Misplaced Pages

:Consensus: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:27, 4 February 2005 view sourceFred Bauder (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users46,115 edits Misplaced Pages:Editing in good faith a new policy to be written← Previous edit Revision as of 20:57, 2 March 2005 view source Mirv (talk | contribs)16,966 edits and explain its actual day-to-day useNext edit →
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 7: Line 7:
|} |}


''Proposed wording'' (based on ArbCom rulings on the issue) ''Proposed wording''


As put forward in ], Misplaced Pages works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion and ], in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of ] such as ]. ] and the ] process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. As put forward in ], Misplaced Pages is supposed to work by building consensus. This is done through polite discussion and ], in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of ] such as ]. ] and the ] process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked.

In day-to-day Misplaced Pages practice, e.g. on ], '']'' means something closer to '']'', usually a four-fifths majority. In other polls, it has been defined as a 70% majority. In article disputes, ''consensus'' can mean anything from ''genuine consensus'' to ''my position''; it is possible to see both sides of a back-and-forth revert war claiming a consensus for their version of the article.


Note that consensus can only work among ] who are making a ] 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 ].) Note that consensus can only work among ] who are making a ] 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 ].)


Specifying exactly what consititutes a reasonable or rational position is difficult. But Misplaced Pages's consensus practice does not justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric position combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith. With respect to good faith, no amount of emphasized assertions that you are editing according to ] while engaging in biased editing will serve to paper over the nature of your activities. Specifying exactly what constitutes a reasonable or rational position is difficult. Nearly every editor believes that their position is reasonable; good editors acknowledge that positions opposed to their own are also reasonable. But Misplaced Pages's consensus practice does not justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric position combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith. With respect to good faith, no amount of emphasized assertions that you are editing according to ] while engaging in biased editing will serve to paper over the nature of your activities.


Consensus does not trump ]. A group of editors advocating a viewpoint do not overcome the policy expressed in ] concerning advocacy and propaganda. A group of editors cannot agree amongst themselves to an article version that violates NPOV. Consensus should not trump ]. A group of editors advocating a viewpoint do not, in theory, overcome the policy expressed in ] concerning advocacy and propaganda. However, a group of editors may be able to shut out certain facts and points of view through persistence, numbers, and organization. This group of editors ''should'' not agree to an article version that violates NPOV, but on occasion will do so anyway. This is generally agreed to be a bad thing.


==See also== ==See also==

Revision as of 20:57, 2 March 2005

This important topic has no formal policy.
If you would like to help draft a policy, please inquire on the talk page.

Proposed wording

As put forward in Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, Misplaced Pages is supposed to work by building consensus. This is done through polite discussion and Misplaced Pages:Negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines such as Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked.

In day-to-day Misplaced Pages practice, e.g. on VfD, consensus means something closer to supermajority, usually a four-fifths majority. In other polls, it has been defined as a 70% majority. In article disputes, consensus can mean anything from genuine consensus to my position; it is possible to see both sides of a back-and-forth revert war claiming a consensus for their version of the article.

Note that consensus can only work among reasonable editors who are making 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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute.)

Specifying exactly what constitutes a reasonable or rational position is difficult. Nearly every editor believes that their position is reasonable; good editors acknowledge that positions opposed to their own are also reasonable. But Misplaced Pages's consensus practice does not justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric position combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith. With respect to good faith, no amount of emphasized assertions that you are editing according to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view while engaging in biased editing will serve to paper over the nature of your activities.

Consensus should not trump NPOV. A group of editors advocating a viewpoint do not, in theory, overcome the policy expressed in Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not concerning advocacy and propaganda. However, a group of editors may be able to shut out certain facts and points of view through persistence, numbers, and organization. This group of editors should not agree to an article version that violates NPOV, but on occasion will do so anyway. This is generally agreed to be a bad thing.

See also

Categories: