31:
94:
293:
controversy. It is natural, but unfortunate, that human nature tends to take the personally familiar view as correct, and other views as ignorant. That predilection should be acknowledged and resisted. Counterproductive argument can be avoided by assuming at the outset that there is a valid plurality
516:
or so forth, it is quite likely to result in a Talk-page engagement because the contributor is unlikely to view their addition as a violation. With that in mind, the one-line edit using such links should be supplemented with a Talk-page explanation that frames subsequent discussion, or worded in a
127:
is to provide a contribution environment that is respectful and civil. That goal is served by carefully considered responses to contributors' requests for clarification when their contributions are rejected. Listening and responding thoughtfully can be the difference between a collaboration with a
297:
A variety of views sometimes find support from a variety of sources. Finding sources for one view does not necessarily invalidate another, and a debate over which sources are most reliable or most pertinent might not be decisive. Where valid but different views exist, the goal is to find sources
471:
It doesn't suffice to link policy without explanation. A policy must be judged to apply, and that judgment has to be explained, both as to how the offending text can be seen to be an example of what the policy deals with, and also an identification of just what part of the text constitutes that
465:
Reading the first version, the contributor is simply mystified that their contribution is not accepted, and their attention may not turn at all to the offending statement "so-and-so". They are likely to feel the first version is abrupt, vague, and ill-considered. In contrast, the second version
504:
When material is rejected, the terse one-line summary without Talk-page amplification works best with obvious reversions. A reversion with a one-line edit summary hardly ever works for serious, extended contributions; the one-line edit summary easily can lead to an unproductive and unpleasant
149:
Upon rejection, it is natural for a contributor to attempt justification of their addition. Upon initial refusal, a contributor will make what they believe to be a more careful explanation. Some sensitivity to the efforts of the contributor demands more than an off-the-cuff rejection:
466:
indicates exactly what is thought to be the problem and how to fix it. The contributor may not agree, but it looks like the contribution was read, and like some change might fix matters. A constructive interchange appears more likely than in the first case.
229:
to the novelty of a new proposal that is only superficially similar to an old one. A useful guard against such a mindset is the process of explanation of the similarity, which provokes some thought about the new contribution and avoids knee-jerk rejection.
311:
WP guidelines and policies are spelled out on their respective pages, and provide guidance toward good content and productive behavior. But the application of the general policy to the particular case takes judgment that may be controversial. The
111:
It is important for editors with an established interest in a page to be welcoming to new contributors, to respond to new opinions on an article's direction with an open mind, and to reject changes appropriately, should rejection be warranted.
161:
Present counter-arguments with some degree of detail, rather than merely linking to a policy. Reasons for rejection will help the back-and-forth to converge, and offer the best chance of ultimately resulting in understanding, for both
220:
One reason for contributions that rehash old issues is that the article in its present form is accurate but not clear, leading to misunderstanding or confusion by readers — and may be a sign that the article is in need of
387:
suggests that a minor topic is being given more prominence in the article than it deserves. That objection may be mitigated by suggesting detail of the minor topic be explained under a separate page devoted to the minor
200:
claim that the new proposal is an attempt to upset consensus. A new addition may, in fact, provide something new to consider, regardless of the immediate negative emotional response that such a change might normally
334:
Don't just link to a policy without explanation of your reasons why the policy applies; policies are complex and contain many details and cases. Mention what part of the policy is relevant to the discussion.
603:
That is, a new contribution that opposes existing consensus is not necessarily an instance of "continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors". See
494:. Readers who see only the summary might not get the entire picture. Prevent misunderstanding: If an edit requires more explanation than will fit in the summary box, use the
215:
A proposal that appears repeatedly from new contributors, despite existing consensus for rejection, may be in fact a sign that the proposal is worth revisiting.
769:
764:
403:
is not an issue for a subtopic. In creating a new page, care must be taken to distinguish discussion of a topic from presenting a point of view
255:
Be responsive to suggestions. A failure to respond to explicit and clear suggestions may constitute a refusal to engage in consensus building.
206:
Where a proposal repeats a previous one, and consensus against the proposal resulted, the new contributor should be provided with appropriate
225:
Established editors should bear in mind that their involvement in previous discussions of various proposals may give them a mindset that is
46:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more
Knowledge (XXG) contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
47:
155:
115:
Likewise, there are a number of steps a new contributor to a page can take to gain serious consideration among the established editors.
316:
of cavalier rejection without explanation is inflammatory and may result in a hostile encounter on Talk pages that is hard to correct.
547:
567:
337:
Identify what part of the disputed content is not compliant with the relevant policy, providing quotes of the offending material.
774:
557:
542:
294:
of usages and views, and by subduing expression of strong attachment to one's initial conceptions before the discussion matures.
552:
128:
potentially valuable new editor and irrevocably souring their view of the community on that page, and perhaps WP as a whole.
364:, because unsupported links can be seen as a pejorative and hastily conceived reaction by the editor raising the concern.
186:
before implementation to see what the reaction will be. Human nature is to view a major undiscussed change as unwelcome.
