Wikipedia talk:Levels of consensus

Presumed consensus

Should we say something about presumed consensus when defining "consensus" in Wikipedia:Levels of consensus#Defining some terms? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your improvements, and for the suggestion. Makes sense, I've added it in the assumptions section, I don't think it needs to be defined as a term in the context of this essay. Scribolt (talk) 08:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your add -

The concept of presumed consensus is policy (Wikipedia:EDITCON). So maybe "This can be true." should be "This is true."
I'm not sure what is being said by "This can also be said to apply to content which has gone through a peer review process, e.g. FAC."

Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked and updated. You're right that it is technically true, but in terms of the purpose of the essay, the level of consensus is so weak, it's effectively no consensus. I wanted to mention peer reviewed stuff, because by it's nature the content of the silent edit gets a bit more approval because we know someone has actually read it as opposed to missing it in their watchlist. And this also interacts a bit with BRD (which I know is not policy but is reflective of how a lot of editing actually goes) in that you generally need a good reason to remove or change long standing content. If you don't want to discuss, the original consensus on what the content should be stands. I don't want to get too into the weeds here, as this wasn't really the direction I wanted to go in for the essay (which was identifying and contrasting levels of consensus and how they arise), but feel free to further tweak. Scribolt (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]