Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Limit article talk page discussions to discussion of sources, article focus, and policy. If an edit is challenged, or is likely to be challenged, editors should use talk pages to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia. Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change.
Sometimes editors working on a contentious topic article or a group of similar articles will find it helpful to develop a list of sources that have gained consensus as being among the best sources for that subject. This is usually the result of a long discussion among multiple editors and may involve discussions of the quality of the sources ...
CONLEVEL states "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." The policy statement gives an example of a WikiProject declaring that "their" articles are exempt from a particular style guideline that has broad community support.
Consensus. One of the most widely used terms on Wikipedia, and one of its bedrock principles. Astonishingly for such a basic procedural policy of the encyclopedia, by which all decisions are guided, nobody knows its true definition, for the simple reason that there have been no attempts to identify what consensus actually is. The lack of such a ...
If consensus for broad community support has not developed after a reasonable time, the proposal has failed. If consensus is neutral or unclear on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal has likewise failed. Discussion may be closed as one of: Promote, No consensus, or Failed. Please leave a short note about the conclusion you came to.
Consensus is the community resolution when opposing parties set aside their differences and agree on a statement that is agreeable to all, even if only barely. Disputes on Wikipedia are settled by editing and discussion, not voting. Discussion should aim towards building a consensus. Consensus is a group discussion where everyone's opinions are ...
As a matter of clear policy (at WP:Consensus § Levels of consensus), a broader consensus always trumps a narrower one. A matter affecting a large number of articles or editors should be resolved in the most obvious site-wide, not isolated, place for that discussion, or the claimed consensus for it is weak and suspect.
Review articles, especially those printed in academic review journals that survey the literature, can help clarify academic consensus. Articles that discuss the existence of a controversy (be it scientific, interdisciplinary, popular, political, or religious) should clearly identify proponents of minority views and explain the extent and ...