759:
179:
may exist among the established editors involved with an article. Be prepared to deal circumspectly with the majority.
243:
530:
182:
Major edits, especially those that pose a conflict with the article's current direction, are best aired on the
399:. Secondary sources are necessary to establish notability only for the subject of the article as a whole, and
517:
way unlikely to set up an irritated Talk-page exchange. For example, a conciliatory one-line edit summary:
400:
396:
17:
562:
376:
that primary sources are acceptable for establishing particular facts when worded properly to maintain a
239:
176:
51:
290:
410:
353:
61:
326:
If policies and guidelines are unclear, or their relevance is obscure, politely request clarification.
449:
The statement "so-and-so" appears to go beyond the statement "thus-and-thus" provided by the source
124:
357:
275:
39:
384:
361:
281:
Make clear how consensus can be achieved: suggest rewording and identify points needing sources.
425:
Compare the comment accompanying a rejection or reversion of a contributions that says simply:
482:
495:
377:
299:
271:
183:
158:. Rationalizations for rejection that appear as curt or haughty or snide rarely result well.
522:
513:
454:
432:
345:
263:
An extended discussion does not in itself constitute interference with building consensus.
509:
373:
349:
341:
267:
323:
Become familiar with relevant policies and guidelines suggested by critiquing editors.
210:, and an explanation of why it seems that their proposal is a rehash of the prior one.
753:
108:
This essay aims to reduce controversy over proposed additions to existing articles.
498:
to give more information, adding "See Talk" or "See
Discussion Page" to the summary.
226:
102:
Use clear, expository, and even-handed responses in clashes over a new contribution.
54:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
668:
649:
606:
586:
248:
It is natural for some controversy to arise over the value of proposed additions.
16:
For the general behavioral guideline concerning disruption on
Knowledge (XXG), see
196:
413:. These two often can be separated by a careful choice of wording and sources.
298:
supporting various usages and viewpoints to result in a resolution based upon
154:
Avoid summarily dismissing a contributor's explanation, especially by citing
207:
729:
508:
If the one-line edit summary employs links to a policy or guideline like
711:
624:
405:
669:"Signs of disruptive editing: Does not engage in consensus building"
650:"Signs of disruptive editing: Does not engage in consensus building"
607:"Signs of disruptive editing: Rejects or ignores community input"
686:
194:
A presently prevailing majority opposition does not validate a
712:"Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article"
88:
25:
76:
69:
135:
Respond directly and succinctly to specific criticism.
525:. If you differ, please discuss it on the Talk page."
266:
Do not simply assail an unwelcome view. Avoid use of
453:: please provide additional sourcing as required by
244:
Knowledge (XXG):Editing policy § Be helpful: explain
687:"Attributing and specifying biased statements"
666:For criteria regarding such interference, see
240:Knowledge (XXG):Consensus § Consensus-building
409:, as the latter is subject to criticism as a
8:
395:A separate page requires establishment of
278:and the like as unsupported denigration.
48:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies or guidelines
587:"Failure or refusal to "get the point""
578:
307:Critiquing with guidelines and policies
770:Knowledge (XXG) essays about consensus
691:Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view
372:It should be borne in mind in citing
156:Knowledge (XXG):Too long; didn't read
7:
718:. Knowledge (XXG). 27 February 2012.
558:Knowledge (XXG):Navigating conflict
548:Knowledge (XXG):Talk page guidelines
736:. Knowledge (XXG). 15 February 2012
543:Knowledge (XXG):Editing environment
142:the community, and act accordingly.
765:Knowledge (XXG) dispute resolution
568:Knowledge (XXG):What is consensus?
553:Knowledge (XXG):Dispute resolution
431:This contribution doesn't satisfy
52:thoroughly vetted by the community
14:
675:. Knowledge (XXG). 12 March 2012.
656:. Knowledge (XXG). 12 March 2012.
613:. Knowledge (XXG). 12 March 2012.
593:. Knowledge (XXG). 12 March 2012.
631:. Knowledge (XXG). 19 March 2012
481:A feature of WP is the one-line
340:Take extreme care with links to
289:It is easy to be caught up in a
92:
29:
23:Essay on editing Knowledge (XXG)
492:Expand on important information
167:Handling pre-existing consensus
521:"This edit appears to violate
1:
485:. The key guideline here is:
259:For the established editors:
190:For the established editors:
146:For the established editors:
791:
775:Knowledge (XXG) discussion
716:Knowledge (XXG):Notability
237:
59:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Disruption
15:
629:Knowledge (XXG):Consensus
563:Knowledge (XXG):Consensus
330:For established editors:
123:One of Knowledge (XXG)'s
234:Building a new consensus
100:This page in a nutshell:
477:One-line edit summaries
119:Responding thoughtfully
760:Knowledge (XXG) essays
625:"Consensus can change"
673:WP:Disruptive editing
654:WP:Disruptive editing
611:WP:Disruptive editing
591:WP:Disruptive editing
291:my way or the highway
251:For the contributor:
171:For the contributor:
138:Remember you have to
131:For the contributor:
50:, as it has not been
505:Talk-page exchange.
