Wikipedia talk:Editing policy

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Move NOCON to this page?

[edit]

With a total of four editors in favor and zero against, the editors at wp:Consensus agree that wp:NOCON should move from that page to wp:EP (discussion at wt:Consensus#Moving NOCON to Editing Policy). What say the editors at this page? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Red X symbolN Oppose. I don't think a lack of consensus is related to the editing policy. Also, per what Flatscan said, maybe put only the part about discussions of proposals end without consensus? The Master of Hedgehogs (talk) (contributions) (Sign my guestbook!) 21:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think that this would fit better in the editing policy. Also if it needed to be expanded to include more scenarios then that can be done after the fact. It is much easier to split a small section then a big one. Plus we could keep a summary at WP:Consensus if we wanted to and have the main part at WP:Editing policy, just like what we do with articles in the main space.
Sheriff U3 01:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If I were looking for information on how to handle a lack of consent, I'd be looking under pages associated with consent. It would never occur to me to look for it under editing policy. (Is there a grand index? There should be.)ā€” Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghost writer's cat (talk ā€¢ contribs) 02:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per original discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Consensus/Archive_24#h-Moving_NOCON_to_Editing_Policy-WP:NOCONSENSUS-20240902130600 FaviFake (talk) 00:21, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion re Move NOCON to this page?

[edit]

Where NOCON is the balancing policy to WP:ONUS, I'm concerned that moving NOCON would somehow lead to longstanding content being removed more easily? Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you concerned about this?
It's currently on a page that says "policy" at the top.
If it's moved here, it will still be on a page that says "policy" at the top.
Why would that result in any change to editors' behavior? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to move WP:ONUS out of V? Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want the community to decide whether they actually believe ONUS is the right rule, and make all the policies and guidelines align with their decision. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
why not answer the question? I can't really answer yours except that consensus seems like the stronger policy than the editing policy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care whether the ONUS sentence is in WP:V or in some other policy page. The exact location is unimportant. For example:
  • The ONUS sentence and shortcut could be kept in the {{policy}} page Wikipedia:Verifiability, and it would still be part of our written policies, and editors would still invoke it when they wanted to remove content.
  • The ONUS sentence and shortcut could be moved to the {{policy}} page Wikipedia:Consensus, and it would still be part of our written policies, and editors would still invoke it when they wanted to remove content.
  • The ONUS sentence and shortcut could be moved to the {{policy}} page Wikipedia:Editing policy, and it would still be part of our written policies, and editors would still invoke it when they wanted to remove content.
  • The ONUS sentence and shortcut could be moved to the {{policy}} page Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and it would still be part of our written policies, and editors would still invoke it when they wanted to remove content.
Its location does not matter. What I want to know is: Does the community actually, fully, completely want this to be the rule, with not just the advantage of selectively invoking it to win a dispute, but also its obvious disadvantages (e.g., losing decent content because you can't get enough people to join a discussion about whether there's consensus for the decent content)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you on the meaning of ONUS. I think any editor who wants to make a change to consensus has the onus. I think in that context include meant add. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The ONUS sentence says:
  • "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."
Are you interpreting it as meaning "The responsibility for achieving consensus for removal is on those seeking to remove disputed content"? While I think that's a reasonable interpretation of the Wikipedia:Editing policy (specifically the WP:EPTALK section, "If someone indicates disagreement with your bold edit...") and Wikipedia:Consensus in general, I don't think that's a reasonable interpretation of the ONUS sentence itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think while ONUS articulates that, our policies also indicate:
  • "The responsibility for achieving consensus for exclusion is on those seeking to exclude disputed content."
There is no thumb on the scale against inclusion. ONUS is in V just to indicate that if an editor wants to add something, verifiability isn't enough, they need consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"ONUS is in V just to indicate that if an editor wants to add something, verifiability isn't enough . . ." That was likely the original intent of the wp:ONUS sentence. But the plain text has since taken on a life of its own, free from the context provided by the sentences above it. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
^ This. For better or worse, we haven't been able to get experienced editors to agree that ONUS or any other policy specifically treats removal of disputed (long-standing or otherwise) material as something that requires the would-be remover to prove consensus for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
or any other policy specifically; huh? Any change requires determining consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But not every change requires the person making the change to be responsible for achieving consensus. Every change requires someone to achieve consensus; an ONUS addition requires the person making the addition to achieve consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of an addition to restore consensus, the onus is on the person seeking to exclude. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what that means. Do you mean:
  • We have a major discussion that decides the article should say "Most people think coffee tastes good".
  • Soon afterwards, someone removes that (i.e., is definitely editing against consensus).
  • Someone reverts the removal, pointing to the discussion on the talk page.
  • Since the removal was definitely made against consensus, the person editing against consensus needs to demonstrate that consensus has changed.
Or do you mean:
  • Someone boldly dumps something bad in an article.
  • Nobody notices for years.
  • You eventually notice that it's bad and remove it.
  • Someone else reverts you and claims you have to get proof of consensus to remove it, but they don't have to do anything, because if a random bit of content persists long enough, then there's "consensus" for it, and you have to prove that consensus has changed before you get to remove disputed content, but they don't have to do anything to re-insert disputed content, even though the ONUS policy says that the person seeking to re-insert the disputed content is the one who needs to demonstrate that consensus supports re-inserting it.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of yes to both. But where consensus is not clear everyone has to do the work to determine consensus. And this is false: ONUS policy says that the person seeking to re-insert the disputed content. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine that Alice wants to remove something from an article, and Bob wants to put it back.
When you read the literal words of the ONUS sentence, as written, do you think ONUS says that the responsibility for achieving consensus is on the editor who is seeking to include the disputed content, or on the editor who is seeking to exclude the disputed content? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the policy explain that it depends and what it depends on? Roughly, it depends on what the strength and age of the consensus is for the content and whether it has any reason such as BLP that limits it. Or substitute that with something more accurate if I am mis-stating that. AndrešŸš 01:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we wanted a rule that says the person responsible for finding consensus depends on various circumstances, then the policy should say that. But the ONUS policy actually says quite the opposite: It lays out one (1) single point, that is not the strength of past consensus, the age of past consensus, or whether there is any reason such as BLP.
ONUS says that the only thing that matters is: If Alice wants to exclude and Bob wants to include, then ONUS says the job of achieving consensus is Bob's duty, full stop. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In practice, that is not how it works. In practice that would be no consensus for any change to the status quo. AndrešŸš 02:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The gap between practice and written policy is one of the things that concerns me. We say ONUS but do QUO. We when ask editors to correct the written policy to match actual practice, they refuse because they want ONUS as the rule ...when they find that convenient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. That is why I think ONUS should be amended to explain when and how it is meant to apply. AndrešŸš 23:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that if we had an RFC next month saying "Shall we amend ONUS to explicitly say that it applies even to someone who is reverting to a long-standing but now-disputed version?", people would answer yes.
And, although I'm less confident about this prediction, I would not be surprised if we asked the opposite (after a long enough delay, or in an alternate universe), people would also answer yes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ONUS does not say that "the only thing that matters". You're making inferences. I could also infer that ONUS refers to new additions, and simply doesn't speak to anything else. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ONUS lists nothing else that matters. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It depends. But ONUS is not a conduct policy; it just reiterates part of existing conduct PAGs. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What "part of existing conduct PAGs" does ONUS actually reiterate? Not "well, it says something about consensus"; what policy or guideline actually says the same thing as ONUS, namely that the responsibility for finding consensus, in the case of an inclusion/exclusion dispute, is on the person who favors inclusion and not on the person who favors exclusion?
Wikipedia:Consensus, for example, says nothing like that AFAICT. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If your first edit is reverted, try to think of a compromise edit that addresses the other editor's concerns. If you can't, or if you do and your second edit is reverted, create a new section on the associated talk page to discuss the dispute. This section of WP:CON sounds like the onus is on the editor making a new change. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
is on the person who favors inclusion and not on the person who favors exclusion? I'm saying ONUS doesn't say this. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Meaning it doesn't put the thumbs on the scale for inclusion or exclusion without further context.) Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion re Move NOCON to this page? Part 2

