90,866
edits
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Consensus: Difference between revisions
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Consensus (view source)
Revision as of 13:13, 19 December 2009
, 19 December 2009add {{Unresolved|Approve/formulate a consensus policy}}
(add {{Unresolved|Approve/formulate a consensus policy}}) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Unresolved|Approve/formulate a consensus policy}} | |||
== What is consensus? == | == What is consensus? == | ||
In order for an item to migrate from a Manual of Style discussion to a Manual of Style guideline, it needs to have reached consensus with the community. But what is consensus? Wikipedians say it is not unanimity. But what is it? A 60-40 vote? a 70-30 vote? 80-20? What kind of majority does an issue need to show in order to have reached consensus? Possibly, as Jbparker said, we don't have to worry so much about getting a huge majority on an issue because what we're making with the Manual of Style isn't policies, but guidelines. They're like strong recommendations. If someone doesn't want to follow them, they aren't compelled to do so. So community, '''what is consensus?''' [[User: | In order for an item to migrate from a Manual of Style discussion to a Manual of Style guideline, it needs to have reached consensus with the community. But what is consensus? Wikipedians say it is not unanimity. But what is it? A 60-40 vote? a 70-30 vote? 80-20? What kind of majority does an issue need to show in order to have reached consensus? Possibly, as Jbparker said, we don't have to worry so much about getting a huge majority on an issue because what we're making with the Manual of Style isn't policies, but guidelines. They're like strong recommendations. If someone doesn't want to follow them, they aren't compelled to do so. So community, '''what is consensus?''' [[User:RitcheyMT|Ritcheymt]] 21:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
:I saw "proposed consensus" used in some documentation on Wikipedia. Perhaps there is a proposed consensus written up and a period of time to allow for approval.. I think the opinion box that was added to the [[FamilySearch Wiki talk:Use|History/Local History discussion]] was a good way to get to a consensus.[[User: | :I saw "proposed consensus" used in some documentation on Wikipedia. Perhaps there is a proposed consensus written up and a period of time to allow for approval.. I think the opinion box that was added to the [[FamilySearch Wiki talk:Use|History/Local History discussion]] was a good way to get to a consensus.[[User:JensenFA|Franjensen]] 21:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
:I agree with Fran on the use of the "opinion box" and the use of the terminology "proposed consensus." It seems to me that the person to write up the latter should be the person who sees a need in having consensus on a subject. Then all the contributors and users can weigh in on that subject. [[User:Jbparker|Jbparker]] 16:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC) | :I agree with Fran on the use of the "opinion box" and the use of the terminology "proposed consensus." It seems to me that the person to write up the latter should be the person who sees a need in having consensus on a subject. Then all the contributors and users can weigh in on that subject. [[User:Jbparker|Jbparker]] 16:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
| Line 20: | Line 21: | ||
#A policy for proposing changes to or deletion of guidelines. | #A policy for proposing changes to or deletion of guidelines. | ||
:Sorry, no solutions proposed, just more problems stated.[[User: | :Sorry, no solutions proposed, just more problems stated.[[User:MannAE|Alan]] 22:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
These are great points, Alan. Here are some comments: | These are great points, Alan. Here are some comments: | ||
| Line 29: | Line 30: | ||
*Number 8 feels litigious. If we want a policy changed or deleted, why not just add an argument to the discussion page? | *Number 8 feels litigious. If we want a policy changed or deleted, why not just add an argument to the discussion page? | ||
[[User: | [[User:RitcheyMT|Ritcheymt]] 22:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
== Governing body needed == | == Governing body needed == | ||
| Line 37: | Line 38: | ||
:I've thought more about this matter of a governing body, and it has raised some questions which will, no doubt, expose my ignorance. But I'm going to ask them anyway. As the Wiki expands, how many "Sysops" will there be? Who has the ultimate decision-making power for the Wiki right now? How is the responsibility for policies/guidelines/user guide/content/etc. divided up now? It would seem to me that if a "governing body" is needed to answer some of Alan's questions above, the Sysops and Moderators should be involved, in some mix. [[User:Jbparker|Jbparker]] 16:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC) | :I've thought more about this matter of a governing body, and it has raised some questions which will, no doubt, expose my ignorance. But I'm going to ask them anyway. As the Wiki expands, how many "Sysops" will there be? Who has the ultimate decision-making power for the Wiki right now? How is the responsibility for policies/guidelines/user guide/content/etc. divided up now? It would seem to me that if a "governing body" is needed to answer some of Alan's questions above, the Sysops and Moderators should be involved, in some mix. [[User:Jbparker|Jbparker]] 16:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
