Stock car racing:Consensus

 work through the . The consensus is an element inherent in the construction process of a "wiki". Refers to the primary way in which decisions are made on Wikipedia, and accepted as the best method to achieve our goals. Consensus on does not mean unanimity (which, although it may be the an ideal result is not always possible), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making involves an effort to incorporate the legitimate concerns of all editors, always respect the rules of.

This proposal describes the way in which is understood to be the consensus in, how determine if you have achieved (and how to proceed if you do not), and describes the exceptions to the principle that all decisions are taken by consensus.

Reaching the consensus
The method basic work is the following: someone edits a page and then anyone who read it can make the decision of leave it as is or re-edit its contents; after a time, the various editions in the same sense that you are being left in the page have the approval of the community —or at least of those who have reviewed this page—; "the silence equals consent" is, in the last term, the measure of consensus —somebody makes a edition and not object to or change the rest of it.

When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite debate, or the negotiation, in an attempt to get a consensus that allows develop a balanced view in the exposure content. The search for consensus on a matter in particular occurs with some regularity, and we reduce it a policy to save people the time of having to discuss the same principles several times.

Normally, the consensus on divisive issues is reached by the middle of the debate in the pages of discussion. In those situations exceptional in that this is not possible, there are processes of resolution of conflicts, such as the mediation, which involve in the discussion to independent publishers and more experience, thus enabling the overcoming of the obstacles that hindered the obtaining of consensus.

In general, when reference is made to the consensus in the discussions, is presupposed in the framework of the policies and established practices; as documented within policies, or even a majority of a group limited publishers may compensate never the consensus of the community on a wider scale.

Building consensus
The consensus only can operate between publishers reasonable that they make a good effort faith to work together in the description accurate and appropriate of the various points of view on a topic. For example, the insistence on the insertion of a fact or situation irrelevant in an article, against the opinion of many other editors, you can be considered a violation of the consensus.

It is difficult to specify exactly what constitutes a position reasonable or rational. Good editors recognize that the opposing positions to your own may be reasonable; the insistence obstinate in rejecting a position termed "eccentric", refusing to consider of good faith other points of view, is unjustifiable in practice the consensus on Wikipedia; note that, with time, the position "eccentric", in case you have sufficient merit, may in the end get a change in the consensus.

Although the contributions of an editor appear to be partial, it is necessary to keep in mind that their edits may have been made with the genuine desire to improve the article. The editors "must", in most situations, presume good faith, and always act with civility.

Consensus you can change


The consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, that the community change mind. Sometimes, it happens that a small group within the community takes a decision on behalf of the same; if the community disagree with that decision, either because this was wrong, or because the opinions on the matter have changed with the time, then, the new consensus goes to replace to the old. In any case, no person and no group —limited—, can unilaterally declaring that the community consensus has changed, or that is determined inamoviblemente. For example, it may happen that a small group editors reach a decision by consensus on a article, but which, when this to gain more attention, other members of the community disagree of this decision, thus changing the consensus; in cases of this kind the group original should not prevent the changes, arguing that they have already taken a decision.

An editor you think there are good reasons to believe that a decision by consensus is outdated, you can put it in the respective page discussion, in the Coffee, or making a request for a comment, to know what you think about other publishers and compare and examine the various points of view and their reasons. This does not mean that ignores precedent; a precedent generally has reasons to be so, which may still be be valid.

There must be a appropriate balance between the topics presented in good faith, on a question reasonable or a certain policy, and the attempts to disruptive validate an individual position. A edit that was agreed upon in the past can be discussed again, especially if there is new information to discuss or a possible violation of the policy.

Is the nature of the "wikis" change always. New people visit daily the encyclopedia, and, with new information and ideas, we can expand our audience in ways that were not planned previously. It is important to know that it is possible to modify the decisions of the past through the survey or consensus; the decisions achieved should not, therefore, to "tie" in the sense of that the decision may not be altered in the future. Of all however, some decisions have been taken by a large number of editors, so they would need the participation a large number of members of the Wikipedia community the discussion to form a new consensus before modify them or delete them. In some cases, a test less extensive consensus —for example, the result of the debate in the discussion page— can be enough to change one detail of a policy, or to obtain an improvement in their implementation.