[edit]

No one knows what ONUS means. Perhaps we should return to the subject of this section: Where, if anywhere, to move NOCON. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anywhere as long as ONUS and NOCON are in the same place Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What they said (policy page). Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but which policy page? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well my proposal was to move the ONUS shortcut to a new section at Consensus (and leave the text at V the same), so both ONUS and NOCON would be there. This would be the simplest solution. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I do like the idea of moving the shortcut somewhere else like NOCON, I think wherever it is moved should also contain an expanded explanation of ONUS to help alleviate the confusion it causes today. And if that's not possible, then strongly consider doing away with it altogether. I've seen some of Wikipedia's most experienced, well-meaning editors over the years share a variety of interpretations that, on many occasions, radically diverge. Having followed many of these discussions, I'm convinced it's possible to Wikilawyer your way out of any situation in which you want ONUS to conform to your position.
If we can't reach a common understanding over its meaning or proper use, how can we truly expect anyone else will? -- GoneIn60 (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What would the "new section" say? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's in my proposal, The onus to achieve consensus for changes to consensus is on those seeking the change. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if a better solution would be to move away from language saying whether content should be kept or remove entirely (e.g. get rid of both NOCON and ONUS). Instead wrote a new section discussing what to do in such situations that's neutral about which one is right; don't revert without good cause, don't edit war, if multiple editors revert you then you need to find consensus to (keep/remove) the content. Have main details here or in CONSENSUS (whichever is more appropriate) and link to it from whatever page currently has wording it would replace.
The most contentious use of either appears to be when it's a WP:1AM situation. In those cases the 'majority' should determine whether the content stays or goes, and anyone wanting to change that needs to find consenus for doing so (obvious exceptions would apply e.g. BLP, obvious vandalism, BURDEN, etc). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested Ā«@Ā» Ā°āˆ†tĀ° 11:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
move away from language saying whether content should be kept or remove entirely; my suggestion does this? Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your version seems to imply that editors need permission to edit, or at least I can see editors trying to use it that way. I'd rather something with more guidance, and that it be the only wording on the subject instead of the current situation where editors use both ONUS and NOCON/QUO. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested Ā«@Ā» Ā°āˆ†tĀ° 12:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe ideally, but I think my proposal is a low barrier way to move things around without actually changing anything, and they could be edited from there? Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose it as written, editors would use the new wording to say articles can't be edited without first gaining consensus. It's not like ownership and stonewalling are any less any issue than misusing ONUS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested Ā«@Ā» Ā°āˆ†tĀ° 14:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about saying that the onus to provide support for a proposed change to consensus is on those seeking the change? Or some other tweak that just clarifies editors need to provide a rationale for their proposals, not that they have the only responsibility to achieve consensus either way. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This ventures down the right path in this hypothetical, but we need to consider the guidance that already exists to avoid unnecessary duplication.
  • "Don't revert without good cause" ā€“ already covered in EDITCON
  • "Don't edit war" ā€“ also covered in EDITCON
  • "If multiple editors revert you..." ā€“ EDITCON covers this too, whether it's the same editor reverting you or multiple doesn't matter.
  • "The majority should determine whether the content stays or goes" ā€“ This intent is described in DISCUSSCONSENSUS as an ideal outcome. However, when the "consensus-forming process" stalls or results in no agreement (i.e. there is no majority), the removal of NOCON would create a gap here.
--GoneIn60 (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that presumed consensus arises whenever an edit is made, what is the difference between "changes" and "changes from consensus"? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose none, but saying that editors have the onus to achieve consensus for "changes" may be interpreted to make silent consensus equal to consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to remove all implicit references to "who should start the discussion on the talk page", or replace them with something like "If there is a dispute, and you wonder who is supposed to start the discussion to determine consensus, then it is always your job to start the discussion. We have established this rule because of the number of people who revert changes or remove content but think it is too onerous for them to write a short comment on the talk page. This means you, and if you make a pest of yourself by saying that it's the other editor's duty to start the discussion instead of yours, then we might decide to block you for being disruptive, tendentious, and uncollegial."
If we could free ourselves from the bickering over why the other guy is supposed to start the discussion instead of me, then we could probably re-write ONUS to something like "Even when the content is verifiable and cited to a reliable source, editors may not necessarily agree to include it in that (or any) article. Other policies and guidelines, such as WP:NOT, WP:CON, WP:DUE, also apply".
I think Kolya's text has two problems:
  1. That's not what ONUS says, in that ONUS is narrowly concerned about "inclusion", not "change". ONUS does not assign responsibility for (e.g.) a change that rearranges the order of the sections on a page. ONUS only applies if someone wants to put some verifiable content into the article, over someone else's objections.
  2. That's not what ONUS says, in that ONUS assigns a responsibility to the person who adds content (or wants to), not to someone who "changes" content. If Alice adds content, Bob rearranges it, and Chris removes it, those are all "changes". ONUS only applies to Alice's action. Kolya's proposal applies to all of them. And it opens the doors for disputes about which version is "the" status quo version, with the result that all of the editors can claim that their version is "not change": Chris reverted, which takes it back to status quo; Bob rearranged, which didn't add anything, so it's "not really a change", and Alice says that two other people have edited since her, and that makes hers be the status quo and theirs (especially Chris's) be "the" change, so Chris has to start the discussion. In other words, when you make something be everyone's job, it ends up being nobody's job.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is an acceptable rewrite of ONUS, possibly even great, essentially wiping out the need for a dedicated ONUS shortcut at WP:V. The rewrite would become an extension of VNOT, allowing the section to stay on message and not stray unnecessarily or too far into other aspects that are best covered in more detail at EP or CON.
As for updating guidance elsewhere, such as CON, I would hope that most already agree that we should be less focused in policy to assign responsibility, except to say that it is everyone's equal responsibility to start the discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "Other policies and guidelines, such as WP:NOT, WP:CON, WP:DUE, may result in the exclusion of material even if it is verifiable and cited to a reliable source". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thought about this a little more... VNOT essentially includes all this already (aside from mentioning policy examples), right? So then it becomes, do we want to insert those examples (NOT and DUE) into VNOT or leave it alone? What happens to ONUS after it is removed?
You've put forth a good argument on why we should consider abandoning ONUS and the like altogether, but do we still need to retain a figurative "finger on the scale" that tips the balance slightly in favor of exclusion? If not, then how do we ensure a consistent outcome in disputes of "no consensus"? NOCON says "the proposal or bold edit" is undone, but it is often unclear which edit (the addition, change, or removal) falls under this classification.
As soon as we reach this point in every discussion, opinions split. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what a "dispute of 'no consensus'" is. NOCON clearly applies only after a good faith discussion ends in no consensus. ONUS is not so clear and some editors use it during discussion to say "you have to convince me." - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning a dispute or discussion that ends in no consensus. And yes, ONUS is misused beyond its original intent, which is why I think most of us agree something needs to happen. We just can't seem to agree on what that something looks like. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
but it is often unclear which edit; yes, but maybe we can't do anything to solve that problem, because people will just have to figure out what the last consensus version was. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest to you that if the discussion ends in 'no consensus', editors will be unable to agree on which version of the article was the one with "the last consensus". And some of us, including me, believe that identifying such a version is unimportant, because what we know at the end of a no-consensus discussion is that there isn't any consensus, and that includes no consensus for reverting to that old version. After all, if there was a consensus to revert to that old version, then the discussion would have had a 'consensus' result instead of a 'no-consensus' result. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And what's the solution? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there were a good, fast, cheap solution, we'd have implemented it years ago.
