Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved. Please discuss changes on the talk page or request unprotection. (Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version.) |
 |
The status of this page is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. |
|
It is proposed that this page be renamed. Please see relevant discussion on the talk page. |
Decisions on Wikipedia are made by consensus, which is formed through debate. For this reason, it is preferred on Wikipedia to discuss issues rather than formally voting on them. That is not to say that voting is forbidden, but it should be used with care, and alternatives should be considered. In addition, even in cases that appear to be "votes," few if any decisions on Wikipedia are made on a "majority rule" basis. (See Wikipedia is not a democracy).
Potential problems with voting include:
- You might miss the best solution (or the best compromise) because it wasn't one of the options in the poll.
- By polarizing discussion and raising the stakes, the poll may contribute to a breakdown in civility and make it difficult for participants to assume good faith. A vote on a controversial issue is often extremely acrimonious.
- Participants in a poll often expect that a majority or supermajority will automatically win the argument, or that the result will be binding - which is not the case, since Wikipedia is not a democracy.
- Even if a poll stated to be non-binding, sometimes people decide afterwards that they should nevertheless do what the majority wants, in effect retroactively treating the poll result as binding. While it is reasonable to ask other editors to consider majority opinion during the course of the debate, no poll may ever be used to force minority opinion editors to accept a majority opinion.
Contents |
Use of polls when discussing Wikipedia articles
In some cases, editors use straw polls during discussions of what material to include in various Wikipedia articles. Although such polls are occasionally used and sometimes helpful, their use is controversial. Where used, article polls should be developed in a way to assist in reaching true consensus, rather than in an attempt to silence an opposing opinion.
Editors considering an article-related poll must remember that polling should be used with care (if at all), and should not invoke polls prematurely. Note that polling cannot serve as a substitute for debate and consensus; that no poll is binding on editors who do not agree; and that polling may aggravate rather than resolve existing disputes.
Polls regarding article content are often inconclusive and sometimes highly contentious. In order to have a chance of being productive, editors must appreciate the following:
- The ultimate goal of any article discussion is consensus, and a poll is helpful only if it helps editors actually reach true consensus.
- For that reason, article polls are never binding, and editors who continue to disagree with a majority opinion may not be shut out from discussions simply because they are in the minority. Similarly, editors who appear to be in the majority have an obligation to continue discussions and attempts to reach true consensus.
- For the same reason, article polls should not be used prematurely. If it is clear from ongoing discussion that consensus has not been reached, a poll is unlikely to assist in forming consensus and may polarize opinions, preventing or delaying any consensus from forming.
- Similarly, if a poll is inconclusive, or if there is disagreement about whether the question itself was unfair, the poll and its results should simply be ignored.
- Once responses to a poll have begun, even minor changes to the phrasing of the poll are likely to result in an all out battle over whether the poll itself was fair. Consider proposing poll language several days prior to opening the actual poll to responses, and beginning the poll only once you have consensus on the precise question to be asked.
- Core principles, such as NPOV and article sourcing, are obviously not subject to polls. People have been known to vote on a fact, which is ultimately pointless.
- Editors should exercise extreme care in requesting that others participate in a poll. See votestacking and campaigning.
- The purpose of a poll is to stimulate discussion and consensus. Editors should evaluate the explanations that the participants in a poll offer, and should see if those explanations help to develop their own opinions or suggest compromise. In this context, a few well reasoned opinions may affect a debate much more than several unexplained votes for a different course.
- In the context of Wikipedia articles, polls are most helpful, if ever, in evaluating whether a consensus exists or in "testing the waters" of editor opinion among a few discrete choies such as two choices for an article's name. Even in these cases, polls may never be understood as creating a consensus, but merely as one tool in developing a mutual and voluntary consensus.
- Polls should not be used excessively. If a poll was called on an issue recently, there is usually no reason to call a second poll, even if you think that consensus may have changed or that the first poll was conducted unfairly. If you disagree with the "majority" opinion, simply remember that the poll is not binding and continue discussions.
