විකිපීඩියා

"විකිපීඩියා:පොදු එකඟත්වය" හි සංශෝධන අතර වෙනස්කම්

Browse history interactively
← පැරණි සංස්කරණනව සංස්කරණ →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
සුළු r2.6.4) (රොබෝ එකතු කරමින්: ms:Wikipedia:Sepersetujuan
No edit summary
1 පේළිය:
{{dablink|"WP:CON" redirects here; you may be looking for [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]] or [[Help:Edit conflict]].}}
{{pp-semi-indef}}
{{policy|WP:CON|WP:CONS}}
{{nutshell|Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making.}}
{{conduct policy list}}
|Policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it.}}
 
'''Consensus''' describes the primary way in which editorial decisions are made on Wikipedia. There is no single definition of what consensus means on Wikipedia, but in articles consensus is typically used to try to establish and ensure neutrality and verifiability. Editors usually reach consensus as a natural and inherent product of editing; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, then everyone who reads it has an opportunity to leave the page as it is or change it. When editors cannot reach agreement by editing, the process of finding a consensus is continued by discussion on the relevant [[talk page]]s.
Wikipedia works by building [[consensus decision-making|consensus]].
 
== What consensus is ==
Consensus is an inherent part of the [[wiki]] process. Consensus is typically reached as a natural product of the editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. In essence silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community. In the case of policy pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected.
Consensus is a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised. All editors are expected to make a [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|good-faith]] effort to reach a consensus aligned with Wikipedia's principles.
 
Sometimes voluntary agreement of all interested editors proves impossible to achieve, and a majority decision must be taken. More than a simple numerical majority is generally required for major changes.
When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite reasoning, cooperation, and if necessary, [[Wikipedia:negotiation|negotiation]] on [[Help:Talk page|talk pages]], in an attempt to develop and maintain a [[Wikipedia:neutral point of view|neutral point of view]] which consensus can agree upon. If we find that a particular consensus happens often, we write it down as a [[Wikipedia:policies and guidelines|guideline]], to save people the time having to discuss the same principles over and over. In the rare situations where consensus is hard to find, the [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution processes]] provide several other ways agreed by the community, to involve independent editors and more experienced help in the discussion, and to address the problems which prevent a consensus from arising.
 
=== Process ===
When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. Even a majority of a limited group of editors will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within policies.
{{further|[[Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing|Editing policy—Talking and editing]], [[Wikipedia:BOLD]], [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle]] and [[Wikipedia:Editing policy]]}}
[[File:Consensus Flowchart.svg|thumb|right|300px|When an edit is made, other editors have these options: accept the edit, change the edit, or [[Help:Reverting|revert]] the edit. These options may be discussed if necessary.]]
 
Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process on articles across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor [[Wikipedia:Silence_and_consensus|can be assumed to have consensus]]. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. In this way the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time without any special effort. Even where there is a dispute, often all that is required is a simple rewording of the edit to make it more neutral or incorporate the other editor's concerns. Clear communication in edit summaries can make this process easier.
== Reasonable consensus-building ==
Note that consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject. (e.g. insisting on insertion of an insignificant factoid into an article in opposition to many other editors has been judged a violation of consensus; see [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute]].)
 
When reverting an edit you disagree with, it helps to [[Wikipedia:Don't_revert_due_to_"no_consensus"|state the actual disagreement rather than citing "no consensus"]]. This provides greater transparency for all concerned, and likewise acts as a guide so that consensus can be determined through continued editing.
It is difficult to specify exactly what constitutes a reasonable or rational position. Good editors acknowledge that positions opposed to their own may be reasonable. However, stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice. (Note that in the rare case that the "eccentric" position turns out to have merit, the consensus can change).
 
