WP:RFC

Request for Comment (RFC)

Request for Comment (RFC) is a fundamental process within the Wikipedia community, and indeed across many collaborative projects built on MediaWiki software, used for proposing and discussing significant changes to policies, guidelines, and project practices. It's a cornerstone of consensus-building, ensuring that decisions aren't made unilaterally but through open, transparent, and inclusive discussion. This article provides a comprehensive guide to understanding and participating in RFCs, especially tailored for newcomers.

What is an RFC?

At its core, an RFC is a formal invitation for the community to provide feedback on a proposed change. This change could relate to anything from editing guidelines (MoS) to dispute resolution processes (Dispute resolution) or even the technical functionality of the wiki itself. The "Request for Comment" designation signals that the proposer isn’t simply announcing a change, but actively *seeking* input. It's a recognition that significant alterations require broad community buy-in to be successful and maintain the project’s stability. Think of it as a public forum specifically designed to evaluate the merits and drawbacks of a particular idea.

Why are RFCs Important?

RFCs are vital for several reasons:

Community Consensus: Wikipedia is built on the principle of collaborative editing. RFCs ensure that changes reflect the collective wisdom and consensus of the community, rather than the preferences of a single editor or small group.
Transparency: The entire discussion is public and archived, creating a clear record of the decision-making process. This transparency fosters trust and accountability.
Inclusivity: RFCs are open to all interested editors, regardless of their experience level. This encourages participation from a diverse range of perspectives.
Preventing Edit Wars: By addressing potentially controversial changes through a structured discussion, RFCs can help prevent heated disagreements and edit wars.
Policy Development: RFCs are the primary mechanism for developing, revising, and clarifying Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines.
Long-Term Stability: Changes made with broad community support are more likely to be stable and sustainable in the long run.

When to Use an RFC

Not every proposed change requires an RFC. Here’s a guideline for when an RFC is appropriate:

Significant Policy Changes: Any alteration to an existing policy or the creation of a new policy should be discussed via RFC.
Major Guideline Revisions: Significant changes to established guidelines, such as those in the Manual of Style, warrant an RFC.
Controversial Topics: If a proposed change is likely to be controversial or generate significant disagreement, an RFC is essential.
Wide-Reaching Impact: Changes that will affect a large number of editors or a substantial portion of the encyclopedia should be discussed via RFC.
Technical Proposals: Proposals for significant changes to the wiki’s software or functionality (handled often at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)) usually benefit from an RFC.
Dispute Resolution: When attempting to resolve a long-standing dispute, an RFC can solicit outside opinions and help find a mutually acceptable solution. (See also Mediation.)

Minor edits, stylistic preferences, or factual corrections generally do *not* require an RFC. Use talk pages (Talk:Example page) for those types of discussions.

How to Start an RFC

Starting an RFC involves several steps:

1. Prepare a Proposal: Clearly articulate the proposed change. Explain *why* the change is needed, what specific changes are being suggested, and what benefits it would bring. Provide supporting evidence or rationale. Consider addressing potential concerns or objections upfront. Often a draft of the proposed policy or guideline is included. 2. Choose a Suitable Page: RFCs are typically initiated on dedicated RFC pages. Common locations include:

   *   Wikipedia:Requests for comment:  This is the central hub for most RFCs.
   *   Wikipedia:Village pump (policy):  For RFCs related to policies and guidelines.
   *   Wikipedia:Village pump (technical):  For RFCs related to technical issues.
   *   Relevant Talk Pages: Sometimes, an RFC can be initiated on the talk page of the policy or guideline being discussed.

3. Create a Clear and Concise RFC Heading: The heading should accurately summarize the proposal. For example: "RFC: Proposed changes to the sourcing guidelines for biographies of living persons." 4. Write a Detailed Description: Provide a comprehensive explanation of the proposal, including:

   *   Background:  The context of the proposal. What problem is it trying to solve?
   *   Proposed Change:  A clear and specific description of the proposed changes.
   *   Rationale:  The reasons why the change is being proposed.
   *   Potential Impacts:  A discussion of the potential consequences of the change.
   *   Questions for Discussion:  Specific questions to guide the discussion.