Deletion and featuring
Wikipedia has several processes to deal with deletion (e.g. WP:AFD) and featured content (e.g. WP:FAC). These are sometimes wrongly assumed to be majority votes. Each of these processes is not decided based strictly on the number of people choosing one side or another, but on the strength of the arguments presented. Participants in these processes should therefore explain the reasons for their opinion, and should view and consider the explanations offered by others.
Because the point of these processes is to form consensus, it is preferable that people discuss the matter rather than simply voting - that is, people are encouraged to explain their reasonings, respond to others and possibly compromise, rather than signing a one-word opinion and not looking back. Attempting to "vote stack" such processes are ineffective and potentially disruptive, and "votes" without reasoning may carry no weight in the final interpretation.
Policy and guidelines
Wikipedia is not a democracy; policy and guidelines are not ratified through a vote. Although some editors have historically argued that policies and guidelines should be adopted by vote or majority opinion, Wikipidia policy clearly contradicts this opinion. Under the relevant policy, new policies and guidelines may be created by (1) codifying existing practice; (2) through community WP:CONSENSUS, or (3) as a result of a declaration from Jimmy Wales, the Board, or the Developers in appropriate cases.
As discussed above, polling may be helpful in rare cases to confirm the existence of a consensus, or as a non-binding test of community opinion. However, because polling cannot create consensus, polling is rarely helpful in the development of policies or guidelines, and often counterproductive. Although polls and/or votes have been used in the adoption of a limited number of policies, including WP:3RR, WP:AP, WP:SPP and the older parts of WP:CSD, even in those these cases, the votes was put together carefully and only after discussing the matter for a month or more. No guideline has ever been enacted through a vote.
The aim of many guidelines is primarily to describe current practice to help editors to understand how Wikipedia works. This means that is not necessary, and in many cases unwise, to call a vote or straw poll on a proposed policy or guideline. If a proposal is not controversial, doing a headcount is not necessary; if a proposal is controversial, doing a headcount to see where the majority lies will not resolve the controversy, and may polarize it further. The controversy may spill onto the poll itself, causing debate on its mechanics. People tend to respond to ill-advised polls by voting against the poll or by adding a section for "voting is evil".
Standards
Once it has been decided by consensus to standardize an issue (e.g. template layout), it is likely there will be several suggestions for standards. Unless one of them is clearly preferred, an approval vote is recommended to select the best-liked standard. This is a way of helping to gauge which of several possible (often similar) versions has the most widespread support, so that the final version reflects consensus.
People
Whether certain people are trusted for certain functions is put to a community vote, in particular on WP:RFA and with the ArbCom election. However, in both cases the vote results are subject to interpretation by the party who makes the decision (i.e. the bureaucrats or Jimbo). There is no exact "target" percentage that forms the cutoff point. Again, in these processes it is preferable if people discuss, ask questions of the candidate, and state their reasonings, rather than simply voting "yes" or "no" with no further comment.
There are several discussions at the moment regarding how much RFA does and should resemble a majority vote.
Feature requests
Changes to the MediaWiki software are made by the developers and are usually discussed on BugZilla. Some people are tempted to call a vote on feature requests on the assumption that the more people support a feature, the more likely the developers are to implement it. However, this is not generally the case, as to the developers, issues of feasibility and server load are far more important.
Arbitration
Although arbitration is not a community process, it is listed here for the sake of completeness. The ArbCom follows a procedure of listing principles, findings of facts and remedies; individual arbiters discuss these issues and then provide either their assent or dissent. In general, findings which attract opposition are reworded to address that opposition, with the aim of reaching a consensus view among the arbitrators.
See also
- Wikipedia is not a democracy
- m:Polling is evil (The title is tongue-in-cheek.)
- Wikipedia:Voting is not evil
- Wikipedia:Straw polls
- RfArb/Non-Notability