But Good, fast and cheap basically never exists in practice ā€“ certainly not for complex or disputed subjects ā€“ so we have to ask: Which one of these desirable goals are we willing to give up? Shall we have bad content, so long as it's fast and cheap to make the decision? Shall we have lengthy processes, so long as the result is good and doesn't require too many editors? Shall we invest huge amounts of editors' time, so long as we get a good result from a large number of editors? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking you what you want, and you put the question back onto me? Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have already told you repeatedly what I want. I want the community to decide whether they want ONUS or not, and I want them to live with whatever decision they make.
The options are:
  1. If there's a dispute about including something, and we can't reach agreement to include it, then it's out.
  2. If there's a dispute about including something, and we can't reach agreement to include it, then it's in.
  3. If there's a dispute about including something, and we can't reach agreement to include it, then some other factor decides whether it's in or out (e.g., editor with the oldest account wins, older version of the article wins, we write a random-number generator to flip a coin...).
I don't care what the choice is, but they need to pick something, and it needs to be the same rule for everyone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that is realistic. You need a test with more conditions and stipulations. AndrešŸš 20:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A few thoughts:
  • There's already a list of such examples in Wikipedia:Verifiability#cite note-3, in BURDEN: "problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g., why the source is unreliable; the source does not support the claim; undue emphasis; unencyclopedic content; etc.)". We could make that more visible.
  • I'm not sure that we need to "ensure a consistent outcome" if a discussion ends in 'no consensus'. My main concern is that some editors will see the factual statistical statement in NOCON and think that it favors inclusion of long-standing but disputed content, in opposition to ONUS favoring removal of disputed information, long-standing or otherwise. I don't want policies to contradict each other, or even to be capable, if a proficient wikilawyer is involved, to appear to contradict each other.
  • Because, you see, it is not true that "NOCON says "the proposal or bold edit" is undone". It is only true that "NOCON says that's what usually happens". NOCON doesn't say that no consensus should end in a status quo result; it only says that it's the statistically "common" outcome, assuming none of several common situations apply.
  • The problem of "which edit (the addition, change, or removal)" is the One Trueā„¢ Status Quo Version is one of the reasons that I dislike the WP:QUO approach. People who feel strongly about Wikipedia:The Truth will never agree that any of the non-True versions is "the last consensus version".
  • If you haven't actually read the QUO section of the Wikipedia:Reverting essay during the last few years, it is probably worth your time to do so. The gap between what many editors have been told that WP:UPPERCASE says and what it actually says is dramatic.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think a reasonable resolution would be to erase the defense of the status quo, as it is important. Otherwise, a brigade can come by and overturn anything by asking for a consensus of editors right then and there when one may have strongly existed at one time, but people are not obliged to satisfy you to turn out for a new head count quorum whenever some trolls might decide to call the roll. Focus on the arguments versus a tally would improve things if people were reasonable. Because then you can say, no, invoking ONUS is not sufficient here because there was a consensus that such and such an argument was valid and no new consensus has found otherwise. The idea that it takes a consensus to include something but that anytime anyone demands it to present itself that the old consensus is now null and void is non workable in my humble opinion. AndrešŸš 02:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, if you can actually point to written evidence of consensus in the past ā€“ a talk page discussion directly on the point, for example ā€“ then people will usually accept that (exceptions for very poor discussions and moderately determined POV pushers).
Usually, though, people invoke QUO when they know that no such discussion exists (e.g., because there has never been any discussion on the talk page at all, which appears to be the case for about 70% of the Talk: namespace, based on the number of pages that contain "UTC" [2.5 million] and the number that don't [5.7 million]).
Usually, these QUO invokers are hoping that you will take the fact that you were the first person to object to the content as proof that everyone else supports it. To which the only rational response is "See also Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia", because blatant vandalism didn't stay in the high-traffic Diabetic neuropathy for over four years and 192 intervening edits because there was "consensus" for it; it stayed there because nobody who knew anything about diabetes noticed it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my view these different kinds of consensuses are indeed different. And if it should be the case that some past consensus that was explicit has some kind of protection by convention or de facto practice, that would be an example of where ONUS should not be a blank check to remove things, and a meaningful carveout or clarification. Moderately determined POV pushers are not a rarity after all. In the case that something was added, never discussed, and is removed without discussion, and reverted once, I can see ONUS being a benefit if it justifies removal or a 2nd revert and shifting the BURDEN on the reverter. But in the case where something had been discussed in the past, that discussion should be some protection against a drive-by assertion of the BURDEN. If someone is defending a well-attended, well-advertised discussion that led to a consensus, that is a situation where I would side with QUO/NOCON and say that the 2nd revert is misplaced. AndrešŸš 06:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've switched shortcuts. BURDEN applies only to uncited content.
If something was established by a well-attended, well-advertised discussion that led to a consensus (and no obvious reason to believe things have actually changed since then), or even something half that good, then you shouldn't be siding with QUO, whose real name is Wikipedia:Reverting#Avoid reverting during discussion and therefore inapplicable except "during discussion"; you should be siding with Wikipedia:Consensus, because you have every reason to believe that there is a consensus for whatever that was.
The situation you describe ought to go like this:
  • A: I'm removing this cited, verifiable text because I think it has The Wrongā„¢ POV.
  • B: I'm reverting it back in because we have a consensus to include this. See Talk:Article#Great Huge RFC, which was summarized with the words "Clear and convincing consensus" to include those exact words and those two sources.
  • A: Oh. [Insert optional rant about how they're right and everyone else is wrong.]
It should not go like this:
  • A: I'm removing this cited, verifiable text because I think it has The Wrongā„¢ POV.
  • B: I'm reverting it back in because of the essay QUO, which only applies during a discussion [which we're not having], and because reverting it back in is the statistically most likely outcome in the rare event that the discussion [which we're not having] doesn't come to a consensus either way.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for confusing matters by substituting BURDEN for the actual concept of who has the burden of proof or whose responsibility it is. My point is that in the 2nd case you gave, reverting it back is not because of QUO but because of the past consensus. Then the question is what happens when
  • C: Revert of revert, removes the item citing ONUS
AndrešŸš 08:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then you point "C" to the existing evidence of consensus. If "C" accepts that, then you're done. And if "C" doesn't, you decide how you want to pursue this. For example, another discussion? Ping the person who wrote the closing summary? Chat up admins about "editing against consensus"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But ONUS currently as you said has no concept of existing consensus. As written, any inclusion is now the responsibility of whoever is restoring it today. AndrešŸš 20:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ONUS requires "whoever is restoring it today" to take responsibility for achieving a consensus to include it. Pointing at last month's "Great Huge RFC" is "achieving a consensus". ONUS doesn't say that you can't get written permission in advance. It only says you have to get written permission. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That certainly is not clear from how it is written. AndrešŸš 20:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clear enough? If you impose a "must be done after the dispute", then you end up with the nonsensical result that ONUS allegedly supports:
  1. Hold a Great Huge RFC, which closes on Monday with clear evidence of a strong consensus to include ____.
  2. Add ____ on Tuesday.
  3. Someone reverts on Wednesday, and says "I cry ONUS. You have to do another RFC, because ONUS magically resets the clock on consensus, and any discussion or evidence of consensus that predates my revert doesn't count."
  4. And if you do, another opponent can force a third RFC, etc.
