"consensus is clear You are wrong", but are you?

[neved]

Beeblebrox states: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =564814486

We work by consensus here and consensus is clear '''You are wrong and you need to stop what you are doing. Now.'''

I haven't looked at this particular situation. My question here is more philosophical. Could consensus in general and consensus on Wikipedia in particular really be used to decide on who's right and who's wrong?

[Silent Editor]

Well... consensus can change over time, and right and wrong are absolutes, aren't they?

[The Joy]

Argumentum ad populum (T-H-L)

[Salvidrim]

Being wrong and disagreeing with consensus are both possible, not mutually exclusive, and sometimes dependent on each other... but not always.

[The Devil's Advocate]

It certainly can and is used that way. Whether it actually does determine what is right and what is wrong is another matter. As individuals people can be pretty stupid, but in groups they can achieve mind-boggling levels of idiocy. Now, sometimes you have smart individuals in groups who manage to come up with good decisions, but not even the presence of intelligent individuals can guarantee it. Even smart people can make incredibly stupid decisions and that means even a group of smart people collaborating together can generate a steady stream of moronic ideas. To err is human as they say.

[Zoloft]

[roger_pearse]

Beeblebrox states: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =564814486

We work by consensus here and consensus is clear '''You are wrong and you need to stop what you are doing. Now.'''

Could consensus in general and consensus on Wikipedia in particular really be used to decide on who's right and who's wrong?

No. And this theory of "consensus" requires everyone to be intellectually honest, of equal education, and a reasonable number of persons involved. None of this is true in Wikipedia, or indeed in any online forum where just anyone can turn up.

And since "consensus" tends to mean not "we all agree" but "the rest of us agree", it ensures that sock-puppeting is endemic.

[dogbiscuit]

Just to restate Roger's comment more tersely, the thing that Wikipedians describe as "consensus" bears no relation to the normal definition of the word. Therefore, in discussing whether there is a relationship between correctness and a consensus view is pointless. In simple terms, consensus on Wikipedia is where one person claims to hold the opinion of The Right Thinking Wikipedian and can show, by fair means or foul, that other views are not held by those of the body.

If I flip to considering the real world view, we can accept that among people qualified to have an opinion, then you need to have strong arguments to go against consensus, but even in the real world, the whole principle of consensus is that there is general agreement, but it is a given that there are other views. Using the obvious analogy, 2000 years ago, I am sure that the consensus was that the world was flat, even among people who would have been acknowledged as the wise men of society. In the real world, when seeking a view on history, people would accept the consensus view of many historians, on matters of physics, we would look to find the views of appropriately qualified scientists and so on. Very few matters of weight would be determined by the consensus of the man on the Clapham omnibus, though on matters of opinion, people might let their views be guided by discovering what the man in the street (who has obviously disembarked at this point) thinks.

The qualification of the population forming the consensus is very relevant. On Wikipedia, we have the idea presented that somehow a crowd of disparate minds lacking in any qualification can come to a consensus view of what an answer is. How this achieved is not by majority voting, or by wise discussion, or seeking the views of those most qualified to advise on a topic, but instead there is manipulation, back-channel secret discussion, socking, a lack of quorum involving people ignorant of the subject and so on - all ways in which it is clear that the answer will not be reliable in any way.

[Triptych]

Beeblebrox states: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =564814486

We work by consensus here and consensus is clear '''You are wrong and you need to stop what you are doing. Now.'''

I haven't looked at this particular situation. My question here is more philosophical. Could consensus in general and consensus on Wikipedia in particular really be used to decide on who's right and who's wrong?

I've seen a situation where a little group strangleholds a BLP claiming consensus. And then someone comes along saying "wait, it can't be done this way, look what WP:BLP says." And the comeback is "we have consensus." So an additional question is "does consensus override policy."

I think "consensus" is a word constantly abused by Wikipedians. Many, like Arbcom, have never even thought thought to consider its meaning. I'm prepared to accept that in a group of 15 or 20 for example, you can still get consensus despite a lone and singular holdout. Consensus is not a perfect synonym to "unanimity." But you can't do such a thing in a group of five or six. for example. Five of six supporting with a singular oppose, or vice versa, is not consensus.

