Wikipedia सम्पादन (अनुभाग)

=== Dispute resolution ===
Over time, Wikipedia has developed a semi-formal dispute resolution process. To determine community consensus, editors can raise issues at appropriate community forums, seek outside input through third opinion requests, or initiate a more general community discussion known as a "request for comment".<ref name="Wikipedia:Dispute resolution – Wikipedia" group="W" />

Wikipedia encourages local resolutions of conflicts, which Jemielniak argues is quite unique in organization studies, though there has been some recent interest in [[consensus decision-making|consensus building]] in the field.<ref name="Jemielniak" /> [[Joseph M. Reagle Jr.|Joseph Reagle]] and [[Sue Gardner]] argue that the approaches to consensus building are similar to those used by [[Quakers]].<ref name="Jemielniak" />{{Rp|page=62}} A difference from Quaker meetings is the absence of a [[facilitator]] in the presence of disagreement, a role played by the clerk in Quaker meetings.<ref name="Jemielniak" />{{Rp|page=83}}

==== Arbitration Committee ====
{{Main|Arbitration Committee (Wikipedia)}}
The Arbitration Committee presides over the ultimate dispute resolution process. Although disputes usually arise from a disagreement between two opposing views on how an article should read, the Arbitration Committee explicitly refuses to directly rule on the specific view that should be adopted.<ref name=":7">{{Cite journal |last1=Hoffman |first1=David A. |last2=Mehra |first2=Salil K. |date=March 5, 2009 |title=Wikitruth Through Wikiorder |url=https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj/vol59/iss1/3/ |journal=Emory Law Journal |volume=59 |issue=1 |ssrn=1354424 |archive-date=June 13, 2021 |access-date=November 15, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210613214656/https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj/vol59/iss1/3/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

Statistical analyses suggest that the English Wikipedia committee ignores the content of disputes and rather focuses on the way disputes are conducted,<ref name="emory_p_181" /> functioning not so much to resolve disputes and make peace between conflicting editors, but to weed out problematic editors while allowing potentially productive editors back in to participate.<ref name=":7" /> Therefore, the committee does not dictate the content of articles, although it sometimes condemns content changes when it deems the new content violates Wikipedia policies (for example, if the new content is considered biased).{{efn|The committee may directly rule that a content change is inappropriate, but may not directly rule that certain content is inappropriate.}} Commonly used solutions include cautions and probations (used in 63% of cases) and banning editors from articles (43%), subject matters (23%), or Wikipedia (16%).<ref name=":7" /> Complete bans from Wikipedia are generally limited to instances of [[impersonator|impersonation]] and [[anti-social behavior|antisocial behavior]].<ref group="W">[[Wikipedia:Banning policy]]</ref> When conduct is not impersonation or anti-social, but rather edit warring and other violations of editing policies, solutions tend to be limited to warnings.<ref name=":7" />