Is Wikipedia consensus process good?: Revision history

30 December 2022

• curprev 11:5511:55, 30 December 2022‎ Dan Polansky discuss contribs‎ 12,075 bytes +24‎ No edit summary undo

22 November 2022

• curprev 08:4508:45, 22 November 2022‎ Dan Polansky discuss contribs‎ 12,051 bytes +1,807‎ No edit summary undo

21 November 2022

• curprev 12:3812:38, 21 November 2022‎ Dan Polansky discuss contribs‎ 10,244 bytes +1,585‎ No edit summary undo
• curprev 12:2712:27, 21 November 2022‎ Dan Polansky discuss contribs‎ 8,659 bytes +1,054‎ No edit summary undo
• curprev 12:1912:19, 21 November 2022‎ Dan Polansky discuss contribs‎ 7,605 bytes +320‎ No edit summary undo
• curprev 12:1712:17, 21 November 2022‎ Dan Polansky discuss contribs‎ 7,285 bytes +418‎ No edit summary undo
• curprev 12:1412:14, 21 November 2022‎ Dan Polansky discuss contribs‎ 6,867 bytes +516‎ No edit summary undo
• curprev 12:0312:03, 21 November 2022‎ Dan Polansky discuss contribs‎ 6,351 bytes +1,078‎ No edit summary undo
• curprev 11:5411:54, 21 November 2022‎ Dan Polansky discuss contribs‎ 5,273 bytes +443‎ No edit summary undo
• curprev 11:4911:49, 21 November 2022‎ Dan Polansky discuss contribs‎ 4,830 bytes +180‎ No edit summary undo
• curprev 11:4711:47, 21 November 2022‎ Dan Polansky discuss contribs‎ 4,650 bytes +58‎ No edit summary undo
• curprev 11:4711:47, 21 November 2022‎ Dan Polansky discuss contribs‎ 4,592 bytes +913‎ No edit summary undo
• curprev 11:4011:40, 21 November 2022‎ Dan Polansky discuss contribs‎ 3,679 bytes +3,679‎ New resource with "{{Wikidebate}} Wikipedia uses what it calls a method of "consensus". It has two main elements: editing without discussion and discussions. Is the process as implemented by Wikipedia good? ==Wikipedia consensus process is good== ===Arguments for=== * {{Argument for}} It is a process that stood the test of time. That is inconclusive yet suggestive. ** {{Objection}} Inconclusive indeed. A different process could work even better. *** {{Objection}} The question is not wh..."