I never thought much about the Quakers  until I read Joseph Reagle‘s excellent new book Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia (forthcoming from MIT Press in September), in which Joseph references the Quaker consensus decisionmaking processes – and specifically, how Quakers resolve dissent.
Joseph cites the sociological study Beyond Majority Rule: Voteless Decisions in the Society of Friends – an exploration of Quaker decisionmaking by Jesuit priest Michael J. Sheeran, who had spent two years observing and interviewing Quakers for his Princeton PhD thesis, which afterwards was published by the Quakers and is now considered a definitive guide on the subject.
Consensus decisionmaking (CDM) is a really interesting topic for Wikimedians because we make most of our decisions by consensus, and we struggle every day with CDM’s inherent limitations. It’s slow and sometimes tedious, it’s messy and vulnerable to disruption, and –most problematically– it’s got a strong built-in bias towards the status quo. CDM creates weird perverse incentives – for example, it gives a lot of power to people who say no, which can make saying no attractive for people who want to be powerful. And it can act to empower people with strong views, regardless of their legitimacy or correctness.
Beyond Majority Rule was so fascinating that it’s sent me on a bit of a Quaker reading binge, and in the past month or so I’ve read about a dozen books and pamphlets on Quaker practices. I’ve been interested to see what values and practices the Quakers and Wikimedians share, and whether there are things the Quakers do, that we might usefully adopt.
For the most part, Quaker practices likely aren’t particularly adaptable for mass collaboration, because they don’t scale easily. They seem best-suited to smallish groups that are able to meet frequently, face-to-face.
But some Quaker practices, I think, are relevant to Wikimedia, and we are either already using versions of them, or should consider it. The Quaker “clerk” role, I think, is very similar to our leadership roles such as board or committee chair. The Quaker decisionmaking process has strong similarities to how our board of trustees makes its decisions, and I think Quaker methods of reconciling dissent might be particularly useful for us. (Quakers have better-codified levels of dissent and paths to resolution than we do — I think we could adopt some of this.) And the Quaker schools’ delineation of roles-and-responsibilities among board, staff and community members, could I think also be a good model for us.
I plan to write more about the Quakers in coming weeks. For now though, here’s a list of what I’ve been reading:
- Beyond Majority Rule: Voteless Decisions in the Society of Friends, Michael J. Sheeran
- The Governance Handbook for Friends Schools, Irene McHenry and Ginny Christensen
- Decisions by Consensus: A Study of the Quaker Method, Glenn Bartoo
- Beyond Dilemmas: Quakers Look at Life, S.B. Laughlin
- The Quaker Meeting For Business, Douglas Steere
- Before Business Begins: Notes for Recording Clerks, William Braasch Watson
- Handbook for the Presiding Clerk, David Stanfield
- Clearness Committees and their Use in Personal Discernment, Jan Hoffman
- Creative Listening: Quaker Dialogue, Claremont Monthly Meeting
- Dealing with Difficult Behavior in a Meeting for Worship: Meeting The Needs Of The Many While Responding To The Needs Of The Few, the Ministry and Nurture Committee of Friends General Conference
- Fostering Vital Friends Meetings: A Handbook For Working With Quaker Meetings, Jan Greene and Marty Walton
 Quakers have their roots in 17th century England. There are about 360,000 Quakers today, mainly in Africa, the Asia Pacific Region, the UK and North America. Most consider themselves Christians, although a few identify as agnostic, atheistic, or as members of non-Christian faith traditions such as Judaism or Islam. Quakers are probably best known for their belief that the word of God is still emergent rather than fully known, their silent and “unprogrammed” religious services which have no leaders, hymns or incantations, their centuries-old tradition of pacifism and social activism, and their consensus decision-making process.