Wikipedia:Ignore all rules/Consensus Forge 2006

Consensus Forge 2006

This is an invention/experiment in Wikipedia editing called "The Consensus Forge". It is intended to provide all participants a chance to voice their opinions and reach a consensus on the article. The "Forge" itself is a summary of everything, a way for anybody (especially the uninvolved) to get a handle on the issues.

Specific sections exist for comments on particular aspects of the article, and the Forge Moderator "folds" those comments into updates to the forge. By distilling the information (point being made) from the noise (signatures, dates, votes, personal attacks, etc.) and organizing that information, everybody has a chance to be heard clearly while the article itself is guided toward consensus.

This process works on trust in the good faith of the moderator(s). Moderators should appoint other moderators and willingly recuse themselves if asked to do so by the participants.

Note: If you add a comment here, it may be folded into summary. This means your name will be removed and your text made succinct. If that bothers you, please post a duplicate in Consensus Forge Comments below, where nobody will touch it (promise).

What kind of thing is it?

First, we need to know the kind of thing with which we're dealing. A policy page has different needs than a traditional or historical page. (The way a phonebook has different needs than a novel.) Don't vote "oppose", simply vote for the choice or choices you want; opposition is implied by lack of support (lack of consensus).

Policy

This would indicate a desire to make the article an official policy of Wikipedia, possibly under a different name.

Support

Guideline

This would indicate a desire to make the article an official guideline of Wikipedia, possibly under a different name.

Support

Traditional/Historical "Policy"

This would indicate a desire to keep the article as a historical artifact of Wikipedia, under the original name.

Support

1. // NetEsq 16:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete Article

This would indicate a desire to delete the article, due to it being redundant, incitation to trolling, or other reasons.

Support

Alternate Proposals

This would indicate something that hasn't been proposed yet. Please explain yourself in your comments.

Comments

Article Structure

Assuming the article isn't deleted, it will probably contain the same information, even if it is under a different category or name. This section deals with the information that should appear in the article.

Talking Points

Pro

• Article is important to Wikipedia for historical reasons.
• Article provides succinct way to summarize against pedantic behavior.
• Article is "fun".

Missing Points (add below)

• It is a necessary escape valve. Some uses of IAR have been justified (even if we disagree on which).
• Frivolous claims of IAR are ignored (or, like Godwin's Law, treated as a sign that the editor is losing his case). They are therefore harmless or benficial. Septentrionalis 17:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Con

• Article is license to trolling.
• Article is license to administrator abuse.
• Article labors too much over a simple point: "use common sense with respect to the rules"

Missing Points (add below)

Other

• Article should be rewritten to remove second-person point of view in the writing. (i.e.: if you' are bothered)
• Article should remain in the semi-stable original text, for historical reasons.

To Rewrite or Not To Rewrite?

Should the article remain in the original text or be rewritten?

Keep Original Text

1. Support. // NetEsq 16:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite Article

Article Structure

Assuming a rewrite is desired, the article will need a structure. The forge moderator has proposed a structure. Additional structures may also be proposed.

Structure Proposal: Pradeep Arya

The suggested structure for this article is three paragraphs. One explaining the need for the policy. One explaining the good points of the policy. One warning against the possible misuse (the bad points) of the policy.

Additional Structure Proposals

If you believe a better structure could be used for the rewrite, then please explain in detail below.

Structure Proposals

Consensus Forge Administrativa

Forge Moderators

Pradeep Arya

This section allows recusal voting and general comments for forge moderator Pradeep Arya.

Recuse

Remain

1. // NetEsq 16:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Other comments

Additional Moderators

Additional moderators may be added as needed. If you believe additional moderators are needed, then you may vote below. Existing moderators will appoint new moderators as necessary.

Additional Moderation Needed

Additional Moderation Not Needed

Consensus Forge Comments

Comments added here are NOT to be folded into summary. They should remain unretouched except by the original author. Any other edit should be considered vandalism and reverted immediately.

Comments

With the Consensus Forge 2006 being moved to its now namespace, there is no longer any content referring to the IAR article, much less a link to the article and Talk Page which inspired the Consensus Forge. Perhaps a rename/redirect is in order. Other than that, I think this experiment holds great promise. // NetEsq 16:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I gone ahead and moved it to the right place. It was putting too much space at the IAR talk page, having it take half forever to load. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 12:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

EH? Kim Bruning 17:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I second Kim's eloquent remark. Someone here has taken too much dried frog pills, or is unaware that Wikipedia is not Brazil. Radiant_>|< 00:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)