Inkipedia is a democracy. Though it has staff, these users are not "better" than others. Major changes that take place on Inkipedia should be determined by its users in a consensus-based manner.
Inkipedia requires this as its rules must be adhered to by everyone who uses the site. Furthermore, projects and changes may not have clear solutions.
What needs consensus?
- Making major changes to the site. This includes its scope, policies, interface, and staffing
- Reversing prior consensus, after a reasonable amount of time or new information has come to light
It is recommended to get a second opinion from a knowledgeable editor before starting any major piece of work that would touch multiple pages.
What doesn't need consensus?
The vast majority of actions on the wiki do not require consensus. If other editor(s) dispute your actions, they may write on the talkpage and/or revert your edits. No more than three reverts should occur consecutively without beginning a discussion on a talkpage.
- General wiki editing including addition of information, spelling, grammar, style corrections, etc.
- Removing inaccurate or irrelevant information
- Renaming your account (an admin and bureaucrat will ratify your request)
How do I create a vote?
- For changes in Inkipedia policies and scope:
- For changes in staffing:
- For new initiatives and questions:
- For double-checking before a big task:
What is considered a consensus?
Consensus is reached when the majority of participating editors agree on a topic. Agreement is determined purely via vote count. A vote with 51% support is considered a consensus favoring the proposed change.
Users are expected to resolve votes and discussions themselves, escalating to a staff member only if necessary.
If at least three Inkipedia administrators believe that a proposal is harmful or undeveloped, they can veto (stop) the proposal. To veto, three administrators add a veto vote under a new header. Then the vote is stopped and the proposal fails.
Voters, and especially voters with veto powers, should:
- Consider all points raised and which arguments are strongest.
- Consider if the policy itself would stand on its own, or needs other tweaks.
- Consider if the policy "makes sense" or if additional explanations are needed.
- Consider the overall impact of the change on the community and the wiki as a whole.
- Consider the overall impact of the change on staffing.
- Consider if the policy aligns with the wiki's scope and furthers quality, accuracy, trust, or constructive feedback.
- Consider precedent and changes that have occurred over time. If a consensus has been reached in the past, voters should consider past reasoning for putting the proposal into place.
What happens when a consensus cannot be reached?
If a vote is not successful, whether due to tie or due to veto, the subject of the debate fails.
Beginning a similar debate shortly afterwards, especially if no change in the situation has been made, is generally discouraged.
If no other users voice an opinion in a debate, the suggested change may be made; A span of time significantly longer than the normal requirement should pass before this happens.