This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Wikipedia:Silence and consensus is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:
Related Sponsors
 |
While this essay is not a policy or guideline itself, it is intended to supplement WP:Consensus. Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page. |
 |
This page in a nutshell: If you disagree, the onus is on you to say so. |
Consensus can be assumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing). You find out whether your edit has consensus when you try to build on it.
In wiki-editing, it is difficult to get positive affirmation for your edits. (Disaffirmation comes with a revert.) No matter how many people on a talk page say they support an edit, sometimes it is only when your changes are reverted or substantially changed that you learn that you did not, in fact, have full consensus.
Of course, it is impractical to wait forever for affirmation: in the meantime then, you can assume that silence implies consensus. You can continue to hold that assumption (hopefully safely) until someone comes along and changes the page by editing or reverting. The more visible the statement, and the longer it stands unchallenged, the stronger the implication of consensus is.
Most of the time, you will find that it's fine to assume consensus, even if just for now, as it's more important to keep editing and cooperating smoothly in good faith as much as possible.
When real people are affected by a decision, such as blocking users, or using material covered by the biography of living persons policy, positive confirmation is preferred. Even in these cases, however, dissent might show up later, and it is then no longer appropriate to assume consensus.
Wikipedia is huge and our editors' time is limited. At any given time, there are many open discussions on many different topics across the project. We encourage our editors to be bold and it is highly likely that you will eventually find yourself affected by the outcome of some decision that you didn't know about, or didn't have the chance to join. Where a decision is based mostly on silence, it is especially important to remember that consensus can change.
See also
- Wikipedia:Consensus
- Wikipedia: Be bold
- Meta:Don't vote on everything
- Silence procedure
- Consensus decision-making
- Groupthink
- Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit
(Thus, silence gives consent; he ought to have spoken when he was able to). - Warnock's Dilemma
- meatball:SilentAgreement
- Wikipedia:Silence means nothing
Wikipedia content modification information:
- This page was last modified on 15 September 2008, at 14:05.
Wikipedia Authorship and Review
Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.
Wikipedia Usage Guidelines
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Wikipedia:Silence and consensus".
The URL for this specific entry is:
All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.