The community won't stand for that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not too far from situations that have happened before. You aren't supposed to relitigate things if nothing substantive has changed, but I know of situations where they just keep restarting the discussion until people are tired and the result has changed due to the draw of who was there at the end. No consensus = status quo is key to how Wikipedia works. Many situations where the arguments are equally strong and the attendance is roughly equal should lead to a status quo or a compromise. But sometimes this is not what happens. ONUS should be updated to reflect that consensus does not vanish simply because those people are not there today. AndrešŸš 20:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ONUS favoring removal of disputed information, long-standing or otherwise; you keep saying this, but there is no consensus that ONUS means that. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not a consensus but in practice, it can work like that, it is a bit like a finger on the scale. Still think maybe first try to find an agreed policy page to park these things and go from there, rather than trying to cross every t and dot every i beforehand. If that's possible. Selfstudier (talk) 09:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, when we ask editors to tell us what ONUS says, they agree that ONUS doesn't provide an exemption for "long-standing" content.
I have at least once had to ask them to pretend it was a Reading comprehension test to get them to read the words that were in front of them, but I've never yet had anyone say that The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content contains any words about "long-standing" content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a conflict between advice and practice. As we know, practice trumps the written policy and it should be updated to reflect that. However, as you say, an RFC might likely reach no consensus to do so. AndrešŸš 20:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find that editors are perfectly capable of understanding ONUS exactly as it is writtenā€”as long as they're trying to get something excluded. When they want to include information, they appear to develop temporary amnesia about ONUS' existence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the word "include" means "add" then "longstanding" is implied if longstanding indicates a certain level of consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Include clearly does not mean add. Add means add. Include means include. Sorry, not to be tautological, but the act of adding something that was not there before versus the act of removing something is what is at question here specifically. AndrešŸš 23:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kolya, the reason that "add" is a problem is basically that we create new articles.
I wrote Cake mixing techniques yesterday. So far, there are three edits, all by me. All three versions contain the full list of techniques.
If you disputed the inclusion of one of the methods listed in it, then what "long-standing" or "status quo" version could you revert to, that wouldn't include the disputed method?
An insistence on "add", rather than "include", implies that the article has past versions that are potentially acceptable. This is not true for many articles. It also creates a First-mover advantage for the article creator: I will never have to defend any of the content I included or take responsibility for achieving a consensus for Wikipedia to include this information, because mine is always the most long-standing version. After all, nobody's preferred version could possibly be more long-standing than the original creation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is an edge case. The case that is problematic involves include where inclusion is an ongoing negotiation between different editors and very often in controversial articles, sensitive and delicate agreements are brokered between opposing camps over a lengthy period of time. AndrešŸš 01:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's an edge case. Single-author articles are common. Have a look at a few of mine:
I could go on, but it's kind of discouraging. People just don't collaborate much. So if you show up at one of these with a desire to remove something, there realistically isn't a "long-standing" version that doesn't contain whatever I wanted to include. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand and I also have written some articles alone. But concerns about revert wars, POV pushers, and the misuse of ONUS are generally going to be about big vital articles with many editors. So it is an edge case pertaining to ONUS use because nobody is likely revert warring or citing ONUS on articles with one author. AndrešŸš 02:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "some" articles. That's a consecutive list of every one I looked at. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a function of what you choose to be interested in to create or edit. But consider an article such as a major political figure, language, ethnic group, municipality, and so on. AndrešŸš 06:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, consider high-traffic, high-conflict articles.
But also consider that >95% of Wikipedia's articles aren't those. Reversible poem is in the top ~6% of page views (7,852 page views during the last year [1]), and yet there isn't a single word on that page that wasn't written by me.
We need the rules to work for all the articles, not just the high-traffic, high-conflict ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my view ONUS is not about all articles. ONUS is about disputed content. Many articles never have a dispute. Within the subset of article text that is disputed, ONUS has to do with how to handle a dispute of that material and the responsibility or proper role of the editors involved in the dispute. Consensus is part of it and verifiability has to do with it. But, in the end, it is not about all articles. Most of the articles that you wrote solo about lesser-known facts will never need an ONUS because nobody will ever challenge or question the text. And if they do, it will be pretty cut and dry. No need for an RFC or a 3rd opinion. AndrešŸš 01:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you didn't have a preference for what ONUS should mean? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to have rules written clearly. If we mean "add", then it should say "add". It doesn't. It says "include", and we have (a) no reason to believe that "add" was intended and (b) good reasons to believe that "add" and "include" are not synonymous in very practical ways. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't have good reason to believe "include" was intended over "add" when in context it is a policy intended to be about V and not a policy about editing and consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first good reason to believe that "include" was intended over "add" (in the sense of "make a change") is that the editor chose the word "include".
  • The second good reason to believe that "include" was intended over "add" is that it's in the section saying that getting your content to stick on the page requires more than verifiability.
  • The third good reason to believe that "include" was intended over "add" is that the editor who added it said that he was trying to stop "POV pushers", not "changes".
  • The fourth reason is that editor has never contradicted the interpretation of ONUS as being intended to facilitate the removal of bad content regardless of when it was added.
  • The fifth reason is that editor has also spent a lot of time removing information that other editors wanted to include. 85% of his recent mainspace contributions reduced the size of the page. Very few of them were undo/reverts.
So, yes, I think we do have good reasons to think that "include, regardless of when it was added" is the intended meeting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not convincing. In ten years he's never actually articulated his intentions? Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that it will help, but we can do this:
@JzG, please tell us whether you think that WP:ONUS should apply to only to "additions" to an article, or if you think it should apply to any content in the mainspace that has ever been "included", or that someone wants to have included.
Please be clear, specific, detailed, and direct, so that your words cannot be misunderstood or twisted.
We may find it helpful if you make specific statements about:
  • whether you believe that "long-standing content" should be exempt from an ONUS-based removal, and
  • whether you believe that content present from the first version of an article should be exempt from ONUS because it hasn't been merely "added" but is the most long-standing of "inclusions".
WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a loaded question. And "longstanding" is not a PAG based term is it? There are only varying degrees of consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, there are no actual policies or guidelines that favor retention of "long-standing" content merely because it is long-standing. It's also not in QUO. But QUO-promoting editors regularly use descriptions like "the long-standing version" when explaining why Wikipedia:Reverting#Avoid reverting during discussion supposedly means that they are supposed to revert to their preferred version during discussion.
"Long-standing" is theoretically not a measure of consensus. It is a measure of purely factual age. We can have "long-standing hoaxes" and "long-standing vandalism" and "long-standing copyright violations". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was a rhetorical question to point out that your question was loaded. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have confidence that JzG can and will see through how I've written the question, and that he tell us directly if he disagrees with me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, the onus is always-on the editor seeking or defending inclusion. The number of editors adding stuff, sometimes in overt defiance of policy (especially NOTDIR), vastly exceeds the number of gnomes and others cleaning it up. Policy is policy. You have to demonstrate that content you like, meets policy. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does "include" mean "add", or does it refer to, for example, restoring content with potential silent consensus? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion re Move NOCON to this page? Part 3

