreed. There is no need for a big warm and fuzzy party about it; no one probably feels like that anyway. But at least people will not be assuming incorrectly about what other parties believe, and wasting time addressing arguments they do not have to. And the inevitably immoral editors will not be able to hide behind wasting everyone's time bringing up arguments that have already been refuted and so on, over and over.

Refuted

Next most important. We are almost at concession. If an editor has a point refuted and refuses to concede, they can be sanctioned.

Insufficient evidence

Currently not enough evidence to be provable or disprovable. This goes both ways. Not enough evidence to prove something true or untrue; if it gets long enough, subsections for both

Records of past Misc (Resolved, Refuted, Conceded etc)

If evidence emerges that is strong enough to alter normal procedure, something that was once resolved, refuted and/or conceded can be changed. A record of the past state, when that state was declared, and the new state and date, should be kept

Applicability of rules

See Anarchopedia:Subjective#Applicability of rules (shortcut A:Sub) Of particular regard is the almost inevitable Anarchopedia:Subjective elements in rules. As per Subjective, rules should be constantly changing, especially adding clarification and distinction and replacement of these subjective elements. Eg, in the case of Wikipedia:W:PSTS "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care"; what does "with care" mean? Only while child-rearing or treating the sick? It is almost entirely subjective, other than a vague impression that it is important and something ought to be done about it.

If an editor finds a subjective element in a rule, they are encouraged to take a look at the relevant talk page or archives and see if they can improve on the current state of discussion about that element, and should this be so, the element itself. As with all 'improvements' to the encyclopedia, it better be; failure to engage previous concerns in Talk etc is actionable.

See also

• Anarchopedia:Consensus building
• Anarchopedia:Point of View shortcut A:POV
• Anarchopedia:Subjective
• Anarchopedia:Truth (shortcut A:T)
  • Balance A:T#B
• Anarchopedia:Utility (shortcut A:U)

External links

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_47#Record_of_Consensus_building_on_kit-budget_passage