微信加人限制怎么解除 微信加人有限制怎么办

Introduction

百度 外观方面，新款朗逸相比老款，在细节之处融入了许多时尚元素，以此来提升自身的颜值。

Consensus is the key mechanism for determining what content ends up in the encyclopedia, and how editors behave towards each other. It is a long held principle, both in policy and in practice, that a consensus formed by a smaller group on a topic has less weight than one formed by a larger one. This essay addresses what level of consensus means and how it might be assessed.

Why is the concept of levels of consensus important?

Many dispute resolution (and enforcement / disciplinary) mechanisms will consider whether someone is acting against a consensus held among other editors. With the exception of a few legally derived or WMF-mandated standards, the way an editor acts or the content they publish in whichever space they are working in, is judged against "what everyone else has agreed we should do in these situations".

Due to the fact that the community has consisted of millions of usually anonymous people over many years, most of whom have never commented anywhere outside of article space, it is impossible to ever accurately state what "the community" thinks about any given topic at any given time. There are some clues though: informal agreements on talk pages and elsewhere, requests for comment, topic-oriented noticeboards, and dedicated policy and related discussion pages.

It is considered disruptive to knowingly act against a previously held consensus. But how should we manage situations where consensus may have changed, or different groups have different opinions on whether a wide consensus even exists? The views of one subset of the community's views are no more or less valid than another, and anyone can ignore the rules at any given point if required, but the one of the ways the community (or at least the part of the community that wishes to get involved) judges whether or not a new consensus is emerging is to contrast the level of new consensus against the old. This approach helps to prevent old and possibly contentious issues being constantly re-litigated, but is not without its own challenges.

Measuring the level of consensus

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.

When we talk about the 'level of consensus', we are describing how much we believe the overall community supports or rejects an editing practice (such basing content on verifiable information rather than conducting original research) or individual action.

CONLEVEL becomes relevant when there are two or more competing viewpoints within the community and it becomes necessary to determine whether there is a "consensus on a wider scale". When making this comparison, both of the following factors should be considered:

How many editors could have been reasonably be expected to be able to contribute to the consensus?

• This is a factor mainly determined by watchlist or other notifications. If an editor is made aware of a discussion and chooses not to contribute, their input was still sought. Discussions on a central noticeboards, policy pages, correctly formatted RfCs that generate central listing and automatic notifications, manual postings to relevant Wikiprojects will give the maximum visibility to a discussion and the eventual consensus will have a wider community consensus than a unadvertised conversation on an article talk page.

How many editors were actually involved in forming the consensus?

• Although the community as a whole will never express a view on any particular topic, a well attended discussion or RfC is considered more representative of the communities' thinking than something with low participation (even if the relative levels of support vs oppose are the same).

In some cases it is clear-cut as to whether something has broader community support than something else, but there are no firm rules as to how to interpret the relationship between participation vs awareness. Most editors place more value on the venue and / or how appropriately the discussion was advertised rather than the raw number of participants, but it is not always obvious where to draw the line. At this point CONLEVEL is not helpful or relevant and further discussion or other dispute resolution steps are required.

Some common, but not universally accepted, assumptions and related caveats

Policy text represents the highest level of community consensus on a topic. This is often true. One of the reasons we have policies is that they document established consensus so that it can be referred to and applied. Policy pages are watchlisted by many editors, and unrepresentative or malicious changes are reverted, with even minor alterations often analysed in detail on their talk pages. However not every change is subject to a formal or advertised discussion, and so in contrast to the number of editors in the community, only a small proportion may be aware of a change. Also, by its nature, policy text reflects the thinking of editors at the time was written; it seldom leads the way, and it can become outdated as editing norms change.

Guidelines represent the highest level of community consensus on a topic. This is often true. Guidelines usually give more detailed guidance on how policies should be applied, or as in the case of the MOS, provide community with best practices that should generally applied during editing. However, the caveats mentioned with respect to policies also apply to guidelines. The page watchers may be fewer, especially for the more specialized or older pages, so there is less community oversight of changes.

If a discussion is at the wrong venue, any resulting consensus is not as representative as that from a discussion at the correct venue. This can be true. Certainly being at the wrong venue may negatively impact how widely (how many people have the page watchlisted?) and correctly (are the people who can meaningfully contribute to a discussion on the topic aware?) the discussion is advertised. But these issues can be mitigated with sensible notifications, and discussions at talk pages have attracted hundreds of contributors on occasion.

If a discussion is not a properly formatted RfC, then any resulting consensus is more local than from a discussion that is. This can be true. An RfC generates automatic notifications (for those who have signed up for them) and is theoretically visible to the whole project via central listings. Also, the discussion format helps to structure and regulate the discussion in way that leads to clearer outcomes and (sometimes) a formal closure by someone uninvolved. There are no guarantees though that the “right” people see the notifications at the right time, or indeed attend.

A discussion with a high number of attendees means the consensus formed is representative of what the community thinks. This is often true. In the situation where 100% of active editors discussed something, the outcome would be a truly global consensus. However, even the most well-attended discussions generally only attract a fraction of the community, and below a certain level this ceases to be meaningful. Is it meaningful to differentiate between a discussion that involves four editors vs than one involving three?

CONLEVEL means that a consensus formed on a topic in should be applied in other similar situations. This can be true. If there is consensus to handle certain topics in certain ways defined in policy, than in those scenarios policy should be applied. However, particular care must be taken when interpreting RfC questions and closes. A consensus to describe A as B in article C doesn't necessarily mean that A should be described as B in article D. The context in which A appears in article D may require an alternative approach. The arguments and sourcing in the original discussion may be relevant to article D, but a new consensus is still required.

A consensus can exist without there having been an explicit discussion. This is true, but by its nature it has an extremely variable and unpredictable level of consensus. A silent consensus arises when edits are made and continues until the edit is modified, challenged, or reverted. An unchallenged edit on much-watched page may be presumed to have a greater consensus than an edit made relatively recently on a little-watched page. Content which has been through a peer-review process (e.g., FAC) can also be said to have a higher level of consensus than content which has not, as the assumption is that a panel of editors have approved the article as it was at the time. However, consensus can change, and this form of consensus tends to be not to have been well advertised.

Some do's and don'ts

• Do not dismiss something as being "only a local consensus" or use disparaging terms without explanation. Your definition of what makes a consensus representative of the community may not be the same of someone else's.
• Do not boldly state that there is already a "global consensus" on something without referring to both the discussion and why you believe it carries more weight than something else.
• Do carefully check the scope of what was decided in a discussion. Just because there was a recent discussion that concluded that we should always handle Foo a certain way, doesn't mean the same should apply to Bar. Even if it appears clear to you that it should be applicable, be open to discussing further.
• Do remember that even though you participated in a discussion that occurred on a page you consider to be important to the project, that anyone who challenges the applicability of that outcome elsewhere might have legitimate reasons to do so. Other editors may place more or less weight than you on the number of actual participants, or the venue in which it took place.
• Do follow policies and guidelines wherever possible, but when someone wants to do things differently, remember that Wikipedia is always open to change, and that seeking change can be a positive thing for the encyclopedia and readers.
• Do not endlessly challenge or refuse to accept any form of consensus formed elsewhere. Although consensus levels are subjective, it's disruptive and contrary to the philosophy of the project to reject all forms of consensus for not being "global" enough.

See also

• Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"