I'm not prepared to research the overall dispute involved, but I had a look at the diff you provided, Neved. It's once again Beeblebrox serving as a walking advertisement for the retroactive time-limiting of administrative term lengths. Apteva states his or her position politely. Beeble jumps in that it's "a whiny thread started by you," that Apteva "pointlessly denies reality," lodges the threat of "topic-banning you from appealing your bans," and lodges the threat of just completely "sitebanning" Apteva for "behaving like an egotistical child." Beeble, and keep in mind this is occurring on a personal talkpage, them goes on to purport to speak for the community that "the community is sick to death of your troublemaking and constant whining." Beeble says that Apteva is "dense" (using the pseudo-official WP:DENSE of course!) and finishes with the assertion that Beeble's position is "consensus," that "Apteva is wrong" is the "consensus" (not explaining further), and that Apteva should desist from his or her "long rambling nonsense."

Beeblebrox' comment here is another "have we no shame or decency" moment for every administrator who believes their culture ought to live up to some positive behavioral standards, but alas we've had an answer (it's negative) to that one for a long time now.

[lilburne]

On the 14th of May 1431 Cauchon received a letter from the rector of the University of Paris stating that after numerous consultations, and deliberations they had reached the unanimous consensus that it was time to act against the "woman by the name of Joan who was called the Maid" that she was a liar, a schismatic, and a heretic.

[neved]

Thank you all for a very interesting discussions!
I agree The consensus view is frequently very wrong indeed

But, of more interest, 364 economists signed a letter to The Times stating that there was "no basis in economic theory or supporting evidence" for Sir Geoffrey's policy and that it threatened Britain's "social and political stability". An alternative course of action must be pursued, these savants insisted.

The story of the 364 economists should be a warning to all who give the impression that the consensus view is an impregnable fortress of truth.

But let's go back to Wikipedia.

Wikipedians are a bunch of nobodies, many of whom, especially the ones who call themselves "the Wikipedia community" are ignorant and uneducated.

Wikipedia works by consensus.

The consensus view is frequently very wrong indeed.

So how Wikipedia really works?

[The Devil's Advocate]

The Beebs isn't really wrong in his characterization of Apteva. Apteva has a rather extreme take on civility, at least when it comes to his opponents, where the mere act of someone referring to him by his username is presented as evidence of incivility because it is a "comment on the contributor, not on the content" and such frivolous reports are why he got blocked for a month. On the point of consensus, I will reiterate that it can be used to determine right and wrong, but that does not mean it actually does determine right and wrong. What people agree is the truth is not inherently the same as the objective truth. I would say, most of the time, it achieves a partial truth at best.

[roger_pearse]

Thank you all for a very interesting discussions!
I agree The consensus view is frequently very wrong indeed

But, of more interest, 364 economists signed a letter to The Times stating that there was "no basis in economic theory or supporting evidence" for Sir Geoffrey's policy and that it threatened Britain's "social and political stability". An alternative course of action must be pursued, these savants insisted.

The story of the 364 economists should be a warning to all who give the impression that the consensus view is an impregnable fortress of truth.

I remember that episode. In the 70's economists were always making left-wing pronouncements, as "science". This was merely the last such. That letter was followed by the greatest post-war economic boom on record, and so made fools of the lot of them.

That event had the salutary effect of causing economics, as a discipline, to stop playing politics, and go back to being a (soft) science.

But let's go back to Wikipedia.

Wikipedians are a bunch of nobodies, many of whom, especially the ones who call themselves "the Wikipedia community" are ignorant and uneducated.

Wikipedia works by consensus.

The consensus view is frequently very wrong indeed.

So how Wikipedia really works?

If there had ever been a period when ignorant people believed in a flat earth, we may be sure that Wikipedia's policy would have enshrined it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[crypt.net]

That event had the salutary effect of causing economics, as a discipline, to stop playing politics, and go back to being a (soft) science.

The idea that economics has "stopped playing politics" is laughable. Good heavens, just type the name of the person who wrote the article neved cites into google ...

