Revisi per 22 Februari 2019 05.32 lihat sumber HaEr48 (bicara \| kontrib) Pengurus 10.368 suntingan + lihat pula ← Revisi sebelumnya		Revisi per 19 Juni 2021 03.04 lihat sumber Hidayatsrf (bicara \| kontrib) Pemeriksa, Pengurus antarmuka, Pengurus 24.962 suntingan hapus bagian yang belum diterjemahkan (teks bhs. Inggris) Revisi selanjutnya →
Baris 1: {{pedoman}} Wikipedia bekerja dengan membangun '''konsensus'''. Konsensus adalah bagian tidak terpisahkan dari proses [[wiki]]. Cara kerjanya pada dasarnya seperti ini: seseorang membuat suntingan pada suatu halaman, dan selanjutnya semua orang yang membaca halaman tersebut akan membuat keputusan apakah membiarkan suntingan tersebut atau menggantinya. Dengan berjalannya waktu, setiap suntingan yang tetap ada secara tak langsung berarti mendapatkan persetujuan dari seluruh komunitas. "''Diam berarti setuju''" adalah ukuran akhir dari konsensus; seseorang melakukan suatu suntingan dan tidak ada yang berkeberatan atau mengubahnya. Konsensus hampir selalu tercapai sebagai produk alami dari proses penyuntingan. Baris 6 ⟶ 5: Umumnya konsensus terhadap suatu konflik dicapai melalui diskusi di [[Wikipedia:halaman pembicaraan\|halaman pembicaraan]]. Jika ini tak berhasil, juga dimungkinkan untuk menggunakan proses [[Wikipedia:penyelesaian perselisihan\|penyelesaian perselisihan]], yang dirancang untuk membantu pencapaian konsensus jika komunikasi melalui halaman pembicaraan tidak berhasil. ~~<!--~~ ~~== Reasonable consensus-building ==~~ Consensus works best when all [[Wikipedia:Editing policy\|editors]] make a [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith\|good faith]] effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject. It is difficult to specify exactly what constitutes a reasonable or rational position. Good editors acknowledge that positions opposed to their own may be reasonable. However, stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice. (Note that in the rare case if the "eccentric" position turns out to have merit, [[WP:CCC\|the consensus can change]].) Even if an editor's contributions appear to be biased, keep in mind that their edits may have been made in good faith, out of a genuine desire to improve the article. Editors ''must always'' [[WP:AGF\|assume good faith]] and remain [[WP:CIVIL\|civil]]. ~~== Consensus can change ==~~ ~~{{Main\|Wikipedia:Consensus can change}}~~ Once established, consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable for the community to change its mind at times. It is perfectly fine for a small group of editors to reach a consensual decision about an article or group of articles, but if these articles gain more attention from Wikipedia as a whole it is then possible that more people come in that disagree with the initial decision, thus in effect changing the consensus. The original group should not block further discussion on grounds that they already have made the decision. ~~== Consensus vs. other policies ==~~ It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles - especially [[WP:NPOV\|the neutral point of view (NPOV)]]. At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate what appears to be support for a version of the article that is actually inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving [[Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View#Undue weight\|undue weight]] to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus. The preferred way to deal with this problem is to draw the attention of other editors to the issue by some of the methods of [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution\|dispute resolution]], such as consulting a [[Wikipedia:Third opinion\|third party]], filing a [[WP:RfC\|request for comment]] (on the article in question), and requesting [[Wikipedia:Mediation\|mediation]]. Enlarging the pool will prevent the railroading of articles by a dedicated few. In the case of a small group of editors who find that their facts and point of view are being excluded by a larger group of editors, it is worth considering that they may be mistaken. ~~''Also see [[Wikipedia:Single purpose account]] for considerations relating to brand new users who appear and immediately engage in a specific issue.''~~ ~~==Consensus in practice==~~ Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome. The following description of consensus, from the [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/026513.html mailing list], shows the difference between consensus and unanimity: ~~<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>~~ Note: In disputes, the term ''consensus'' is often used as if it means anything from ''genuine consensus'' to ''majority rule'' to ''my position''; it is not uncommon to see both sides in an [[Wikipedia:Edit war\|edit war]] claiming a consensus for its version of the article. ~~= Consensus vs. supermajority =~~ While the most important part of consensus-building is to thoroughly discuss and consider all issues, it is often difficult for all members in a discussion to come to a single conclusion. In activities such as [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship\|Requests for Adminship]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion\|Articles for Deletion]] or [[Wikipedia:Requested moves\|Requested Moves]], consensus-building can be unwieldy due to the [[Dunbar's number\|sheer number]] of contributors/discussions involved, and may in fact be somewhat misdesigned. In some decision-making processes, the determination of a supermajority is used as an indicator of whether a consensus may be reached. If all parties agree to abide by the will of the supermajority, then in practice a consensus may be reached by such a determination. Formal decision making based on vote counting is not how wikipedia works (see [[m:Voting is evil\|Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy]]) and simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate. When polling is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus. Nevertheless, some mediators of often-used Wikipedia-space processes have placed importance on the proportion of concurring editors reaching a particular level. This issue is controversial, and there is no consensus about having numerical guidelines. That said, the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision, with the more critical processes tending to have higher thresholds. See the pages for [[Wikipedia:Requested moves\|RM]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion\|AFD]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship\|RFA]] for further discussion of such figures. The numbers are by no means fixed, but are merely statistics reflecting past decisions. Note that the numbers are not binding on the editor who is interpreting the debate, and should never be the only consideration in making a final decision. Judgment and discretion are essential to determine the correct action, and in all cases, the discussion itself is more important than the statistics. ~~==Exceptions==~~ ~~There are a few exceptions that supercede consensus decisions:~~ Consensus decisions in a specific case cannot override existing project-wide policy. For example, facts that are [[Wikipedia:Verifiability\|unverifiable]] should not be included in an article, even if the consensus is in favor of it. This is especially relevant when considering [[WP:BLP\|biographies of living persons]]. [[Wikipedia:Office Actions]], by virtue of being [[WikiMedia]]-wide, are considered to be outside the policies of a specific project. Declarations from [[Jimmy Wales]], [[m:Board of Trustees\|the Board]], or [[m:Developers\|the Developers]], particularly for copyright, legal issues, or server load, are usually held to have policy status (see [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines]]). ~~== See also ==~~ ~~;Articles~~ [[Consensus]] * [[Consensus decision-making]] * [[Groupthink]] ~~;Project pages~~ * [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates]] * [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines]] * [[Wikipedia:Supermajority]] ~~Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Consensus&oldid=103599851-->~~ == Lihat pula == * [[Wikipedia:Siklus suntingan, pengembalian, dan diskusi]]

Wikipedia:Konsensus: Perbedaan antara revisi