User:EF5/Precedent isn't consensus
 | This is an essay on WP:CONSENSUS. 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. |
Precedent isn't consensus. On Wikipedia, users tend to get hung up on being consistent with older norms, commonly known as "precedent", and will sometimes strictly follow these loosely-based and sometimes outdated guidelines. It's important to separate precedent from consensus (P & C), especially when the discussions that formed P & C are older.
What are precedent and consensus?
[edit]Precedent is defined as "an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances".[1] On Wikipedia, this usually manifests as an unwritten rule that editors generally follow and abide by, even if it isn't formal or otherwise has been the subject of much discussion. While precedent is okay to have in itself, it usually won't hold up in the long term, especially when BOLD editors are active in a certain area of the project.
Consensus is defined as "a generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people".[2] On Wikipedia, this is always formed via a discussion on a project or article talk page. Consensus cannot be challenged; a separate discussion is needed to amend/override it.
Precedent vs. consensus
[edit]There's a few important things that differentiate precedent from consensus:
| Precedent | Concensus | |
|---|---|---|
 [note 1]
|
Can be challenged? |  [note 2]
|
| [note 3]
|
Formal? | [note 4]
|
| [note 5]
|
Formed via a discussion? | |
| [note 6]
|
Needs to be followed? | [note 7]
|
Why it's important
[edit]It's important to differentiate precedent from consensus because the two can easily get mixed together – while precedent can be broken, consensus cannot. The issue and importance of precedent has been used to argue for or against certain proposals numerous times, but this may not hold up as any editor can challenge it.
Notes and references
[edit]General notes
[edit]- ^ Any BOLD editor can challenge a precedent. There's a term for this, called "breaking (with) precedent".
- ^ Consensus should be changed via a project or talk page discussion.
- ^ Precedent usually isn't formed via a request for comment or extensive discussion.
- ^ Consensus is demonstrated by either a request for comment or relatively lengthy discussion with at least five participants.
- ^ While the discussion doesn't have to be lengthy, precedent is normally formed via a talk page discussion between editors.
- ^ Precedent can be changed or challenged by anyone at any time.
- ^ Generally, consensus needs to be followed by other editors unless a discussion as occurred demonstrating a broad change in consensus.
References
[edit]- ^ "Precedent". Merriam-Webster Dictionary. 2025-03-10. Retrieved 2025-03-22.
- ^ "Concensus". Cambridge Dictionary. Archived from the original on 2024-04-15. Retrieved 2025-03-22.