5. Use Templates: Utilize relevant templates to format the RFC and attract attention. Key templates include:

   *   `{{rfc}`:  This template displays a prominent RFC notice.
   *   `Template:Rfc notice`:  For use on related talk pages to notify editors.

6. Notify Relevant Editors and Projects: Inform editors who are likely to be interested in the proposal. This can be done by:

   *   Posting on Relevant Talk Pages:  Notify editors who frequently contribute to the relevant topics.
   *   Wikiproject Notifications:  Post a notice on the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects.
   *   Editor Notifications:  If you know specific editors who would be interested, you can send them a direct message (use this sparingly).

7. Set a Reasonable Duration: RFCs typically run for 14 to 30 days to allow sufficient time for participation.

How to Participate in an RFC

Participating in an RFC is crucial for ensuring that decisions reflect the community’s views. Here’s how to effectively contribute:

1. Read the Proposal Carefully: Thoroughly understand the proposed change, its rationale, and potential impacts. 2. Provide Constructive Feedback: Offer thoughtful and well-reasoned comments. Avoid personal attacks or dismissive language. 3. Support Your Arguments: Back up your opinions with evidence, examples, or references to relevant policies and guidelines. 4. Address Specific Questions: Respond to the questions posed by the proposer. 5. Be Respectful: Engage in civil discourse, even when you disagree with others. 6. Assume Good Faith: Believe that other editors are acting in good faith, even if you disagree with their views. 7. Be Concise: Keep your comments focused and avoid rambling. 8. Use Proper Formatting: Use MediaWiki syntax to format your comments clearly. 9. Sign Your Comments: Always sign your comments using four tildes (`Admin (talk) 07:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)`). 10. Consider Different Perspectives: Try to understand the arguments from all sides of the issue.

Assessing Consensus

Determining whether consensus has been reached can be challenging. Here are some guidelines:

Strong Support: A significant number of editors express strong support for the proposal.
Lack of Significant Opposition: There is little or no sustained opposition to the proposal.
Addressing Concerns: The proposer has addressed the major concerns raised by editors.
Compromise: The final proposal may be a compromise that incorporates feedback from multiple editors.
No Clear Objection: After a reasonable period, there are no strong, sustained objections to the proposal.

Consensus is *not* simply a majority vote. It’s about finding a solution that is acceptable to a broad range of editors, even if it’s not everyone’s ideal outcome. A single, well-reasoned objection can prevent consensus from being reached.

Tools and Resources

Wikipedia:Requests for comment: [1] The central hub for RFCs.
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy): [2] For policy-related discussions.
Wikipedia:Village pump (technical): [3] For technical proposals.
Wikipedia:Consensus: [4] Guidelines on achieving consensus.
Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: [5] A comprehensive list of Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines.
Help:Editing: [6] Information on using MediaWiki syntax.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style: [7] Guidelines on writing style and formatting.
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution: [8] Processes for resolving disputes.
Wikipedia:Mediation: [9] A formal mediation process.

Advanced Considerations

**Straw Polls vs. RFCs:** A straw poll is an informal vote to gauge opinion. While useful for preliminary feedback, it doesn't carry the same weight as a formal RFC.
**Meta-Discussions:** Avoid getting bogged down in debates about the *process* of the RFC itself. Focus on the proposal.
**Barnstar Awards:** Recognizing editors who contribute constructively to RFCs is a good practice. Consider awarding a Barnstar.
**Archiving:** Once an RFC has concluded, it should be archived appropriately.

Start Trading Now

Sign up at IQ Option (Minimum deposit $10) Open an account at Pocket Option (Minimum deposit $5)

Join Our Community

Subscribe to our Telegram channel @strategybin to receive: ✓ Daily trading signals ✓ Exclusive strategy analysis ✓ Market trend alerts ✓ Educational materials for beginners