[edit]

Consensus. Let's put them all at Consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Np with that. Eventually, that's what all the onus/quo/blah discussions are about, even if they are "stuck" for some period of time (bit like this one). Selfstudier (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we satisfy both sides by transcluding NOCON to this page, without moving it?ā€”S Marshall T/C 13:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you draft that up? Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would we want to violate Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Ā­Content, which opposes duplication and redundancy?
    More to the point, the reason for this proposal was to get NOCON out of CON. Transcluding it here would not meet the goal of removing it from there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure it's a goal at this point, a subject of discussion maybe, at any rate I am less concerned with where individual things are, more whether they are together, wherever they are. Selfstudier (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The policy does not oppose duplication and redundancy, it says minimize redundancy. But I agree with Selfstudier; let's get them together on one page. Consensus seems like the easiest place. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Minimize" is opposition. It is not absolute opposition ("ban"), but it is the opposite of support and therefore opposition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not duplicated if it's transcluded: {{excerpt}} Only the source page will host the wikitext for the section transcluded to the target. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is duplicated ā€“ from the POV of the reader, and in this case, from the POV of the editor who says "You can't do this because of Policy X" while another says "I'm looking a Policy Y, and I think we should..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That only has an effect if said policies are different. "You can't do this because of Policy X." "I'm looking at Policy Y, and I think we should... oh wait this says the exact same thing I agree with you." Aaron Liu (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We already have a problem with editors citing two different shortcuts that point to the same WP:UPPERCASE, and claiming that they say opposite things. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you specify? Aaron Liu (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you looking for an example proving that Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions? If so, consider WP:NOTNEWS, which says that articles should be up to date and that breaking news can be mentioned, and yet gets cited as proof that policy prefers outdated articles, WP:NOTDATABASE being invoked to claim that you can't cite databases, or editors claiming that Wikipedia:Conflict of interest prevents published experts from citing their own works in a Wikipedia article, when the WP:CITESELF section of that guideline actually says it's okay.
    We even see disputes in which one editor says that WP:WIKIVOICE requires X and another says that WP:NPOV requires the opposite. If you click the link to WIKIVOICE, you'll see that you end up at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Explanation. They're arguing the opposite conclusions from the same policy page, and they usually have no idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:53, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But aren't we talking about the opposite, having the same text in two different policy pages? Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:00, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If people make opposite claims about the same text on the same page, what makes you think that having the same text on two different policy pages will not have the same problem? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds like they were pointing to different text on the same page. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, at least in the round I saw a couple of months ago, they weren't pointing at different text. They were just assuming that the shortcuts were complete and accurate summaries of the actual rule.
    The underlying problem is that Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions. The English Wikipedia's instruction process is a telephone game that teaches editors some WP:UPPERCASE (ā†go read that page) like they're magic words: When you see something like ____, the magic word "WP:SYNTH" lets you revert it. When you see _____, the magic word "WP:SPAM" lets you revert it. Most editors don't read the section they're linking to, much less understand that section in the context of the broader policy or guideline. They frequently don't even realize that the shortcut points to an essay (or even a user-space essay).
    Think about the number of times you've seen an RFC or other discussion end with no consensus, and someone asserts that WP:STATUSQUO says that means their side wins. Now go read WP:STATUSQUO and think about how little its contents resemble the claim. Note, too, that it's an essay. People don't claim QUO means they win if they have read and understood QUO. They only claim that QUO means they win when their understanding of QUO amounts to "When I was a newbie, someone told me that QUO meant I lost, and I believed them, and now it's my turn to win." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I know you are using that flippantly but in my view winning or losing is not really material, but rather whether there is some institutional inertia for the status quo -- which comes largely from closers and common practice -- or if there is a bias for change or action -- which is baked into a lot of the editing process, which makes formal discussions a more deliberative check and balance on the tendency of wiki text to change. I've noticed that some people who do not think that change from an existing silent consensus requires a new consensus, therefore believe that someone defending the status quo from a change that does not have a consensus to overturn the existing silent consensus is inherently stonewalling. In my view the existence of policy and the fact that many people misunderstand and misinterpret policy are not at odds. Better, simpler policies are followed more often and sometimes we need to change the policy to adapt to the practice. However, the reason why this hasn't been ironed out is that some people fundamentally believe that you need a consensus to change, and others believe that inherently, any content needs an affirmative consensus to be kept otherwise should be removed. AndrešŸš 21:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since the Wikipedia:Ownership of content policy says that it's not okay to revert changes merely because you feel the change, though harmless, is unnecessary ("An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental.") it might be difficult to build a coherent argument in favor of requiring an affirmative consensus for all changes.
OTOH, there are advantages to having stable rulesets. Bold copyediting doesn't change the rules. Bold rule changes make processes like WP:FAC complicated. You don't want FAC reviewers to have to keep up with an ever-shifting list of rules ("Well, on Monday, I said that the writing was good, but it's Tuesday now, and today the MOS says that paragraphs can't have more than 400 words, so..."). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a misunderstanding of what I said and not completely germane even though it may seem to be. Aside from the fact that many people do revert changes that introduce obvious disimprovements with that rationale (e.g. mangling of grammar or adding seemingly AI-generated content but simply revert with "not an improvement") even when another rationale could be elucidated. Also, I did not mean an affirmative consensus for all changes but rather that a compromise brokered by RFC years ago isn't now moot simply because another new RFC was a hung result. A simple edit that has stood for a while can be changed by another simple edit, but can also be reverted; the opposite would imply that this common behavior is wrong. In theory, it could be reverted twice or even 3 times and now it is an edit war. In the situation where someone makes a harmless but unnecessary change that is reverted twice and deadlocked in a dead end discussion, effectively, that would have been stonewalling. Do you think that either this behavior is unnecessary and that any past consensus or compromise can be considered easily mootable or that there is never a situation where a change makes the article worse for a reason that is subjective or requires interpretation? That would seem to me untenable. Think about another example, a user tries to make a change twice and is reverted twice by two different users and then later an admin semiprotects or protects the page. Who has a consensus and what kind? Should we write that anyone should have the impetus to come by and rewrite anything even if it has gone through an RFC? AndrešŸš 21:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the unclear edit summary:
