Consensus products: guidelines, directives, and article layout-pages

The concept of "representative negotation" seems good, and could be assisted by having a range of documents generated. Beyond guidelines, there are other documents which could be written by a consensus group:

• Directives: a set of numbered documents which stated the decision on each issue.
• Layouts: a set of talk-page subpages that recommend the layout of each article being debated during the consensus process.

Although the prior creation of guidelines (such as the prior "Naming conventions (Macedonia)" guideline) has worked in some cases, creating a guideline document might be overkill in other cases.

Suppose for example, there was a major dispute about Newton-versus-Einstein in light optics, with excessive details about the other physicist being inserted into their articles. A dispute resolution might determine a directive and 3 layout-pages of articles:

• A directive would be issued that comparisons between Newton/Einstein would be limited to extra spinoff articles, rather than attempt, to elaborate comparisons, with detailed sections in their bio articles.
• A set of 3 layout-pages would result from the consensus group:

• The "Einstein" layout-page would limit the article to have at most 1 paragraph about Newton's theories of light.
• The "Newton" layout-page would limit that article to have at most 1 paragraph about Einstein's theories of light.
• A new layout-page would be created for article "Einstein versus Newton on light theories" (as the page to contain all the extra details about that controversy).

By the use of those 4 document pages, the results of a consensus group could be focused into immediate action. By comparison, it would have become extremely awkward for a consensus-group to have issued, yet another, guideline document (such as "Guideline for Einstein-Newton articles"). Instead, the short directive page, with the 3 article layout-pages, would be a more concise solution.

See the related proposals:

• Proposal:Create directives to decide debates
• Proposal:Create layouts to focus articles (decisions about contents)

Think of guidelines, directives, and layout-pages as 3 types of tools, where a group could choose which tools would best apply in each situation. A directive would be a dated document which clarifies a decision, at a specific time. However, in the long term, it might be good to create a comprehensive "Guideline to articles about physicists" which could generalize the Einstein-Newton controversies, in a broader, multi-article manner, to any detailed views of one physicist against the other. A Guideline could be considered to be a more general and complex "tool" to affect a larger number of articles. However, a consensus group could just write a directive document to resolve a dispute, and nothing more in that particular case.

I really think this is an important area. I like the idea of using outlines as a way to settle long-standing disputes. Mind you, creating an outline for a special case has a way of creating a weird precedent. If we create a special layout for comparing two physicists on theories of light, do we start to creep into articles comparing two physicists on theories of quantum physics, then another two physicists, then two economists on the great depression, then eventually we start getting "comparison between X and Y expert"... I think it's a good idea, but the execution is key. I'd love to help out.

I really like the representative mediation concept too. I think we could try to put it together on the English Wikipedia, and get some level of buy-in from the community to make it a standard process. An outcome of these discussions could be a "guideline", or if more narrow, a "directive". Really, I think we need to build support for the idea of a "social contract" on Wikipedia, and all projects. The idea that we can resolve disputes by creating a voluntary agreement between a number of editors, and start to draw other like-minded editors into the same compromise on the premise that both sides have made reasonable trade-offs.

At the core, I think that there has not been a method for turning decisions into written directives and article layout-pages. Plus consider the prior dilemma: any article could be totally rewritten, so it would seem futile for a decision to pinpoint an article's content when it could be re-written away. It is imperative that articles be based on a "solid" foundation of layout-pages, which a consensus group could modify to enact their decisions. Otherwise, consensus decisions are like "herding water" and that must have been demoralizing to groups who studied the issues and had no document which could cause a decision to become "binding" about article contents.

Another major danger: we must beware the legal liabilities of Wikipedia, if a content-control process is established, then any libelous remarks (in an article text) might be seen an officially released text from the Wikimedia Foundation management. Hence, the decisions offered from negotiation, by a consensus-group, must be handled as advice to the editors, rather than a gateway which authorized the release of exact (libelous) content in articles. For those reasons, we need some legal advice about how to word a guideline, which gives a step-by-step process, to resolve content disputes about articles (without being viewed as controlling libelous content).

I don't mean to imply "wait until the lawyers come" (NO), but rather, a guideline, for a content-dispute process, should expect to be modified to avoid connecting Wikimedia personnel as being liable for various editors' written remarks linked to that guideline. Such changes in wording, to avoid legal liability, should be simple, if we remember that the results of a content-dispute are advice to editors acting in good faith.

I like everything you're saying. I always tend to focus on "how could this go wrong", and to me it could go wrong if we get into instruction creep, and do directives on stuff like "naming convention for Barack Obama versus Barack Hussein Obama versus Barry Obama". But I think that's easy to resolve if we just establish a threshold where a directive is more appropriate than a localized or small decision.

I might also prefer the term "social contract". "Directive" sounds like it's coming from the top down, and it isn't (nor should it). It should represent something that a bunch of diligent, good faith editors arrived at after some discussion, and agreed between them was a fair way to handle a contentious issue.

But yes, I think you're onto a fantastic idea. Yeah, let's deal with contentious subject areas by having editors discuss layouts and conventions. And, where necessary, provide legal input (I'm thinking of libel for BLP debates). We just need to offer some guidance about how to use it for good, not evil.