Wonder other
On the other hand, it is very easy to create the appearance of a changing consensus simply by asking again and hoping that a group of people are different and more comprehensive to discuss the matter. This, however, is an example of poor change consensus, and is unethical in the framework of this encyclopedia. The decisions on Wikipedia are not based on the number of people that showed your match and you voted in a particular way; it is based on a system of good reasons. Attempts to change the consensus should be based on a clear engagement with the reasons produced the consensus above –not simply in the fact that today more people have expressed their support for the position To the position B–; thus, in the new section discussion, provide a summary and links to any prior discussion on the topic in the pages of discussion of the articles, or to the files pages, can help new editors in the topic know the reasons behind the consensus so that they can form a vision informed about the evolution of the same.

Seek consensus in a section of Wikipedia completely different, with the hope of finding more support for a proposal that failed, is equivalent to the so-called forum convenience (forum-shopping); it is better to find the proper page to discuss the topic, and then exposing the proposal first and only there —this is not mean that it can not be submitted with the proposal in another place if warns that you chose the wrong page for that topic—.

Consensus practice
The consensus is not means that all to share the result; it means, instead, that all agree to abide by the result.

Note that, in conflicts, the term "consensus" is with often used as if it meant a "genuine" consensus" of the "majority rule" to "my "position"; it is not unusual to see both parties in a war of editions argue the "consensus" for your version of the article.

While the most important part of the construction of the consensus is discuss and consider thoroughly all the positions, it is often difficult for all the members in a discussion agree on a single conclusion. In activities such as appointment of librarians, the construction of the consensus may be less feasible due to the fact that it participates most people who can cooperate effectively (see ). In consequence, it is difficult to determine what is the consensus on such processes. For to compensate for this, users simply check whether it fulfilled the criterion of, and in function of it determine the consensus.

In other situations, in practice, a group of users review a topic and checks to see if there is a most —simple— in favor of your position. While this method is quick and simple, of course "'no"' is equivalent to the search of a real consensus; it is necessary to consider carefully the strength and the quality of the arguments —including all the concerns that have been raised during the way—, the basis of the objections of those who disagree, and, in the most complex situations, the documentation existing on the subject.

The views minority typically reflect genuine concerns, and discussion must continue, in such a case, in an effort to try to achieve the agreement more favorable and practical. In situations with deadline, it is possible that it does not reach a perfect commitment on the part of all participants in the span set; however, you can choose a path of action that will satisfy the majority of users.

Pass over of an —until then— minority is the best way to attract towards it a number of problems. Formally, the taking of decision based on counts of votes are not the way of work on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia is not an experiment democracy), and the simple sum of the votes should not be the part dominant in the interpretation of a discussion. By the other hand, the surveys must be seen as processes of "test" to check the consensus, and not as a means to achieve it. The new users who are not yet familiar with the consensus should realize that a survey is often the beginning a debate before a resolution on a matter; the true decision is made-typically during the debate. This is also the reason why it is very advisable to provide justifications during a survey; of this way, people will be able to participate in the debate and in the development of an acceptable compromise.

However, some participants in the processes of frequent use of the namespace "" have highlighted the importance of the level of agreement reached editors, this issue is controversial, and there is no agreement on the follow-up guidelines numeric. The above mentioned percentages as sufficient to achieve a qualified majority vary from about 60% to about 80%, depending on the decision, with tendency to have high thresholds in the processes critical. Note that the numbers do not tie to the editors for the interpretation of the debate, and should never be be the only consideration when making a final decision; the judgment and discretion are essential to determine the correct course of action, and, in all cases, the discussion itself is more important than mere numbers, statistics.

Exceptions
There are some exceptions that have been replaced making consensual in a page:


 * The statements of the Mediawiki (Board of Trustees), or the Developers, especially on matters related with servers or legal issues —rights of copyright, privacy, etc—, are generally considered with status of policy.


 * It is not expected that the decisions are consensual in specific cases; deleted or change the consensus on a wider scale so very quick —as, for example, in a policy content related to Stock car racing:Verifiability or is Not a primary source—.


 * Principles of Foundation presents the basic principles for all the Wikimedia projects; these represent a consensus among all the Wikimedia projects on a very broad scale, which implies they develop very slowly.

Use of talk pages
Although the process consensual does not require you to add comments on the page discussion, it can be useful. Edit summaries that are short or that may be misinterpreted, or to discuss your editions, can help to obtain consensus.

Add a comment before editing is the best way to avoid misunderstandings. If you are unsure about an edit someone has made, wait a reasonable time to allow you to add a comment in relation to this. Also, when editing, checks to see if the discussion page there are or have been been discussions about the area that you're at the point of correct. However, once you've checked the discussion and you've contributed to it, do not be too timid, nor the cool to denigrate anyone. be bold.