Wiki Consensus

Way before some newbies came up with WikiSuccessCanInhibitNewWriters and DiversityIsSmotheredOnWiki, the issues of consensus on Wiki were discussed at length - since at least early 1998. Some of the better discussions include:

Even before XP, within the relatively friendly pattern community, there were divisions between the Alexandrian/philosophic group who often wrote about the NatureOfOrder and QualityWithoutaName, and the other group who wrote topics like NooHasNothingToDoWithSoftware and BeautyAintMyBusinessNoSir.

I think the C2 wiki structure is insufficient to support multiple topics at the intensity of the recent (late 1999) Xp discussions. Communities have size limits, and wiki has encountered some of these limits. Someone said recently: "Wiki is like a village. Villages don't scale. If it scales, it isn't a village."

At times I've been disappointed by Wiki - especially when the ChangeSummary project failed. I had thought that my effort deserved more than the usual "ApatheticDisdainAndPedanticNitpicking", but there were only a few comments and a small number of readers. I've learned to accept the C2 wiki community is a small one, with a few dozen frequent authors, a few hundred occasional writers, and a few thousand readers. I still prefer the lively wiki village over huge impersonal forums.

-- CliffordAdams [Wiki has changed significantly in the past few months (early 2000), and sometimes I wonder if it has become too introspective. Be careful what you wish for? -- CA]

I don't know whether villages can be made to scale ... I'd sure like it if they could.

Maybe, but it seems to me that WikiWiki has been growing an awful lot lately and the changes are subtle but noticeable, lots more pages with only a few lines of material, people who insist that every post be signed, or not signed(I'm not sure which is better). QuickChanges only makes things more frantic, some people seem to feel compelled to edit every page (a certain student comes to mind) and it encourages ThreadMode quite a bit. However it's not all bad, some of the activity on VotingPatterns probably wouldn't be happening without the current influx. It may however be time to formalize the UnwrittenRules that have worked so far. -- LarryPrice

Context: I've been thinking about this for a couple of days, and haven't formulated exactly how to say it, but would like to throw this out for discussion. This thought was prompted most directly by WikiPolitenessLevel, specifically RonJeffries quote about "attract[ing] outsiders, then kill[ing] and eat[ing] them.", and CliffordAdams mentioning "community opinion" and "Voice of Wiki". The larger context is the discussion in WhatLedUpToTheMindWipe, WikiMindWipeDiscussion, and DoWikisHaveFiniteLifetime.

Opening Position Statement: In any community of diverse people and interests, it is not possible (or even desirable) to reach a consensus on a wide variety of topics. It is however possible and desirable to have certain behavioral norms, such as humility, kindness, understanding, etc.

Reasoning: Conditions where consensus is possible:

Narrow, empirically testable ideas. Patterns come to mind, as well as XP.
A populace guided by a common framework. Religious denominations come to mind, as well as XP adherents.
Others?

Conclusion: Some of the angst that has been felt and discussed lately, is due to the fact that the discussions did not fall into the categories where consensus is possible, and people seem to naturally want to arrive at consensus. The discussion of ThreadMode, ThreadModeConsideredHarmful, and InPraiseOfThreadMode draws out a tension between brainstorming and reaching a consensus. In particular, in ThreadMode, WardCunningham says "Now would be a good time for us to step out of ThreadMode and try writing some patterns in which we all could agree." In the context of Patterns, or even XP (I suggest), this is a desirable goal. When the discussions range all over the place, from TheFiveGospels, to GoodThinkingMusic, to LanguagePissingMatch, to FutureOfJava, to LeftWing, and to RightWing, it is not possible or desirable to reach a consensus. (These pages from the first few days in March 2000.)

So, either Wiki must be restricted to topics within which consensus is possible, or people must just accept some disagreements and discussions which will never be factorable out of thread mode.

After writing the above, I had a closing thought. Maybe what others and I are struggling with is the WikiMission.

Comments?

If this one is typical, let's have more new writers who first spend months reading.

When CostinCozianu wrote [elsewhere] "In my ideal wiki we'd have to embrace people who disagree and compete ... we'd have to accommodate competition of dissenting ideas" I agree, for I like "multiple point of view" wikis (like MeatBall) and most of the wikis I have founded are of this type. But that's not the point. The question is what the WardsWiki community wants or needs, not what perhaps you or I want.

He wanted more clearness about the consensus process. To make it short I draw a rough picture:

A consensus needs a group of people, declaring to be interested in consensus. The "consensus group" may be closed or open, small or large, but at any given time there is a list of "consensus partners".
The consensus group agrees to follow the process - e. g. read a consensus proposal page - regularly so that the group can assume that active agreement, opposition or silent agreement happens within a given timespan (typically 2-3 days).
Consensus can only be on formal proposals, containing the proposal, the reasoning, the start and end time (optionally extendable by anyone from the consensus group).
Anyone outside the consensus group can comment on proposals, even anonymously, guest or visitor. But a comment - positive or negative - doesn't break the consensus.
Consensus is reached when either all partner have actively agreed or the end time is reached without a partner opposing.

The consensus doesn't bind the community and has no legal or constitutional character. The consensus is just what it is, a consensus of its partners. It gets it primary power by its sensefulness and their cooperation and credibility. The consensus may be given more weight if the consensus group is institutionalized.

The process has evolved over time from experiences with the TourBus and at the GründerWiki. It was for example used when SunirShah returned as an editor to MeatBall only a few weeks ago. The important points are proposal and timing combined with an explicit group allowing interpretation of silence as agreement.

In real life it's easy to create a group, and consensus can be reached safely and quickly, but it's expensive to reach a spread-out target group and to communicate. In wiki it is the other way round. Communications and target groups are no big problems, compared to form groups and have consensus. We have to untangle that.

-- HelmutLeitner

CategoryWikiHistory