Editing Incubator escapee wiki:Consensus (section)

===Through editing===
{{Shortcut|WP:EDITCON|WP:EDITCONSENSUS|WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS}}
{{redirect-distinguish|WP:EDITCON|Help:Edit conflict}}
{{further|Wikipedia:Editing policy|Wikipedia:Be bold}}

[[File:Consensus Flowchart.svg|thumb|upright=1.2|alt=Image of a process flowchart. The start symbol is labeled "Previous consensus" with an arrow pointing to "Edit", then to a decision symbol labeled "Was the article edited further?". From this first decision, "no" points to an end symbol labeled "New consensus". "Yes" points to another decision symbol labeled "Do you agree?". From this second decision, "yes" points to the "New Consensus" end symbol. "No" points to "Seek a compromise", then back to the previously mentioned "Edit", thus making a loop.|A simplified [[flowchart]] of how consensus is reached. When an edit is made, other editors may either accept it, change it, or [[Help:Reverting|revert]] it. ''Seek a compromise'' means "attempt to find a generally acceptable solution", either through continued editing or through discussion.]]

Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has [[Wikipedia:Silence and consensus|presumed consensus]] until it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit, the new edit will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement. In this way, the [[Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required|encyclopedia gradually improves over time]].

All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear [[Wikipedia:Edit summary|edit summaries]], or by discussion on the associated talk page. Substantive, informative explanations indicate what issues must be addressed in subsequent efforts to reach consensus. Explanations are especially important when [[Wikipedia:Reverting|reverting]] another editor's [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|good-faith]] work.

Except in cases affected by content [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|policies or guidelines]], most disputes over content may be resolved through minor changes rather than taking an all-or-nothing position. If your first edit is reverted, try to think of a compromise edit that addresses the other editor's concerns. If you can't, or if you do and your second edit is reverted, create a new section on the associated talk page to discuss the dispute.

[[Wikipedia:Be bold|Be bold]], but not rash. Whether changes come through editing or through discussion, the encyclopedia is best improved through [[collaboration]] and [[consensus decision-making|consensus]], not combat and capitulation. Repeated reversions are contrary to Wikipedia policy under [[wikipedia:edit warring|edit warring]], except for specific policy-based material (such as [[Wikipedia:BLP|BLP]] exceptions) and reversions of [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]]. This is true even if editors are using edit summaries to "discuss" the dispute every time they revert.

{{Anchor|Through discussion-Gradually improving|reason=Unknown; maybe old section name?}}