I'll also mention that the idea that economics is even a "soft" science is pretty funny too.

The article neved mentions is an both a fortunate and unfortunate one to use here. It is unfortunate because the author conflates the consensus of a bunch of economists with the consensus of a bunch of atmospheric physicists. (Who are more likely to pull facts and arguments out of their asses?) It is fortunate, though, in the sense that this exact abuse of the language is the fundamental nature of the Wikipedian Way.

[The Joy]

Vox populi (T-H-L)

Another early reference to the expression is in a letter from Alcuin to Charlemagne in 798, although it is believed to have been in earlier use.[5] The full quotation from Alcuin reads:

Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, Vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.[6]

English translation:

And those people should not be listened to who keep saying the voice of the people is the voice of God, since the riotousness of the crowd is always very close to madness.[7]

The usage indicates that the phrase had long since become an aphorism of common political wisdom by Alcuin and Charlemagne's time.

[Poetlister]

Using the obvious analogy, 2000 years ago, I am sure that the consensus was that the world was flat, even among people who would have been acknowledged as the wise men of society.

I am sure that you are wrong there. Well over 2000 years ago, the wise men not only knew that the world was round, they had a good idea of its size. The idea that the roundness of the world was not generally accepted by scholars until modern times, that any of Columbus' intelligent contemporaries doubted that the world was round, is definitely a crowdsourced myth.

On the more general theme of the thread, I think it was Martin Luther who said "Of whom shall I be afraid? One with God is a majority.” That worked out OK for him, but of course he never edited Wikipedia.

[lonza leggiera]

Using the obvious analogy, 2000 years ago, I am sure that the consensus was that the world was flat, even among people who would have been acknowledged as the wise men of society.

I am sure that you are wrong there. Well over 2000 years ago, the wise men not only knew that the world was round, they had a good idea of its size. The idea that the roundness of the world was not generally accepted by scholars until modern times, that any of Columbus' intelligent contemporaries doubted that the world was round, is definitely a crowdsourced myth. ...

Replace "flat" with "motionless", which would then be a perfectly apt example.

[Malleus]

Using the obvious analogy, 2000 years ago, I am sure that the consensus was that the world was flat, even among people who would have been acknowledged as the wise men of society.

Actually it wasn't. Eratosthenes in the third century BC had already calculated the circumference of the Earth.

[Wer900]

Using the obvious analogy, 2000 years ago, I am sure that the consensus was that the world was flat, even among people who would have been acknowledged as the wise men of society.

Actually it wasn't. Eratosthenes in the third century BC had already calculated the circumference of the Earth.

Actually, the crowdsourced consensus was that the scientific consensus 2000 years ago was that the world was flat.

[Malleus]

Using the obvious analogy, 2000 years ago, I am sure that the consensus was that the world was flat, even among people who would have been acknowledged as the wise men of society.

Actually it wasn't. Eratosthenes in the third century BC had already calculated the circumference of the Earth.

Actually, the crowdsourced consensus was that the scientific consensus 2000 years ago was that the world was flat.

The truth is that hardly any educated person has believed for the last 5000 years that the Earth is flat. The interesting story is why this myth persists.

[Ming]

Obviously crowdsourcing isn't working here either.

[Zoloft]

Obviously crowdsourcing isn't working here either.

There's one of the reasons we don't often run polls here.

[dogbiscuit]

Using the obvious analogy, 2000 years ago, I am sure that the consensus was that the world was flat, even among people who would have been acknowledged as the wise men of society.

Actually it wasn't. Eratosthenes in the third century BC had already calculated the circumference of the Earth.

Actually, the crowdsourced consensus was that the scientific consensus 2000 years ago was that the world was flat.

The truth is that hardly any educated person has believed for the last 5000 years that the Earth is flat. The interesting story is why this myth persists.

People were still looking forward to Columbus dropping off the edge of the world. I know that the Greeks established the circumference of the world, but I chose "acknowledged wise men of society" rather than scientists. The point was that there are today obvious scientific truths which many years ago would not be considered to be plausible, not among the man in the street, nor among the great and the good of society. I suppose a better analogy to have chosen would have been natural selection, where Darwin (or whoever floats your boat as the originator of the theory) clearly had to work hard against the consensus theories of the day, and there are still hold-outs who object to the current consensus in its favour.

