Editing Wikipedia (section)

== Governance ==
{{further|Wikipedia:Administration|selfref=yes}}
Wikipedia's initial [[anarchy]] integrated [[democracy|democratic]] and hierarchical elements over time.<ref>{{cite web |last1 = Sanger |first1 = Larry |title = The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir |url=https://features.slashdot.org/story/05/04/18/164213/the-early-history-of-nupedia-and-wikipedia-a-memoir |website = Slashdot |publisher = Dice |date = April 18, 2005}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1 = Kostakis |first1 = Vasilis |title = Identifying and understanding the problems of Wikipedia's peer governance: The case of inclusionists versus deletionists |issue = 3 |url=https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2613/2479 |journal = First Monday |volume = 15 |date = March 2010}}</ref> An article is not considered to be owned by its creator or any other editor, nor by the subject of the article.<ref>{{srlink|Wikipedia:Ownership of articles|Ownership of articles}}</ref>

=== Administrators ===
Editors in good standing in the community can request extra [[Wikipedia:User access levels|user rights]], granting them the technical ability to perform certain special actions. In particular, editors can choose to run for "[[administrators (Wikipedia)|adminship]]",<ref>{{srlink|Wikipedia:Administrators}}</ref><ref name="David_Mehegan"/> which includes the ability to delete pages or prevent them from being changed in cases of severe vandalism or editorial disputes. Administrators are not supposed to enjoy any special privilege in decision-making; instead, their powers are mostly limited to making edits that have project-wide effects and thus are disallowed to ordinary editors, and to implement restrictions intended to prevent disruptive editors from making unproductive edits.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator_conduct |title = Wikipedia:Administrators |access-date = July 12, 2009 |date = October 3, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RfA_Review/Reflect |title = Wikipedia:RfA_Review/Reflect |access-date = September 24, 2009 |date = January 22, 2017}}</ref>

By 2012, fewer editors were becoming administrators compared to Wikipedia's earlier years, in part because the process of vetting potential administrators had become more rigorous.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/3-charts-that-show-how-wikipedia-is-running-out-of-admins/259829 |title = 3 Charts That Show How Wikipedia Is Running Out of Admins |last = Meyer |first = Robinson |website = [[The Atlantic]] |date = July 16, 2012 |access-date = September 2, 2012}}</ref>

=== Dispute resolution ===
Over time, Wikipedia has developed a semiformal dispute resolution process. To determine community consensus, editors can raise issues at appropriate community forums,<ref group=note>See for example the [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard|Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard]] or [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard|Neutral Point of View Noticeboard]], created to address content falling under their respective areas.</ref> seek outside input through third opinion requests, or initiate a more general community discussion known as a "request for comment".

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. [[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}}
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. Statistical analyses suggest that the committee ignores the content of disputes and rather focuses on the way disputes are conducted,<ref name="emory disputes handled 1" /> 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. Therefore, the committee does not dictate the<!-- The committee may (directly) rule that a content change is inappropriate, but may NOT (directly) rule that certain content is inappropriate. --> 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). Its remedies<!-- Although caution is no remedy, this is the language used in the reference. This could be quoted or changed. --> include cautions and probations (used in 63% of cases) and banning editors from articles (43%), subject matters (23%), or Wikipedia (16%).{{when|reason=As of when?|date=July 2021}} Complete bans from Wikipedia are generally limited to instances of impersonation and [[anti-social behavior]]. When conduct is not impersonation or anti-social, but rather anti-consensus<!-- This needs to be clarified. Anti-consensus behavior appears to be defined mostly as "edit warring". --> or in violation of editing policies, remedies tend to be limited to warnings.<ref>{{cite journal |title = Wikitruth through Wikiorder |ssrn = 1354424 |journal = [[Emory Law Journal]] |volume = 59 |issue = 1 |year = 2009 |pages = 151–210 |first1 = David A. |last1 = Hoffman |first2 = Salil K.|last2 = Mehra}}</ref>