විකිපීඩියා:පොදු එකඟත්වය

"WP:CON" redirects here; you may be looking for Wikipedia:Conflict of interest or Help:Edit conflict.

පොදු එකඟතා මගින් විකිපීඩියාවේ සංස්කරණ තීරණ ගැනීම පිලිබඳ මූලික ක්‍රමවේදය විස්තර කෙරෙයි. විකිපීඩියාවේ පොදු එකඟතා යන්නෙන් අදහස් වන්නේ කුමක්දැයි තනි අර්ථ දැක්වීමක් නොමැති වුවද, ලිපි තුළ, පොදු එකඟතා සාමාන්‍යයෙන් භාවිත වනුයේ මධ්‍යස්ථතාව සහ නිරවද්‍යතාව තහවුරු කර ගැනීම පිණිසයි. 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 pages.

What consensus is

Consensus is a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised. All editors are expected to make a 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.

Process

වැඩිදුර තොරතුරු: [[:Editing policy—Talking and editing, Wikipedia:BOLD, Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and Wikipedia:Editing policy]]

When an edit is made, other editors have these options: accept the edit, change the edit, or 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 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.

When reverting an edit you disagree with, it helps to 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.

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.

Some articles go through extensive editing and discussion to achieve a 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.

When editors have a particularly difficult time reaching a consensus, there are a number of processes available for consensus-building (Third opinions, requests for comment, informal mediation at the Mediation Cabal), and even some more extreme processes that will take authoritative steps to end the dispute (administrator intervention, formal mediation, and 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 edit warring, socking, or a lack of civility). They may also make decisions about whether edits are or are not allowable under policy, but will not usually go beyond such actions.

Level of consensus

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 WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.

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.

Consensus can change

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.

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.

A representative group might make a decision on behalf of the community as a whole. More often, people 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.

Exceptions

Some exceptions supersede consensus decisions on a page.

• Declarations from the Wikimedia Foundation Board, or the Developers, particularly for copyright, legal issues, or server load, have policy status.
• Office actions are outside the policies of the English Wikipedia.
• Some actions, such as removal of copyright violations and certain types of material about 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, Ireland article names.

Consensus-building

Further information: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes

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.

Consensus-building in talk pages

මේවාත් බලන්න: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

Be 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 edit warring, 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.

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 disruptive editing and incur sanctions.

Consensus-building by soliciting outside opinions

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:

Third Opinions

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 polls of one sort or another, but polls should always be regarded as structured discussions rather than 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.

Administrative or community intervention

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:

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.

Administrator's intervention noticeboard and 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.

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.

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.
• Canvassing, Sock puppetry, and Meatpuppetry. Any effort to gather participants to a community discussion that has the effect of biasing that discussion is unacceptable. While it is perfectly fine - even encouraged - to invite people into a discussion to obtain new insights and arguments, it is 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.
• 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.

• 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 essays and information pages concerning 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
• 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

External links

• WikiEN-l mailing list July 2005
• Conflict and Consensus categories on MeatBall Wiki.