User:Triona/No more to no consensus
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Don't accept no consensus as a result of a debate while there are still people willing to work through it. No consensus should be a beginning, not an end. |
We hear the phrase no consensus all the time on Wikipedia. I believe that it is one of the most dangerous threats to Wikipedia that we face - allowing ourselves to be governed by deadlocks means that the ones that yell the loudest will always either win or stalemate. That is no way to run a project as important and visionary as Wikipedia - we owe ourselves better.
As a general rule, we should not accept "no consensus" as an outcome of any sort - to do so is utterly against the concept and process of consensus. The only time "no consensus" can truly be an outcome are where a decision has a deadline, or where the parties walk away. So long as there is debate ongoing, we should not close anything for "no consensus" - let it run to a natural conclusion
When is a result of no consensus acceptable?[edit]
- A no consensus result is acceptable in processes serve as an evaluation of an individual editor, such as permissions and requests for comment, because protracted debate on such issues do not serve the interests of the community in any meaningful way.
- A no consensus result is acceptable in regular processes with an inherent deadline, such as deletion debates. While we should try to reach consensus whenever possible, failure to do so isn't harmful to the project.
- A no consensus result is acceptable when the parties to a debate walk away without a resolution, or come to an agreement that a resolution can't be reached,
When is a result of no consensus harmful?[edit]
Whenever "no consensus" is used to close or suppress a debate, we run the risk of being governed not by consensus or fair process, but by a vocal minority. As such, the proper answer is to mediate and facilitate, so that a consensus can be reached, and not to close a discussion, no matter how long it may last. In matters that are of concern to the entire community, there is no deadline, and it is better that we settle issues than allow them to fester. The harm of "no consensus" comes from it being used on an unsettled issue, so that the issue enters a cycle where it continues to surface, be debated, the debate ended with "no consensus" and the process repeat itself over and over for a long period of time.