వికీపీడియా:ఏకాభిప్రాయం: కూర్పుల మధ్య తేడాలు

<noinclude>{{pp-semi-indef}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>

{{policy|WP:CON|WP:CONS}}

{{conduct policy list}}

 

 

 

{{policy shortcut|WP:CONACHIEVE}}

Editors usually reach consensus as a natural product of editing. After someone makes a change or addition to a page, others who read it can choose either to leave the page as it is or to change it. When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated [[help:using talk pages|talk pages]] continues the process toward consensus.

A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accept the proposal.

 

{{policy shortcut|WP:EDITCONCENSUS}}

<!-- March 2012 - June 2012 As noted on the talkpage, this section has been raised in current action at ArbCom. It should not be subject to substantive edits until discussion there is concluded. -->

All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious) – either by clear [[WP:Edit summary|edit summaries]] indicating the reason why the change was made, or by discussion on the article talk page. Substantive, informative edit summaries indicate what issues need to be addressed in subsequent efforts to reach consensus. Repeated reversions are contrary to Wikipedia policy under [[WP:Edit warring]], except for specific policy-based material (such as [[WP:BLP]] exceptions) and for reversions of [[WP:Vandalism|vandalism]]. Frequently a minor change in wording can end arguments.

 

When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the [[WP:talk page|talk page]] and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to ''persuade others'', using ''reasons'' based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution. Consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia; it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise&nbsp;– with the understanding that the page is gradually improving&nbsp;– than to try to fight to implement a particular "perfect" version immediately. The quality of articles with combative editors is, as a rule, far lower than that of articles where editors take a longer view.

 

Consensus arising from a rational discussion based on policy and common sense is the Wikipedia ideal. However, the practical reality of editing falls short of the process described herein in a little more than 1% of articles, generally concerning contentious subjects. In 2012, a group of researchers studying Wikipedia disputes reported: "Debates rarely conclude on the basis of merit; typically they are ended by outside intervention, sheer exhaustion, or the evident numerical dominance of one group."<ref>Taha Yasseri, Robert Sumi, Andras Rung, Andras Kornai, Janos Kertesz. Dynamics of Conflicts in Wikipedia. ''PLoS ONE'' 1 June 2012 | Volume 7 | Issue 6 | e38869 [http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0038869]</ref>

 

{{see|Wikipedia:Dispute resolution}}

 

Editors who maintain a neutral, detached, and civil attitude can usually reach consensus on an article through the process described above. They may still occasionally find themselves at an impasse, either because they cannot find rational grounds to settle a dispute or because one or both sides of the discussion become emotionally or ideologically invested in "winning" an argument. What follows are suggestions for resolving intractable disputes, along with descriptions of several formal and informal processes that may help.

 

{{See also|Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines}}

{{policy shortcut|WP:TALKDONTREVERT}}