When there is a more serious dispute over an edit, the consensus process becomes more explicit. Editors open a section on the article's talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Consensus discussion has a particular form: editors try to ''persuade others'', using ''reasons'' based in policy, sources, and common sense. The goal of a consensus discussion is to reach an agreement about article content, one which may not satisfy anyone completely but which all editors involved recognize as a reasonable exposition of the topic. It is useful to remember that consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia. It is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise - with the understanding that the article is gradually improving - 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.
Even if an editor's contributions appear to be biased, keep in mind that their edits may have been made in good faith, out of a genuine desire to improve the article. Editors ''must'', in almost all situations, [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] and must always remain [[WP:CIVIL|civil]].
 
Some articles go through extensive editing and discussion to achieve a [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral]] and a readable product. Similarly, other articles are periodically challenged and/or revised. This is a normal function of the ongoing process of consensus. It is useful to examine the article's talk page archives and read through past discussions before re-raising an issue in talk - there is no sense in forcing everyone to rehash old discussions without need.
== Consensus can change ==
[[Image:Consensus new and old.svg|thumb|right|400px|Wikipedia consensus process flowchart]]
{{policy shortcut|[[WP:CCC]]}}
 
When editors have a particularly difficult time reaching a consensus, there are a number of processes available for consensus-building ([[wp:3O|Third opinions]], [[WP:RFC|requests for comment]], informal mediation at the [[wp:MEDCAB|Mediation Cabal]]), and even some more extreme processes that will take authoritative steps to end the dispute ([[wp:ANI|administrator intervention]], [[wp:mediation|formal mediation]], and [[wp:arbitration|arbitration]]). Keep in mind, however, that administrators are primarily concerned with policy and editor behavior and will not decide content issues authoritatively. They may block editors for behaviors that interfere with the consensus process (such as [[wp:edit war|edit war]]ring, [[wp:sock|sock]]ing, or a lack of [[wp:civility|civility]]). They may also make decisions about whether edits are or are not allowable under policy, but will not usually go beyond such actions.
Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind. A small group making a decision does so on behalf of the community as a whole, at a point in time. If the community disagrees, the decision was badly founded, or views change, then the updated consensus replaces the old one.
 
=== Level of consensus ===
A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined. An editor who thinks there are good reasons to believe a consensual decision is outdated may discuss it on the relevant [[WP:TALKPAGE|talk page]], through a [[WP:RFC|Request for Comment]], or at the [[WP:VP|Village Pump]] or [[WP:3O|Third Opinion]] to see what points other editors think are important, and to compare and examine the different viewpoints and reasons.
{{policy shortcut|WP:CONLIMITED}}
 
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a [[Wikipedia:WikiProject|WikiProject]] cannot decide that some generally accepted [[WP:POLICY|policy or guideline]] does not apply to articles within its scope.
This does not mean that Wikipedia ignores precedent. A precedent usually has reasons too, which may still be valid. There is a distinction between unresolved [[WP:FAITH|good-faith]] concerns over a reasonable or policy related matter, and [[WP:DISRUPT|disruptively]] trying to enforce an individual view. An issue decided in the past can always be discussed again, especially if there is new information or a question of policy being breached.
 
[[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|Policies and guidelines]] reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community. As a result, Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policy than on other kinds of pages. Substantive changes should be proposed on the talk page first, and sufficient time should be allowed for thorough discussion before being implemented. Minor changes may be edited in, but are subject to a higher level of scrutiny. The community is more likely to accept edits to policy if they are made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others.
Wikipedia's decisions are ever-changing, because new people visit every day, and through new information and new ideas, we may gain insights we did not have previously. It is important that there is a way to challenge past decisions, however these decisions were reached. Decisions should therefore practically never be "binding" in the sense that the decision cannot be taken back. Some decisions have been made by a large number of editors. For example, the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]] would need
a great number of the Wikipedia community to participate in a discussion to form a new consensus before it could be removed. A less widespread test of consensus (for instance by discussion on the policy talk page) might be enough to change a detail of the policy or other minor improvement.
 