When people revert mangled grammar with an edit summary of "not an improvement", they don't mean "The introduction of bad grammar on this page is harmless but unnecessary, so I'm reverting it". They mean "This was harmful to the page but I'm trying to be gentle with the other person's feelings" or "This was so obviously harmful that I'm going to ironically understate the problem".
One understands this choice; after all, WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL are at least theoretically still part of our behavioral rules, and you hardly want to write edit summaries like "Rv incoherent garbage" or "Rv appalling grammar errors".
However, there are downsides to less-than-literal edit summaries. Because of our telephone game problem, inexperienced editors, especially if they have weaker social communication skills and/or didn't understand how the edit was detrimental, may see edit summaries like "Not an improvement" and think "Oh! Wikipedia thinks that it's good, or at least acceptable, to revert all edits unless they constitute 'an improvement'. I can help Wikipedia by reverting edits that I don't believe are 'an improvement'."
And then we block them for WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, and they have no idea why some editors can get away with it, but they get in trouble for it.
On the harmless, non-detrimental change:
That said, you may have noticed above that I specified a change that was harmless but unnecessary, which is not a case of "obvious disimprovements".
On the role of prior discussions:
I'm not sure that my view is the popular one, but I think the role for a years-old decision, even if it was an RFC, is pretty limited. If you have a discussion today that ends in no consensus, then it doesn't really matter what the past consensus (if any) actually was. When the community's current consensus is "Sorry, 404 Consensus not found", that does overrule years-old decisions.
What you should do in such situations depends on the situation (at AFD, keep; for BLPs, remove; for WP:ELBURDEN, remove; for blocks, unblock; etc.) but past-us doesn't get to WP:SUPERVOTE against present-us ā€“ in theory. In practice, the absence of a current consensus frequently, but definitely not always, results in minimal change.
I think this will make more sense if you think about the possibility of two RFCs, years apart, with the same people involved. In 2015, Alice, Bob, Chris, and David !voted three to one in favor of omitting ____. In 2025, Alice, Bob, Chris, and David !voted two against two on the same question. Chris changed their mind in the intervening decade. Do we really want to say that past-Chris gets to overrule present-Chris? It's illogical to assume that past-Chris knows more about the subject or about Wikipedia's rules than present-Chris. But if we refuse to accept today's lack of consensus as real, and insist that we follow past-Chris's decade-old vote, that's really what we're doing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a fundamental disagreement. A new RFC not overturning a new one is not a SUPERVOTE of the past against us. That is some tortured logic. A new RFC is a resolution and a proposal and if it fails to carry, you do not forget the old compromise. No consensus should default to status quo, that is the way it has always worked on Wikipedia, with the exception added to protect BLPs - the exception demonstrates the overall rule, ie BLPs are a special case.
In your example, it is too contrived. First of all, consensus is not a numbers game, so if the arguments are the same but one person changed their mind, that really shouldn't change the overall result, and it would still be no consensus if Chris did not change their argument or bring something new to bear. In terms of whether that is an example of the past-Chris overruling the present-Chris, it is neither. Consensus is a totality and a holistic measure, and individuals do not override or not-override their opinions except in context, and each discussion closure exists both in isolation and relative to other past closes. In other words, present Chris has overriden past Chris but only inasmuch as it is representing the opinion of Chris. Different closers can also vary but the point is that it doesn't make sense and is unsound logically to expect closers to see how each individual's view has evolved over time. That is basically irrelevant, we only care about aggregates. Like polling, an individual poll may be a outlier, polling is only scientific if you have a sufficient sample size. AndrešŸš 01:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I realize this surprises people every time, but some of the decisions we make on Wikipedia aren't really based on strength of arguments.
And sometimes, "the exception that proves the rule" is actually "the exception that swallows the rule", in which case we need a new rule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware that there are many aspects of Wikipedia that do not follow the high minded principle, but we are speaking in terms of policy, ie a prescription that is recognized to have a need for exceptions and off-ramps. I do not see how the BLP scenario has swallowed all articles. Living people are only a small fraction of articles. People, full stop, I assume are only a small fraction of articles given how many articles there must be on species from the other kingdoms of life. There are also plenty of otherwise contemporary modern controversial political articles that deal almost entirely with people who lived hundreds of years ago. Regardless, the idea that a precedent is somehow a supervote (meaning when one person overrides a vote) would be incoherent in most epistemological systems, as past precedent is key to for example, Bayesian analysis or fundamentals of empiricism. Consensus can change, but when there is no consensus, that should not mean it has therefore changed. When there is a consensus followed by no consensus to change it it should still hold, because trying to run a system where sensitive compromises are made is almost impossible if they have absolutely no staying ability. It means opening the floodgates to any half-motivated brigade of trolls. Might as well give up. And arguably a lot of people already have given up. AndrešŸš 02:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we had a consensus in 2015, and we have no consensus in 2025, then consensus has changed. Consensus is no longer the same in 2025 (when we have none) as it was in 2015 (when we had one), right? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there was a consensus and then the consensus has changed to no consensus, having a no consensus result result in changing material privileges change rather than being a standstill. I think that many controversial issues would best be handled by a very carefully negotiated NPOV. My view is that this is more or less both how things generally currently work and how they should work, which is why I do not favor changing the current writing of it to be more biased toward overturning old compromises. AndrešŸš 03:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that privileging either the old or the new is the right answer. The right answer might be flipping a coin, or preferring inclusion/exclusion.
The right answer probably is "keep talking", if there is any realistic hope of finding a consensus (works for, say, a recent event, but not so much for real-world geopolitcal disputes that last for generations), and it's probably "look for creative compromises" even if agreement in general is elusive. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Flip a coin or keep talking is not the answer. In a genuine no consensus situation, the only workable solution is to preserve the status quo. That is indeed part of NOCON and it is alluded to elsewhere and part of the BRD cycle and PRESERVE. I'd favor making that clearer and less ambiguous, but you seem to think that there is some wiggle room between that and something else. I personally, humbly, do not see that and I think it would make sensitive topic areas even worse. Stability and stable versions are a concept that needs a bit of explanation and protection. In practice it already does, and the policy should reflect that. AndrešŸš 17:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct: I don't favor a bias that supports Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling. I also have a slight inclination towards what Wikipedia:BADREVERT says: Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo (except in some cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved). In fact, Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation.
