Your Silence Is Agreement
Wikipedia is huge and the time of our editors is limited. At all times, there is a lot of open discussion on many different topics throughout the project. We encourage our editors to be courageous, and it is very likely that at some point you will be affected by the outcome of a decision that you did not know or had no chance of joining. Where a decision is based primarily on silence, it is particularly important to remember that consensus can change. If “silence means consent” and you don`t say anything when a friend offers to rob a bank, it means that you are not the only language to have that phrase. I know there is a Russian expression that literally translates into English something like, “Silence is a sign of harmony.” Of course. There is the phrase “silence is consent,” sometimes given as “silence implies approval” or “silence is consent.” “Without objection… We use it in parliamentary sessions. for example: “Without contradiction, so orderly.” Or: “Without objection, it was put on the table… it is an expedited opportunity to reach a unanimous agreement without delaying formal and explicit agreement. There is a legal expression “silence is tolerance” that I have used in the economy. If you force the discipline of “silence say agreement” and apply the above tactics, everyone is led to immediately say what they really think and to discuss it openly instead of marking the problems after the act. Apply the rule of silence and consensus only if a weak consensus is sufficient.
Silence and consensus do not apply when strong consensus or mandatory discussion is required. If real people are affected by a decision, such as blocking users. B or the use of material covered by biographies of the politics of the living people, a positive confirmation is preferred. But even in these cases, disagreements may arise later and it is no longer appropriate to adopt a consensus. Sometimes the establishment and reinforcement of “silence” is a fundamental rule for opinions to circulate. But if you feel that some participants are still struggling to express themselves freely, consider the following tactic that allows perspectives to be aired in a way that focuses on ideas rather than the individuals who express them. The direct translation of the Latin Qui tacet consents, which has been thrown here a few times, is “Who is silent, accepts,” but obviously it is not in the familiar common usage — nor, I would like to point out, is the Latin phrase; not to your average English lophone. The maxim is “Who tacet consents”: the maxim of the law is “silence gives its consent.” So if you want to expose what my silence is silent, you have to make sure that I have accepted. It is not surprising that one enters into a discussion between two drafters with an argument, who repeat and repeat their thoughts over and over again; Sometimes this happens because they are afraid that when they stop their failure to react, they are misinterpreted as a sign that they agree. This interpretation is based on the false assumption that “a huge endless series” is the only alternative to “silence”. That is not the case.
With regard to the difference between dissent and silence, failure to warm up your disagreement and to do so continuously is not silence and therefore does not constitute consent. Withdrawing communication with a biased or belligerent editor does not give that editor the approval to do what he wants. Similarly, in the presence of a return, there is no silence or consensus. Presumably, there is a consensus until disagreements become obvious (usually by resetting or editing them). You will find out if your treatment has a consensus when it is glued, built by others, and especially if it is used or mentioned by others.