=== Consensus can change ===
<span id="Asking the other parent"/>
{{policy shortcut|WP:CCC|WP:TALKEDABOUTIT}}
=== "Asking the other parent" ===
It is very easy to create the appearance of a changing consensus simply by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people will discuss the issue. This, however, is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works. Wikipedia's decisions are not based on the number of people who showed up and voted a particular way on a particular day. It is based on a system of good reasons. Attempts to change consensus must be based on a clear engagement with the reasons behind the current consensus — so in the new discussion section, provide a summary and links to any previous discussions about the issue on the articles talk page, or talk page archives, to help editors new to the issue read the reasons behind the consensus so that they can make an informed decision about changing the consensus.
 
Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding. Moreover, such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions. While past "extensive discussions" can guide editors on what influenced a past consensus, editors need to re-examine each proposal on its own merits, and determine afresh whether consensus either has or has not changed.
A good sign that you have not demonstrated a change in consensus, so much as a change in the people showing up, is if few or none of the people involved in the previous discussion show up for the new one. In this situation you may find that any changes you make to the article are quickly reverted by people outside the new talk page discussion. Do not be tempted to [[WP:EW|edit war]] but instead post comments on the talk page encouraging others to participate in the new discussion.
 
Wikipedia remains flexible because new people may bring fresh ideas, growing may evolve new needs, people may change their minds over time when new things come up, and we may find a better way to do things.
Asking for a consensus in a completely different "venue" or section of Wikipedia, in the hope of finding more support for a failed proposal, is known disapprovingly as [[forum-shopping]]. It's better to find the most appropriate page for discussing the topic, then ask there first and only. (This doesn't mean you can't take your proposal elsewhere if you're told you chose the wrong page for the topic.)
 
A representative group might make a decision on behalf of the community as a whole. More often, people [[WP:PGLIFE|document changes to existing procedures]] at some arbitrary time after the fact. But in all these cases, nothing is permanently fixed. The world changes, and Wikipedia must change with it. It is reasonable and indeed often desirable to make further changes to things at a later date, even if the last change was years ago.
=== One for all, and all for one ===
By encouraging consensus, Wikipedia is effectively encouraging individuals to sway the direction of the project on the whole, as long as the ideas being proposed resonate with the other contributors. While delving into the concept of consensus, as understood on Wikipedia, you will read "''Wikipedia is not a democracy''" and "''Voting is evil''" frequently. The inner meaning of those statements, and the core of the very policy you're reading right now can be equated with this section's title: if a single individual among thousands of contributors has one single idea which has merit, that idea will be seriously considered. That is not what democracy is.
 
=== Exceptions ===
Another facet of the background required for consensus which resonates with the musketeers' motto is trust. As opposed to a vote, consensus does not need to be explicit. Consensus can be tacit -- a vote can't. The original author of this section didn't call for a referendum before adding a completely new section to one of the very basic policies of this project. Tacit consensus on that change is what allows you to read this right now.
{{policy shortcut|WP:CONEXCEPT}}
Some exceptions supersede consensus decisions on a page.
 
*Declarations from [[m:Board of Trustees|the Wikimedia Foundation Board]], or [[m:Developers|the Developers]], particularly for copyright, legal issues, or server load, have policy status.
==Consensus in practice==
*[[Wikipedia:Office actions|Office actions]] are outside the policies of the English Wikipedia.
{{policy shortcut|[[WP:PRACTICAL]]}}
*Some actions, such as removal of [[WP:copyright violations|copyright violations]] and certain types of material about [[wp:BLP|living persons]], do not normally require debate or consensus, primarily because of the risk of real harm inherent in them.
*A decision of the Arbitration Committee may introduce a process which results in temporary binding consensus. For example, [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ireland_article_names#Binding_resolution|Ireland article names]].
 