::Governance on the wiki is complex, but we're leaning more and more to a place where functionality and style are driven by the community. I'd say the community presently has a lot more control over style than functionality right now, as evidenced by the ratio of user-driven to HQ-driven style discussions/changes being made now vs. the ratio of user-driven vs. HQ-driven engineering discussions/changes currently in the pipe. [[User: | ::Governance on the wiki is complex, but we're leaning more and more to a place where functionality and style are driven by the community. I'd say the community presently has a lot more control over style than functionality right now, as evidenced by the ratio of user-driven to HQ-driven style discussions/changes being made now vs. the ratio of user-driven vs. HQ-driven engineering discussions/changes currently in the pipe. [[User:JensenFA]] and I are working to establish a more democratic approach to usability change procedure. HQ has placed an awfully high priority on engineering changes that will let us integrate this wiki with FamilySearch.org -- and this focus has negatively affected our ability to fix usability concerns raised by the community. | ||
::Style, though, is another issue. We've learned to be democratic with that. I think we're even learning to post and invite the community to stylistic discussions suggested by this or that user long ago -- often in Community Meeting. And we've made it easy for users to champion their own stylistic causes in the Manual of Style talk pages. | ::Style, though, is another issue. We've learned to be democratic with that. I think we're even learning to post and invite the community to stylistic discussions suggested by this or that user long ago -- often in Community Meeting. And we've made it easy for users to champion their own stylistic causes in the Manual of Style talk pages. | ||
:When I hear of a need for a "governing board" on the wiki, it gives me pause. I thought that's what discussion pages were for -- and that the governing body would be anyone who wants to participate in those discussions. I don't like oligarchies or star chambers. I know that's not what you're suggesting, but I guess I need a better understanding of what you are suggesting. And all this may sound disingenuous coming from a founder of this site that has a lot of influence, but I seriously lean toward true democracy rather than representative democracy or oligarchy. I guess I just saw too many abuses of power while spending the first 24 years of my life on the outskirts of Washington, D.C. In the last month alone, I've probably said 20 times to my colleagues or prominent wiki users "Hey, we should be having this discussion on the wiki" -- meaning we were having some policy, usability, or style discussion in a board room or via e-mail or phone which would be a lot more idea-rich, democratized, consensus-driving, and actionable if we had it on a wiki discussion page instead of in a small, closed group. The idea of a "governing board" gives a feeling of closed-ness from which I think we should be moving away. [[User: | :When I hear of a need for a "governing board" on the wiki, it gives me pause. I thought that's what discussion pages were for -- and that the governing body would be anyone who wants to participate in those discussions. I don't like oligarchies or star chambers. I know that's not what you're suggesting, but I guess I need a better understanding of what you are suggesting. And all this may sound disingenuous coming from a founder of this site that has a lot of influence, but I seriously lean toward true democracy rather than representative democracy or oligarchy. I guess I just saw too many abuses of power while spending the first 24 years of my life on the outskirts of Washington, D.C. In the last month alone, I've probably said 20 times to my colleagues or prominent wiki users "Hey, we should be having this discussion on the wiki" -- meaning we were having some policy, usability, or style discussion in a board room or via e-mail or phone which would be a lot more idea-rich, democratized, consensus-driving, and actionable if we had it on a wiki discussion page instead of in a small, closed group. The idea of a "governing board" gives a feeling of closed-ness from which I think we should be moving away. [[User:RitcheyMT|Ritcheymt]] 04:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
::OK, I guess I need to redefine what I mean by governing board. And perhaps it goes back to what you, Michael, are calling "engineering" decisions. I have no problem with discussing what should go into the Wiki, or even how it looks, or how many illustrations, or what the topics should be on a page, or what those topics should be. But if someone wants to make changes or decisions that would impact how the system works, then that seems to me to go beyond the community concept and into having someone having to ssy, "That change will affect the system's operation in this way." Who has that responsibility now, and who should have it in the future? | ::OK, I guess I need to redefine what I mean by governing board. And perhaps it goes back to what you, Michael, are calling "engineering" decisions. I have no problem with discussing what should go into the Wiki, or even how it looks, or how many illustrations, or what the topics should be on a page, or what those topics should be. But if someone wants to make changes or decisions that would impact how the system works, then that seems to me to go beyond the community concept and into having someone having to ssy, "That change will affect the system's operation in this way." Who has that responsibility now, and who should have it in the future? | ||
| Line 53: | Line 54: | ||
== Wikipedia's model == | == Wikipedia's model == | ||
See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus Wikipedia:Consensus] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus Consensus]. [[User: | See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus Wikipedia:Consensus] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus Consensus]. [[User:RitcheyMT|Ritcheymt]] 20:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
== Related pages == | == Related pages == | ||