[lonza leggiera]

Using the obvious analogy, 2000 years ago, I am sure that the consensus was that the world was flat, even among people who would have been acknowledged as the wise men of society.

Actually it wasn't. Eratosthenes in the third century BC had already calculated the circumference of the Earth.

Actually, the crowdsourced consensus was that the scientific consensus 2000 years ago was that the world was flat.

The truth is that hardly any educated person has believed for the last 5000 years that the Earth is flat. The interesting story is why this myth persists.

People were still looking forward to Columbus dropping off the edge of the world. ...

Eh? Where did you get that idea from? If there were any such people, no-one has yet found any trace of them in the historical record. Of course, since the vast uneducated majority of Columbus's contemporaries have left no record at all of their opinions on the matter, we can only speculate on what they might have been. My own speculation is that they probably never heard of him until after he had returned from his first voyage.

[DanMurphy]

Using the obvious analogy, 2000 years ago, I am sure that the consensus was that the world was flat, even among people who would have been acknowledged as the wise men of society.

Actually it wasn't. Eratosthenes in the third century BC had already calculated the circumference of the Earth.

Actually, the crowdsourced consensus was that the scientific consensus 2000 years ago was that the world was flat.

The truth is that hardly any educated person has believed for the last 5000 years that the Earth is flat. The interesting story is why this myth persists.

People were still looking forward to Columbus dropping off the edge of the world. ...

Eh? Where did you get that idea from? If there were any such people, no-one has yet found any trace of them in the historical record. Of course, since the vast uneducated majority of Columbus's contemporaries have left no record at all of their opinions on the matter, we can only speculate on what they might have been. My own is that they probably never heard of him until after he had returned from his first voyage.

Yeah, none to almost none (there are always cranks I suppose) of his educated contemporaries thought the earth was flat. Columbus' principal mistake (among many) was an underestimation of the circumference of the globe (or a dramatic overestimation of the size of China - but i think it's the former).

[dogbiscuit]

Using the obvious analogy, 2000 years ago, I am sure that the consensus was that the world was flat, even among people who would have been acknowledged as the wise men of society.

Actually it wasn't. Eratosthenes in the third century BC had already calculated the circumference of the Earth.

Actually, the crowdsourced consensus was that the scientific consensus 2000 years ago was that the world was flat.

The truth is that hardly any educated person has believed for the last 5000 years that the Earth is flat. The interesting story is why this myth persists.

People were still looking forward to Columbus dropping off the edge of the world. ...

Eh? Where did you get that idea from? If there were any such people, no-one has yet found any trace of them in the historical record. Of course, since the vast uneducated majority of Columbus's contemporaries have left no record at all of their opinions on the matter, we can only speculate on what they might have been. My own speculation is that they probably never heard of him until after he had returned from his first voyage.

Ah, I guess through being ill-educated and believing what I was told at school.

However, the principle of there being a general widespread belief in a flat earth in the past at certain times is not a fiction. Guys, all I am trying to point out is that consensus doesn't mean that anything is right, and I will hold myself up as an example, that if you asked people if they believed in the middle ages that the world was flat (whoever they may be) I think consensus would agree with me

[The Joy]

Using the obvious analogy, 2000 years ago, I am sure that the consensus was that the world was flat, even among people who would have been acknowledged as the wise men of society.

Actually it wasn't. Eratosthenes in the third century BC had already calculated the circumference of the Earth.

Actually, the crowdsourced consensus was that the scientific consensus 2000 years ago was that the world was flat.

The truth is that hardly any educated person has believed for the last 5000 years that the Earth is flat. The interesting story is why this myth persists.

People were still looking forward to Columbus dropping off the edge of the world. ...

Eh? Where did you get that idea from? If there were any such people, no-one has yet found any trace of them in the historical record. Of course, since the vast uneducated majority of Columbus's contemporaries have left no record at all of their opinions on the matter, we can only speculate on what they might have been. My own speculation is that they probably never heard of him until after he had returned from his first voyage.

