| Revision as of 16:23, 21 October 2005 view sourcePBS (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled116,854 edits Re-inserted numbers. See talk page. It has been a week and no one has expressed an objection to my points← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:29, 24 October 2005 view source 64.107.156.234 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Consensus is what I want it to be. I am all-powerful! | |||
| {{guideline}} | |||
| --'''Gaurav Garg''' | |||
| Misplaced Pages works 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 fails. | |||
| {{Shortcut|]}} | |||
| One description of what consensus is, made , is as follows: | |||
| <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> | |||
| In day-to-day Misplaced Pages practice, '']'' is interpreted as something closer to '']'', as unanimity is extrememly difficult to achieve. What is interpreted as consensus often depends on the criticality of the Misplaced Pages process the consensus is deciding upon. Precise numbers are hard to establish, and ] a democracy so simple vote counting is not the key part of the interpretation of a debate. Nevertheless, some often-used processes seem to intepret consensus to have been reached if the proportion of concurring editors has reached a particular level. Note that these numbers, being mere statistics, are not binding on the editor who is interpreting the debate, and are often varied widely to suit the needs of a particular situation: | |||
| * 75-80% or larger majority support for a ] (]); | |||
| * two-thirds or larger majority support for ] (]); | |||
| * 60% or larger majority support for ] (]). | |||
| However, judgment and discretion are applied to determine the correct action. The discussion iteself is more important than the statistics. In disputes, the term ''consensus'' is often used as if it means anything from ''genuine consensus'' to ''my position''; it is possible to see both sides of a back-and-forth ] claiming a consensus for their version of the article. | |||
| Note that consensus can only work among reasonable ] 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 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 should not trump ] (or any other official policy). A group of editors advocating a viewpoint do not, in theory, overcome the policy expressed in ] concerning advocacy and ]. 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. | |||
| The preferred way to deal with this problem is to draw the attention of more editors to the issue by one of the methods of ], such as consulting a ], filing a ] (on the article in question), and requesting ]. Enlarging the pool will prevent consensus being enforced by a small group of willful editors. Those who find that their facts and point of view are being excluded by a large group of editors should at least consider that they may be mistaken. | |||
| == See also == | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Revision as of 16:29, 24 October 2005
Consensus is what I want it to be. I am all-powerful! --Gaurav Garg