730:"How to summarize"
443:in contrast with,
319:For contributors:
734:Help:Edit summary
106:
105:
87:
86:
782:
745:
744:
742:
741:
726:
720:
719:
708:
702:
701:
699:
698:
683:
677:
676:
664:
658:
657:
646:
640:
639:
637:
636:
621:
615:
614:
601:
595:
594:
583:
96:
95:
89:
79:
72:
33:
32:
26:
790:
789:
785:
784:
783:
781:
780:
779:
750:
749:
748:
739:
737:
728:
727:
723:
710:
709:
705:
696:
694:
693:. 13 March 2012
685:
684:
680:
667:
665:
661:
648:
647:
643:
634:
632:
623:
622:
618:
605:
602:
598:
585:
584:
580:
576:
539:
529:might avoid an
479:
422:
309:
246:
236:
169:
121:
93:
83:
82:
75:
68:
64:
56:
55:
30:
24:
21:
12:
11:
5:
788:
786:
778:
777:
772:
767:
762:
752:
751:
747:
746:
721:
703:
678:
659:
641:
616:
596:
577:
575:
572:
571:
570:
565:
560:
555:
550:
545:
538:
535:
527:
526:
502:
501:
500:
499:
478:
475:
474:
473:
468:
467:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
421:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
390:
389:
381:
366:
365:
338:
335:
328:
327:
324:
308:
305:
304:
303:
295:
283:
282:
279:
264:
257:
256:
235:
232:
223:
222:
217:
216:
212:
211:
203:
202:
188:
187:
180:
168:
165:
164:
163:
159:
144:
143:
136:
120:
117:
104:
103:
97:
85:
84:
81:
80:
77:WP:DisruptTalk
73:
65:
60:
57:
45:
44:
36:
34:
22:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
787:
776:
773:
771:
768:
766:
763:
761:
758:
757:
755:
735:
731:
725:
722:
717:
713:
707:
704:
692:
688:
682:
679:
674:
670:
663:
660:
655:
651:
645:
642:
630:
626:
620:
617:
612:
608:
600:
597:
592:
588:
582:
579:
573:
569:
566:
564:
561:
559:
556:
554:
551:
549:
546:
544:
541:
540:
536:
534:
532:
524:
520:
519:
518:
515:
511:
506:
497:
493:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
484:
476:
470:
469:
464:
458:
456:
450:
447:
446:
445:
444:
442:
436:
434:
429:
428:
427:
426:
424:
423:
419:
412:
408:
407:
402:
401:WP:Notability
398:
394:
393:
392:
391:
386:
382:
379:
375:
371:
370:
369:
363:
359:
355:
351:
347:
343:
339:
336:
333:
332:
331:
325:
322:
321:
320:
317:
315:
306:
301:
296:
292:
288:
287:
286:
280:
277:
273:
269:
265:
262:
261:
260:
254:
253:
252:
249:
245:
241:
233:
231:
228:
219:
218:
214:
213:
209:
205:
204:
199:
198:
193:
192:
191:
185:
181:
178:
174:
173:
172:
166:
160:
157:
153:
152:
151:
147:
141:
137:
134:
133:
132:
129:
126:
118:
116:
113:
109:
101:
98:
91:
90:
78:
74:
71:
67:
66:
63:
58:
53:
49:
43:
41:
35:
28:
27:
19:
738:. Retrieved
733:
724:
715:
706:
695:. Retrieved
690:
681:
672:
662:
653:
644:
633:. Retrieved
628:
619:
610:
599:
590:
581:
528:
507:
503:
491:
483:edit summary
480:
452:
448:
430:
404:
367:
329:
318:
313:
310:
284:
258:
250:
247:
224:
195:
189:
170:
148:
145:
139:
130:
125:Five Pillars
122:
114:
110:
107:
99:
37:
411:WP:POV fork
354:WP:POV fork
197:prima facie
38:This is an
754:Categories
740:2012-03-15
697:2012-03-14
635:2012-03-20
574:References
397:notability
368:For both:
314:appearance
285:For both:
238:See also:
496:Talk page
358:WP:Fringe
276:WP:Fringe
227:blinkered
221:revision.
184:talk page
177:consensus
62:Shortcuts
537:See also
531:edit war
472:example.
385:WP:Undue
362:WP:Undue
140:persuade
420:Example
383:Citing
378:WP:NPOV
300:WP:NPOV
272:WP:Soap
70:WP:ATPD
523:WP:Syn
514:WP:Syn
455:WP:SYN
433:WP:SYN
406:per se
388:topic.
346:WP:Syn
242:, and
201:evoke.
162:sides.
510:WP:OR
374:WP:RS
350:WP:RS
342:WP:OR
268:WP:OR
208:diffs
40:essay
756::
732:.
714:.
689:.
671:.
652:.
627:.
609:.
589:.
533:.
512:,
360:,
356:,
352:,
348:,
344:,
274:,
270:,
175:A
743:.
700:.
638:.
457:.
451:x
435:.
380:.
302:.
42:.
20:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.