Ah, I guess through being ill-educated and believing what I was told at school.

However, the principle of there being a general widespread belief in a flat earth in the past at certain times is not a fiction. Guys, all I am trying to point out is that consensus doesn't mean that anything is right, and I will hold myself up as an example, that if you asked people if they believed in the middle ages that the world was flat (whoever they may be) I think consensus would agree with me

I didn't learn until college that Columbus's contemporaries didn't believe in the Flat Earth theory. Teachers and cartoons always talked about Columbus and the world being flat.

[roger_pearse]

However, the principle of there being a general widespread belief in a flat earth in the past at certain times is not a fiction.

Not meaning to jump down your throat: I'd want to see some actual evidence for such a "general widespread belief".

Guys, all I am trying to point out is that consensus doesn't mean that anything is right, and I will hold myself up as an example, that if you asked people if they believed in the middle ages that the world was flat (whoever they may be) I think consensus would agree with me

It depends on the consensus of who.

[dogbiscuit]

However, the principle of there being a general widespread belief in a flat earth in the past at certain times is not a fiction.

Not meaning to jump down your throat: I'd want to see some actual evidence for such a "general widespread belief".

I think I would work from the principle that the vast majority of the population on earth until modern times were entirely uneducated therefore would not even consider anything that they could not see with their own eyes. To be honest, I would think that the subject of the shape of the world barely impinged on most people's consciousness, it was not relevant to their lives. Why would they even consider the possibility of something so improbable as standing on the side of the world? I could look it up in Wikipedia though...

It depends on the consensus of who.

The consensus of people who believe that in Columbus's time, people thought the world was flat, you fool QED

[thekohser]

Why would they even consider the possibility of something so improbable as standing on the side of the world?

If they looked at the Sun, they could see it was round. If they looked at the Moon, they could see it was round; and if they watched the Moon really carefully over time, they might notice that they could see 59% of the "sphere" (or more than 100% of what the moon shows during a full moon). If they looked at an apple or a grapefruit, they could see that nature tends to make round spheres more often than flat discs or planes.

I don't know much about this interesting topic, but I'm just offering the above as what I think would be reasonable conclusions that even primitive people might draw.

[Mancunium]

[Malleus]

However, the principle of there being a general widespread belief in a flat earth in the past at certain times is not a fiction.

Not meaning to jump down your throat: I'd want to see some actual evidence for such a "general widespread belief".

I think I would work from the principle that the vast majority of the population on earth until modern times were entirely uneducated therefore would not even consider anything that they could not see with their own eyes. To be honest, I would think that the subject of the shape of the world barely impinged on most people's consciousness, it was not relevant to their lives. Why would they even consider the possibility of something so improbable as standing on the side of the world? I could look it up in Wikipedia though...

It depends on the consensus of who.

The consensus of people who believe that in Columbus's time, people thought the world was flat, you fool QED

Anyone living by the sea can see the curvature of the Earth on the horizon. Why would we assume that people sophisticated enough to produce the antikythera wouldn't know that the Earth was spherical?

[Ming]

Of course it's well-documented that Washington Irving invented the "people believed the world was flat until Columbus proved them wrong" pseudohistory meme. You can even read about it on Wikipedia.

[The Joy]

Texas is one of (if not "the") biggest buyer of school textbooks. So, whenever the Texans decide what should or shouldn't be taught, the majority of textbook publishers pay attention and give them what they want. Unfortunately, this means that most states follow Texas as it would be cost-prohibitive to get publishers to make textbooks that fit individual state curricula. TL;DR: Where Texan education goes, so goes the United States.

[dogbiscuit]

Anyone living by the sea can see the curvature of the Earth on the horizon. Why would we assume that people sophisticated enough to produce the antikythera wouldn't know that the Earth was spherical?