I also think that both approaches can be taken to damaging extremes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said before, the idea that protecting the status quo is inherently stonewalling is not tenable and disingenuous. Many, many edits are not improvements or upset an apple cart. Many many editors make defensive reverts to protect a stable sensitive consensus on controversial topics. On both or all sides of any issues. It is just hand waving away the many legitimate defensive reverts that are not stonewalling, and in situations where it is actually stonewalling, it should be clear that a new consensus can form, but when it has not and we are legitimately at a 50-50 perfect stalemate, the status quo can and should and does prevail. AndrešŸš 19:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Protecting the status quo" actively supports stonewalling. Protecting the status quo is not "inherently" or "always" stonewalling, but it does actively support it.
I agree that many edits are not an improvement. However, "not an improvement" can mean "neutral and harmless". Consider an article that says "The elephant is a mammal". Someone re-writes it into the plural: "Elephants are mammals".
Is this "an improvement"? Eh, maybe not. Is this "harmful", even a little bit? Definitely not. Should you be reverting it? No.
But writing that sentence in the singular the status quo! We need to protect the precious, valuable status quo against edits that are simply "not improvements"! I say that's spinach.
I believe that there is value in not upsetting carefully balanced apple carts. But >95% of articles don't have any carefully balanced apple carts to be concerned about, and always protecting the status quo merely because it is the older version is a bad idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Read the essay you linked. Stonewalling is stonewalling by virtue of replacing or shutting down discussion. We are talking about a situation where discussion is at an impasse. AndrešŸš 21:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And sometimes we are talking about a situation in which the discussion wouldn't be at an impasse, except that some of the participants believe that they can ignore suggestions for compromise, because "no consensus" == "I win". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would be stonewalling, but there are tons of legitimate cases that are not, in fact arguably the majority of cases where NOCON applies, are simply intractable doctrinal conflicts. I would also argue that the reverse of stonewalling, ie ONUS-consensus-griefing ("this has no consensus to stay in, so it must go") can equally be manipulated by a bad actor to just "win." But let us stipulate that many legitimate issues end in no consensus in good faith and without bad actors overriding. AGF actually suggests we should do this instead of planning for the worst. Wikipedia is not supposed to take sides on these issues that have two or more sides with equal strength and diametrically opposed narratives. Let's not be naive and assume that NPOV will always mean neatly sorting POVs with no interpretation. For many issues no matter how many times and how long it is discussed, there is just a roughly equal divide whether it is liberals and conservatives, geographical determinists versus biological, Copenhagen vs many worlds, P=NP vs NP-completists or whatever. If you think "well, the (liberals/conservatives/determinists...) are just right and the other group are being stubborn," that is not what NPOV tells us to do. NPOV says to throw a bone to each minority POV and write for the opponent. I would argue that in many cases Wikipedia does a good job of this largely due to the status quo resulting from a NOCON, and cases where Wikipedia has done a poor job of this could possibly be resolved by identifying a core compromise that needs to be implemented better. AndrešŸš 22:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to assume here that a status quo bias means keeping content. A status quo bias may well result in the removal of more contested information than it keeps. Except for relatively new articles, contested content tends not to have been present from the earliest versions of an article, and therefore the status quo means removal. It's true that I'm concerned about the WP:PGCONFLICT between (non-BLP) NOCON and ONUS, but that's likely an uncommon situation.
  • AGF actually suggests we should do this instead of planning for the worst: No, it doesn't. WP:AGF says that we should assume that the people who screw up pages are doing so out of a belief that they're helping. AGF reminds us that people mostly don't don't add (e.g.,) pseudoscience to articles because they are trying to hurt Wikipedia; they do it because they are true believers in nonsense. People mostly don't screw up wikitext formatting because they want articles to look ugly; they do it because they got confused. Even WP:UPE spammers aren't trying to hurt Wikipedia; for the most part, they genuinely believe that their client's Wikipedia article will be better off if it includes some marketing buzzwords ("accurate"), or if it doesn't include damaging facts ("neutral"), or if it says something about their latest product ("up to date"). Wikipedia's ruleset needs to be written to defend the wiki against harm, including the unintentional harm that AGF addresses.
  • I agree that identifying a core compromise is needed in no-consensus situations. I don't believe that a status quo bias helps us do that.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say the status quo version is always more content, but ONUS-misuse is usually removing something. The status quo is whatever the version was before the bold change. I do not agree with or understand the argument that anything contested was probably not there in the earliest versions and therefore is not the status quo. The WP:STABLEVERSION could be of many different ages or durations. AndrešŸš 07:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ONUS use (and misuse) should always be related to removal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remind me what is it that you want? I'm hearing that you're opposing suggestions here, but what do you want? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I was appointed absolute magical monarch of the wikiverse, you mean? I'd time-travel back to 2011 and tell past-me not to create NOCON, and that if I was stupid enough not to take future-me's advice, to pitch a screaming fit when another (since-blocked) editor enshrined, despite multiple discussions failing to support it, an overly simplistic status-quo bias into the policy.
If your question is about what might be feasible in reality, then I think the text might be most useful as a sub-section of Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Writing a summary, where the focus should be on "Don't just tell people there's no consensus and leave them to fight about it; tell them there's no consensus so we're going to _____ unless and until a consensus forms." WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like I must have said this before in another NOCON/ONUS thread but the concept of no-consensus defaulting to the keep or status quo ante certainly predates 2011 and was a thing when I was thinking the thoughts that I tried to write in WP:DAQ in 2005. The idea there was that edit summaries should be an affirmative case for why a change is an improvement. Defaulting to the version before the bold change was definitely common practice at that time. AndrešŸš 07:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting to the status quo ante bellum was certainly "a concept" in 2011, but multiple discussions in the preceding months indicated that it wasn't agreed on as a rule. It was something a minority of editors preferred as a rule, and most editors thought was should be settled case-by-case. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication

