Outright silence cannot be considered as consent to a contract, except in cases where the silent person is required in good faith to explain himself, in which case gives your silent consent. But no consent is inferred from a man`s silence, unless he is 1. He knows his rights and knows what he is doing and, 2d. His silence is voluntary. 2. Immediately after this meeting, the Secretariat shall issue a provisional text of the decision, without number and with a temporary title, taking into account the fact that the decision is subject to a silence procedure. The provisional text is attached to the journal of this meeting. When a witness is sworn in instead of expressly promising to keep it, he gives his devotion by his silence and embraces the book. The expression of the silence procedure appears in Annex 1(A) „Application of a silence procedure in the Permanent Council and in the Forum for Security Cooperation“ of the OSCE Rules of Procedure (2006): It is obviously not practical to wait forever for confirmation: in the meantime, it is sometimes better to assume that silence implies consensus.
You can maintain this assumption (safely, hopefully) until someone arrives and edits the page by editing or reinitiating. The more visible the statement and the more undisputed it remains, the stronger the impact of consensus. Wikipedia is huge and our editors` time is limited. At all times, there is a lot of open discussion on many different topics throughout the project. We encourage our writers to be bold and it is very likely that you will eventually be affected by the outcome of a decision that you knew nothing about or did not have the chance to join. If a decision is based primarily on silence, it is especially important to remember that consensus can change. A diplomacy manual describes the silence procedure as follows: a draft text is circulated among participants who have a final opportunity to propose changes or additions to the text. If no amendment is proposed before the expiry of the time limit for the procedure (if no one „breaks the silence“), the text is considered adopted by all interested parties. Often, this procedure is the last step in the adoption of the text, after the basic premises of the text have been agreed in previous negotiations. „Breaking the silence“ is only a last resort if a participant still has fundamental problems with certain parts of the text and is therefore the exception rather than the rule. While tacit agreements can serve as a basis for further negotiations, they are also under attack if the explicit terms of the agreement are not codified during the negotiations.
The person who is to be affected by silence should not be disqualified from acting as a non-compound, infant or otherwise, because even the explicit promise of such a person would not engage him in the performance of a contract. The only time the U.S. Supreme Court has discussed tacit agreements in recent history was in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp. The Tribunal found that tacit agreements between the parties did not necessarily allow for subsequent pooled arbitration, unless there was a contractual basis for such arbitration. Not surprisingly, one may come up against a discussion between two editors with a quarrel who constantly repeat and repeat their thoughts; Sometimes this happens because they fear that, if they stop, their inability to react will be misinterpreted as a sign that they agree. This interpretation is based on the false assumption that „a huge endless quarrel“ is the only alternative to „silence“. . . .