My point was a simpler one. Throughout the ages, the lot of the downtrodden didn't leave a lot of time for pondering the wonders of the world. We have a distorted view of history through the eyes of the privileged and educated. If you get up at dawn, walk to the fields, work, walk home, sleep, you don't get a lot of time to ponder the wonders of the universe. The hidden false assumption that people are not grasping is that knowledge is freely distributed without friction. So, great, some Greek geniuses knew things, and being learned, they wrote them down. How much of the Greek population were aware of the works of these people, how many were interested? Remember, these are also a people who believed in a multitude of gods, where anything puzzling could be explained away as the work of gods, so how the universe was constructed was not necessarily something that the god fearing population had a need to solve through reason.

It is an important point when considering consensus - there is a presumption that people are more educated than they are. Wikipedia is anti-elitist and does not like the idea that specialised knowledge is contained within an extremely small sub-population of the world.

I have a PhD physicist friend who once spent an evening over a few beers telling me about the 11 (or was it 13) dimensions of the known universe and how this could be used as a basis for explaining God. I faded out after the third pint of explanation. It made no sense to me, and I simply have not got the foundations of knowledge to grasp the concepts. There is no point in asking me for a consensus view on how many dimensions there are to the universe.

[Hex]

Obviously crowdsourcing isn't working here either.

There's one of the reasons we don't often run polls here.

POLL: Does crowdsourcing work?
❍ Yes
❍ Sure
❍ Of course

[Malleus]

Anyone living by the sea can see the curvature of the Earth on the horizon. Why would we assume that people sophisticated enough to produce the antikythera wouldn't know that the Earth was spherical?

My point was a simpler one. Throughout the ages, the lot of the downtrodden didn't leave a lot of time for pondering the wonders of the world. We have a distorted view of history through the eyes of the privileged and educated. If you get up at dawn, walk to the fields, work, walk home, sleep, you don't get a lot of time to ponder the wonders of the universe. The hidden false assumption that people are not grasping is that knowledge is freely distributed without friction. So, great, some Greek geniuses knew things, and being learned, they wrote them down. How much of the Greek population were aware of the works of these people, how many were interested? Remember, these are also a people who believed in a multitude of gods, where anything puzzling could be explained away as the work of gods, so how the universe was constructed was not necessarily something that the god fearing population had a need to solve through reason.

It is an important point when considering consensus - there is a presumption that people are more educated than they are. Wikipedia is anti-elitist and does not like the idea that specialised knowledge is contained within an extremely small sub-population of the world.

I have a PhD physicist friend who once spent an evening over a few beers telling me about the 11 (or was it 13) dimensions of the known universe and how this could be used as a basis for explaining God. I faded out after the third pint of explanation. It made no sense to me, and I simply have not got the foundations of knowledge to grasp the concepts. There is no point in asking me for a consensus view on how many dimensions there are to the universe.

You only need five dimensions to explain God, if you accept time as being the fourth.

[Ming]

When we start talking about dimensions and God in the same responses, we've definitely reached the Omega Point of this line of discussion.

[TungstenCarbide]

You only need five dimensions to explain God, if you accept time as being the fourth.

That's really fascinating. Please tell me more.

[Malleus]

You only need five dimensions to explain God, if you accept time as being the fourth.

That's really fascinating. Please tell me more.

We'd first need to agree on a definition of "God", and I don't want to upset dear old Ming the Merciless any more than I already have done.

[Poetlister]

Columbus' principal mistake (among many) was an underestimation of the circumference of the globe (or a dramatic overestimation of the size of China - but i think it's the former).

Definitely both. Two estimates of the size of the Earth have come down from antiquity. One is probably remarkably accurate, the other is substantially too small. Marco Polo's memoirs give the impression that his voyages were longer than they could have been.

[Bielle]

Texas is one of (if not "the") biggest buyer of school textbooks. So, whenever the Texans decide what should or shouldn't be taught, the majority of textbook publishers pay attention and give them what they want. Unfortunately, this means that most states follow Texas as it would be cost-prohibitive to get publishers to make textbooks that fit individual state curricula. TL;DR: Where Texan education goes, so goes the United States.

Once upon a time, I was in the textbook publishing biz. Texas (and California) have large enough school populations that they often get their own textbooks. New York did, too. I am sure there were/are others. Sometimes, other states bought the ones specifically prepared for a Texan or Californian curriculum. If anyone cares enough, I will go looking for the appropriate "state adoptions".