 | This is an essay on the no consensus policy. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
In any discussion on Wikipedia, there are three possible outcomes:
- consensus for the course of action sought or a compromise course of action,
- consensus against the course of action sought and any proposed compromise course of action, and
- no consensus.
The result of a discussion ending in "no consensus" depends on the nature of the proposed change. Often, people feel that "no consensus" should mean that the current status quo prevails, which, therefore, defaults to keep. That is not always the case. Also, a lack of a local consensus among those participating does not mean there is no "no consensus" in the broader community. Often it is the case that a closing admin will recognize that arguments for one side are much better founded in (community consensus supported) policy than for the other, and so there actually is consensus support for one particular outcome.
Discussion and debate on a proposal may continue on talk pages after a "no consensus" situation, but in the meantime, it is important that affected articles are not subjected to edit wars despite a lack of policy or guideline direction on an issue. A status quo approach is preferable where practical and possible to promote article stability and to prevent edit warring.
It is important to note that a few vocal dissenters do not create "no consensus". [This is debated.[1]] Please see CONSENSUS for further discussion of what constitutes consensus.