== Consensus-building ==
Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome. The following description of consensus, from the [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/026513.html mailing list], argues a difference between consensus and unanimity:
{{see|Wikipedia:Resolving disputes}}
<blockquote>
In fact WP's standard way of operating is a rather good illustration of what it does mean: a mixture across the community of those who are largely agreed, some who disagree but 'agree to disagree' without disaffection, those who don't agree but give low priority to the given issue, those who disagree strongly but concede that there is a community view and respect it on that level, some vocal and unreconciled folk, some who operate 'outside the law'. You find out whether you have consensus, if not unanimity, when you try to build on it.
</blockquote>
 
Editors who maintain a neutral, detached and civil attitude can usually reach consensus on an article through the process described above. However, editors occasionally find themselves at an impasse, either because they cannot find rational grounds to settle a dispute or because they 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.
While the most important part of consensus-building is to ensure all issues are considered and listened to in the discussion, it is often difficult to reach a single conclusion, and the debate can become unwieldy as more people participate than can effectively cooperate (see: [[Dunbar's number]]). At times it is not clear what (if any) consensus may be accessible, how to work towards one effectively, and to identify when one exists. [so what is done then?]
 
=== Consensus-building in talk pages ===
In practice, a lot of people look in on an issue and check to see if a (mere) majority exists in favor of their position. While this quick and dirty rule helps you to figure out what to spend your time on, it is obviously *not* the same thing as finding the actual consensus (or what it will end up as). To do that, you actually need to carefully consider the strength and quality of the arguments themselves (including any additional concerns that may have been raised along the way), the basis of objection of those who disagree, and in more complex situations, existing documentation in the project namespace should also be checked. If you are volunteering to carry out an action on the basis of rough consensus, only this thorough approach is acceptable.
{{See also|Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines}}
{{policy shortcut|WP:TALKDONTREVERT}}
Be '''[[WP:BOLD|bold]]''', but not foolish. In most cases, the first thing to try is an edit to the article, and sometimes making such an edit will resolve a dispute. Use clear edit summaries that explain the purpose of the edit. If the edit is reverted, try making a compromise edit that addresses the other editors' concerns. Edit summaries are useful, but do not try to discuss disputes across multiple edit summaries - that is generally viewed as [[wp:edit war|edit war]]ring, and may incur sanctions. If an edit is reverted and further edits seem likely to meet the same fate, create a new section on the article's talk page to discuss the issue.
 
In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The argument "I just don't like it", and its counterpart "I just like it", usually carry no weight whatsoever.
Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and discussion should continue in an effort to try to negotiate the most favorable compromise that is still practical. In situations with a deadline, a perfect compromise may not have been reached by all participants at the deadline. Nevertheless, a course of action should be chosen that is likely to satisfy the most persons (rather than merely the majority). Running roughshod over the (then) minority is the best way to get yourself into almost unlimited amounts of trouble. Besides, next time someone from that minority might be the final closer, and you might be one of the people in a minority, so it's a good idea to be a gentleperson at all times and set a good example.
 
Limit talk page discussions to discussion of sources, article focus, and policy. The obligation on talk pages is to explain why an addition/change/removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia. Other considerations are secondary. This obligation applies to all editors: consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions, and editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of [[Wikipedia:disruptive editing|disruptive editing]] and incur sanctions.
So in summary, wikipedia decision making is not based on formal vote counting ("[[m:Voting is evil|Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy]]"). This means that polling alone is not considered a means of decision-making, and it is certainly '''not a binding vote''', and you do not need to abide by polls per se. Polling is generally discouraged, except in specialized processes such as AFD.
 
=== Consensus-building by soliciting outside opinions ===
New users who are not yet familiar with consensus should realize that a poll is often more likely to be the start of a discussion than it is to be the end of one! The true decision is typically made during discussion. This is also why you should always provide a further rationale during a poll. People can then engage you in discussion and work out an acceptable compromise. This can be very empowering. Provided you do your homework right, at times your opinion alone will be enough to tip the scales, or even decide the issue all on its own!
 
When talk page discussions fail - generally because two editors (or two groups of editors) simply cannot see eye to eye on an issue - Wikipedia has several established processes to attract outside editors to offer opinions. This is often useful to break simple, good-faith deadlocks, because uninvolved editors can bring in fresh perspectives, and can help involved editors see middle ground that they cannot see for themselves. The main resources for this are as follows:
==Exceptions==
{{policy shortcut|[[WP:CONEXCEPT]]}}
There are a few exceptions that supersede consensus decisions on a page.
 