[edit]

ā€˜Semi-automatedā€™ needs defining

[edit]

In the Mass creation section. Automated is sensible, meaning without any human intervention, but how does that translate to being somewhat? Is it when an editor creates an article then gets a bot to clean it (such as Ram-Man and Rambot), or something else entirely? Roasted (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the distinction is being made concerns the potential for disruption across a large number of articles. That is, (semi-)automation enables the significant outpacing of human editors (those using the standard interfaces in a standard manner) and thus potentially the creation of many work-hours remedying or analyzing for others in the span of minutes. Remsense ā€„ č®ŗ 18:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does WP:SEMIAUTOMATED help? Anomieāš” 01:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OTOH, note that the impetus for Wikipedia talk:Bot policy/Archive 30#RFC: Sever WP:MASSCREATE from WP:BOTPOL, which moved the section here from WP:Bot policy, was that some people were wanting to apply it to non-bot editing too (and were trying to bend WP:MEATBOT all out of shape to support that). Such a change wouldn't make sense with it as part of WP:BOTPOL, while here they would be free to propose such a change. Why they haven't yet, I have no idea. Anomieāš” 01:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANTFIX the impossible

[edit]

The end of the middle paragraph in this section reads:

...and material for which no reliable source that supports it has ever been published.

This seems like unactionable advice. It is not possible, in the general case, to prove a negative. Am I missing something? What is the intent here?

The other two paragraphs here are clear and actionable and perhaps that's all we need. ~Kvng (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to prove it rigorously or mathematically. Most of us know obvious OR where when we see it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:34, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't read this as referring exclusively to OR, I thought it could be read as referring to all unsourced material. Am I mistaken? ~Kvng (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do read it as relating to OR ("materialā€”such as facts, allegations, and ideasā€”for which no reliable, published source exists"). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:57, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I should have quoted the whole paragraph:

Remove libel, nonsense, and vandalism, material that violates copyright and material for which no reliable source that supports it has ever been published.

I really don't see how you get an OR context from this. If that's how everyone else is reading it, we could clarify:

Remove libel, nonsense, and vandalism, material that violates copyright and materialoriginal research for which no reliable source that supports it has ever been published.

~Kvng (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:04, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done ~Kvng (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kvng, you should get "an OR context" from this because that's the definition of OR. ("On Wikipedia, original research means materialā€”such as facts, allegations, and ideasā€”for which no reliable, published source exists. [Footnote at the end of this sentence] By "exist", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still existā€”somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable onlineā€”even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policyā€”so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source.")
The problem with saying "Remove OR" is that some editors don't actually know what OR is. Most of us know if when we see it, but some of us struggle with the difference between, e.g., WP:Glossary#uncited (a problem that can be fixed by adding a ref to the page) and WP:Glossary#unverifiable (a problem that cannot be fixed because the the real world has no sources saying this). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any suggestion for improving my recent edit? ~Kvng (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You could consider this:
  • ...and article content for which no reliable source that supports it has ever been [[Wikipedia:Published|published]] ("[[WP:OR|original research]]").
As one of our less popular policies, I'm not sure how much effort should be put into wordsmithing it, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]