Wikipedia:Community assent

The intent of community assent is to validate a specific version of policy or guideline. This may be used to set aside a version as the current will of the community.

Introduction

Community assent is only for policy and guideline pages. There is a goal to allow those that want to be bold to work together with those that want consensus first and still maintain stableness in the policy and guideline pages. This stableness is achievable with this guideline for validation, which establishes a deliberative consensus over a specific version.

The basic idea is to mark a specific version of the policy or guideline page for nomination, and someone else must second the nomination. Once there is a second, a copy of the specified version is placed on a new subpage, and discussion continues on the new talk page for consensus about that specified version. The process is based on some parts of parliamentary procedure combined with ideas to implement stable versions of articles.

If consensus fails on the new talk page, the subpage will eventually be deleted. Before its deletion, a summary of the reason why it failed will be added back at the original talk page under the nomination or, if the nomination has been archived, simply appended with reference to the nomination.

If consensus maintains supports of the version, an appropriate measure is made to effectuate the assent. This may simply mean that the subpage remains protected from edit and deletion, and a link is added on the original page for reference to the current version assented by the community.

This allows for development to continue on the original page, which is always considered instruction creep until there is community assent. Since "votes are evil," the subpage allows an appropriate place for the consensus to evolve. Even with community assent established, it neither means there is a final decision nor that everyone has individually consented.

Reason

Editorial paradigm

There are two divergent views on a proper cycle for an editorial paradigm:

1. BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Editors who think a point of policy is incorrect to the spirit of the policy, or editors that see a way to make a policy better, first simply edit the policy page to change it. They assume that those who care already watch the policy page, and they expect someone that reverts it to dispute it. If the change remains undisputed for some period of time, the changed text is every bit as actionable as any text found in the historic version of the policy. This cycle used to be strongly encouraged, but this cycle is more often used in moderation today.
2. Get consensus first, then edit cycle. Editors who have a problem with language in a policy should first comment on the policy's talk page and ask for consensus to change it. If no one responds, some editors will go ahead and make the change, but this does not appear to be universal. Any change made without these steps does not have consensus and is, hence, inactionable or considered a unilateral edit. A policy page that has been riddled with unreverted edits made without prior consensus can be considered "rotten" and the whole may become less actionable because of the bad edits. This cycle is strongly recommended on some pages.

The problem with the lack of clarity on which change philosophy is right should be clear. The consequences of this lack of clarity show up often, every day across Wikipedia.

This policy aims to allow both paradigms to continuously coexist.

Accreditation

There is the desire to build an encyclopedia. Further, there is a desire to allow Wikipedia to be used as an official reference within academic institutions. This requires a measure of accreditation upon the articles.

Academic institutions must maintain a suitable standard reviewed often by an accreditation board, which means any material officially recognized by the academic institution is of subject to review. For an academic institution to include Wikipedia, there is a burden upon Wikipedia to maintain those standards desired by the review board. Any of the policies or guidelines of Wikipedia that affects the ability for an article to meet the standards of an accreditation review board may disqualify proper recognition of the article by an academic institution. Without any sense of stableness to the policies and guidelines, a suitable standard is not easy to properly maintain.

Wikipedia has a set of policies identifying types of information appropriate for inclusion. These policies are often cited in disputes over whether particular content should be added, revised, transferred to a sister project, or removed. - Wikipedia

This policy:

• ... is not meant to qualify a certain academic standard for purposes of accreditation.
• ... is not meant to qualify the ability for an article to exist within Wikipedia because it does or does not meet academic standards.
• ... provides a stable means for policies, guidelines, and articles affected by such policy and guidelines to stay coherent to desired standards for Wikipedia to achieve success as an academically recognized encyclopedia.
• ... provides a stable means for policies, guidelines, and articles affected by such policy and guidelines to stay coherent to standards upheld for purposes other than accreditation, like the GNU Free Documentation License and the five pillars of Wikipedia.

Previously published and very reputable encyclopedias have been able to achieve such academic standards easier because they have been produced as stable sources of information unlike an encyclopedia built upon and continually published by means of open content.

Rules of order

A cast for nomination, made by any wikipedian, also implies a request for a call to order towards community assent.

Nomination

Any wikipedian may use a form to nominate a specific version. The suggested form is:

I nominate the version of this policy/guideline created on 01 January 2004 (#oldid) by a-Wikipedian for community assent. [sign]

In order for the nomination to continue, another wikipedian, besides the one that casted the nomination, has to second the nomination. The suggested form is:

I second the nomination made by the-Wikipedian on date of nomination. [sign]

Once the second is cast, there is an explicit call to order, preceded by its nomination, for community assent.

Procedure

After a successful nomination, the next step is to create a new subpage with a copy of the version nominated, which is preferably done by either wikipedian that cast the nomination.

A discussion in order begins on the talk page of the new subpage. Once discussion is in order, all comments are required to strictly adhere to reflect the specific version of the policy or guideline nominated for community assent. Any comment that does not substantially reflect the nominated version is out of order.

After some time has past for discussion, at least a week, a poll is held to test only the coherency of the version with its nomination against the discussion.

Coherency poll

The coherency poll exists as a similar motion for a call to vote, which ends discussion in parliamentary procedure to enable a vote. In the coherency poll, the vote itself is not significant as evidence for or against the nominated version, but it is permissive to establish a deliberative consensus. The discussion that precedes the coherency poll may be used as evidence for or against the nominated version.

If there is no minority report from the discussion, a simple majority determines coherency. Otherwise, an unanimous poll, all "yea" votes, is mandatory to end the poll. The poll ends at least one week after the last vote added.

The goal is to achieve only "yea" or "nea" votes on coherency alone; therefore, a straw poll is sufficient for use. The tally may reflect a "nea" vote for any other substantial vote made, like comments that fail to simply express a "yea" vote. Otherwise, votes may be held out of order if they either do not reflect the poll or the subject of the coherency.

After the time limit of the poll has passed, the nominated version is either found incoherent for consensus or permissive to continue a deliberative consensus.

Incoherency

If the poll reveals the nominated version is incoherent, the nominator must put a summary of the discussion back on the original talk page and state the effect of nomination. A suggested form is:

We find the version nominated on date to be incoherent for further consensus for these reasons: (1)...(2)...(3)... . [sign]

The subpage may be reused for further nomination if the reasons stated are addressed. It is suggested to archive the talk page of the subpage if it is reused for further nomination.

The subpage may be deleted only if there is no more support for further nomination.

Deliberative consensus

If the coherency poll reveals the nominated version is coherent, the subpage is protected from deletion and edits. The discussion continues on the talk page to work towards and maintain consensus for community assent. This discussion, a deliberative consensus, replaces the actual process to vote in parliamentary procedures.

This procedure does not specify the actual mode of discussion for consensus. If the deliberative consensus is in order, any comments that do not reflect the nominated version are out of order. The deliberative consensus continues until there is another successful nomination, which brings closure to the previous deliberative consensus. Once the deliberative consensus is closed by a successive nomination, all further comments on that previous consensus are always out of order.

The deliberative consensus should include an agenda for implementation of the community assent. For example, this may mean to create or redirect links to reference the most current version that has community assent.

Comments made out of order

Any comment made out of order may be moved to an arbitrary section. After a week, if the comment remains out of order it may be deleted or moved to the original talk page.

See also

• Wikipedia:Stable version
• Wikipedia:No binding decisions
• Wikipedia:How to create policy
• Wikipedia:Changing policies and guidelines, a competing proposal