;[[wp:Third Opinion|Third Opinion]]s: 3O is reserved for cases where exactly two editors are in dispute. The editors in question agree to allow a third (uninvolved) volunteer to review the discussion and make a decision, and agree to abide by that decision.
*Declarations from [[Jimmy Wales]], [[m:Board of Trustees|the Board]], or [[mw:Developers|the Developers]], particularly for server load or legal issues ([[copyright]], [[Invasion of privacy|privacy rights]], and [[Slander and libel|libel]]) have policy status (see [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Sources of Wikipedia policy]]).
;Noticeboards: Most policy and guideline pages, and many Wikipedia projects, have noticeboards for interested editors. If a dispute is in a particular topic area or concerns the application of a particular policy or guideline, posting a request to the noticeboard may attract people with some experience in that area.
*[[Wikipedia:Office Actions]] on a specific article (such as stubbing or protecting it) are outside the policies of the English Wikipedia.
;[[wp:RfC|Requests for Comment]]: A formal system for inviting other editors to comment on a particular dispute, thus allowing for greater participation and a broader basis for consensus. This is particularly useful for disputes that are too complex for 3O but not so entrenched that they need mediation.
*Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to override consensus on a wider scale very quickly - for instance, a local debate on a Wikiproject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline. The project cannot decide that for "their" articles, said policy does not apply.
;[[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal|Informal Mediation by the (purported) Cabal]]: More complex disputes involving multiple editors can seek out mediation. This is a voluntary process that creates a structured, moderated discussion - no different than an article talk page discussion, except that the mediator helps keep the conversation on focus and moving forward, and prevents it from degenerating into the type of heated conflicts that can occur of unmoderated pages.
*[[m:Foundation Issues|Foundation Issues]] lay out the basic principles for all Wikimedia projects. These represent the largest consensus decisions achievable among all Wikimedia projects. These consensuses are fundamental and affect all other Wikimedia and Wikipedia agreements. This means they evolve very slowly.
;[[wp:PUMP|Village pump]]: For disputes that have far-reaching implications - mostly ones centered on policy or guideline changes - placing a notification at the pump can bring in a large number of interested editors. This ensures broad consensus across the project.
 
Many of these broader discussions will involve [[WP:POLLING|polls]] of one sort or another, but polls should always be regarded as structured discussions rather than [[WP:!VOTE|voting]]. Consensus is ultimately determined by the quality of the arguments given for and against an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, not by a simple counted majority. Responding ''YES/NO/AGREE/DISAGREE'' is not useful except for moral support. responding ''(DIS)AGREE per user X's argument'' is better, presenting a novel explanation of your own for your opinion is best. The goal is to generate a ''convincing reason'' for making one choice or another, not to decide on the mere weight of public expressions of support.
==Note on use of discussion page==
While the consensus process does not ''require'' posting to the discussion page, it can be useful and is encouraged. It is also a good idea to check the discussion page before making an edit, because someone may have thought of it before, or discussed something that sheds more light on the subject. Otherwise "[[WP:BOLD|be bold]]"; ultimately, improving articles is what Wikipedia is all about.
 
=== Administrative or community intervention ===
Edit summaries are short and can be misinterpreted. Discussing your edit may help it attract consensus. Sometimes misunderstandings occur because people see the edit before any rationale is posted on the talk page. Posting a comment before editing is the best way to avoid such misunderstandings (but if you post a comment before editing, please make the associated edit immediately afterwards). To avoid falling into a similar trap yourself: if you are unsure about an edit someone has made, wait a reasonable amount of time to allow them to post a comment.
{{policy shortcut|WP:CONADMIN}}
In some cases, disputes are personal or ideological rather than mere disagreements about content, and these may require the intervention of administrators or the community as a whole. Sysops will not rule on content, but may intervene to enforce policy (such as [[wp:BLP]]) or to impose sanctions on editors who are disrupting the consensus process inappropriately. Sometimes merely asking for an administrator's attention on a talk page will suffice - as a rule, sysops have large numbers of pages watchlisted, and there is a likelihood that someone will see it and respond. However, there are established resources for working with intransigent editors, as follows:
 
;[[wp:Wikiquette alerts|Wikiquette alerts]]: Wikiquette is a voluntary, informal discussion forum that can be used to help an editor recognize that they have misunderstood some aspect of Wikipedia standards. Rudeness, inappropriate reasoning, POV-pushing, collusion, or any other mild irregularity that interferes with the smooth operating of the consensus process are appropriate reasons for turning to Wikiquette. The process can be double-edged - expect Wikiquette respondents to be painfully objective about the nature of the problem - but can serve to clear up personal disputes.
; Noticeboards: As noted above, policy pages generally have noticeboards, and many administrators watch them.
;[[wp:ANI|Administrator's intervention noticeboard]] and [[wp:AN|Administrator's noticeboard]]: These are noticeboards for administrators - they are high-volume noticeboards and should be used sparingly. Use AN for for issues that need eyes but may not need immediate action; use ANI for more pressing issues. Do not use either except at need.
;[[wp:RFC/U|Requests for comment on users]]: A more formal system designed to critique a long-term failure of an editor to live up to community standards.
;[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration|Requests for arbitration]]: The final terminus of intractable disputes. Arbiters make rulings designed to eliminate behavior that is disrupting the progression of the article, up to and including banning or restricting editors.
 
=== Consensus-building pitfalls and errors ===
 
The following are common mistakes made by editors when trying to build consensus:
* '''Too many cooks.''' Try not to attract too many editors into a discussion. Fruitful discussions usually contain less than ten active participants; more than that strains the limits of effective communication on an online forum of this sort. Where large-scale consensus is needed then it should be sought out, otherwise the input of one or two independent editors will give far better results.
*'''Off-wiki discussions.''' Discussions on other websites, web forums, [[IRC]], by email, or otherwise off the project are generally discouraged. They are not taken into account when determining consensus "on-wiki", and may generate suspicion and mistrust if they are discovered. While there is an occasional need for privacy on some issues, most Wikipedia-related discussions should be held on Wikipedia where they can be viewed by all participants.
*'''[[WP:Canvassing|Canvassing]], [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|Sock puppetry]], and [[WP:MEAT|Meatpuppetry]].''' Any effort to gather participants to a community discussion that has the effect of biasing that discussion is unacceptable. While it is [[Wikipedia:Canvassing#Friendly notices|perfectly fine]] - even encouraged - to invite people into a discussion to obtain new insights and arguments, it is [[Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification|not acceptable]] to invite only people favorable to a particular point of view, or to invite people in a way that will prejudice their opinions on the matter, and it is surely objectionable to ''pretend'' to gather people by simply using other accounts on your own. Neutral, informative messages to Wikipedia noticeboards, WikiProjects, or editors are permitted, but actions that could reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to "stuff the ballot box" or otherwise compromise the consensus building process would be considered disruptive editing.
*'''[[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing|Tendentious editing]].''' The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. The consensus process works when editors listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they have decided on, and are willing to [[filibuster]] indefinitely to attain that goal, destroy the consensus process. Issues that are settled by stubbornness never last, because someone more pigheaded will eventually arrive; only pages that have the support of the community survive in the long run.
{{shortcut|WP:ADMINSHOP}}
*{{anchor|FORUMSHOP}}'''Forum shopping, admin shopping, and spin-doctoring.''' Raising the same issue repeatedly on different pages or with different wording is confusing and disruptive. It doesn't help to seek out a forum where you get the answer you ''want'', or to play with the wording to try and trick different editors into agreeing with you, since sooner or later someone will notice all of the different threads. You can obviously draw attention to the issue on noticeboards or other talk pages if you are careful to add links to keep all the ongoing discussions together, but best practice is to choose one appropriate forum for the consensus discussion, and give (as much as possible) a single neutral, clear, and objective statement of the issue. See also [[Wikipedia:Policy shopping]].
 
== See also ==
{{Wikipedia glossary}}
;Articles
[[WP:ESSAY|Wikipedia essays]] and information pages concerning consensus:
* [[Consensus]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is consensus?]]
* [[Wikipedia:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus"]]
* [[Wikipedia:IPs are human too]] <!-- unregistered contributors in consensus processes-->
* [[Wikipedia:No consensus]]
* [[Wikipedia:Silence and consensus]]; ''cf''. [[Wikipedia:Silence means nothing]]
* [[Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot]]
* [[Wikipedia:Method for consensus building]]
* [[Wikipedia:Closing discussions]]
* [[Wikipedia:Compromise]]
* [[Wikipedia:Consensus doesn't have to change]]
 
Articles concerning consensus:
* [[Truth by consensus]]
* [[Consensus decision-making]]
 
* [[Groupthink]]
== External links ==
;Project pages
* [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/026513.html WikiEN-l mailing list July 2005]
* [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates]]
* [http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?back=CategoryConflict Conflict] and [http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?back=CategoryConsensus Consensus] categories on MeatBall Wiki.
* [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines]]
 
* [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle]]
== Related information == <!-- see [[wp:NAVHEAD]] -->
{{Wikipedia principles}}
{{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}}
 
[[Category:Wikipedia conduct policy]]
 
[[ar:ويكيبيديا:توافق]]
[[az:Vikipediya:Konsensus]]
[[be:Вікіпедыя:Кансэнсус]]
[[bn:উইকিপিডিয়া:ঐকমত্য]]
[[be:Вікіпедыя:Кансэнсус]]
[[br:Wikipedia:Kenemglev]]
[[ca:Viquipèdia:Consens]]
Line 97 ⟶ 135:
[[da:Wikipedia:Konsensus]]
[[en:Wikipedia:Consensus]]
[[eo:Vikipedio:Interkonsento]]
[[es:Wikipedia:Consenso]]
[[eo:Vikipedio:Interkonsento]]
[[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:اجماع]]
[[fi:Wikipedia:Konsensus]]
[[fr:Wikipédia:Consensus]]
[[hrko:Wikipedija위키백과:Konsenzus총의]]
[[hu:Wikipédia:Konszenzus]]
[[hy:Վիքիփեդիա:Համաձայնություն]]
[[hr:Wikipedija:Konsenzus]]
[[id:Wikipedia:Konsensus]]
[[ia:Wikipedia:Consenso]]
[[id:Wikipedia:Konsensus]]
[[it:Wikipedia:Consenso]]
[[ja:Wikipedia:合意形成]]
[[ka:ვიკიპედია:კონსენსუსი]]
[[ko:위키백과:총의]]
[[lt:Vikipedija:Konsensusas]]
[[hu:Wikipédia:Konszenzus]]
[[mk:Википедија:Консензус]]
[[ml:വിക്കിപീഡിയ:സമവായം]]
[[ms:Wikipedia:Sepersetujuan]]
[[mt:Wikipedija:Kunsens]]
[[ms:Wikipedia:Sepersetujuan]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Consensus]]
[[ja:Wikipedia:合意形成]]
[[no:Wikipedia:Konsensus]]
[[pl:Wikipedia:Konsensus]]
[[pt:WikipédiaWikipedia:Consenso]]
[[ro:Wikipedia:Consens]]
[[ru:Википедия:Консенсус]]
[[sh:Wikipedia:Konsenzus]]
[[simple:Wikipedia:Consensus]]
[[sk:Wikipédia:Konsenzus]]
[[sl:Wikipedija:Soglasje]]
[[sr:Википедија:Консензус]]
[[sh:Wikipedia:Konsenzus]]
[[fi:Wikipedia:Konsensus]]
[[sv:Wikipedia:Konsensus]]
[[ta:விக்கிப்பீடியா:இணக்க முடிவு]]
"https://si.wikipedia.org/wiki/විකිපීඩියා:පොදු_එකඟත්වය" වෙතින් සම්ප්‍රවේශනය කෙරිණි