Jump to content

Wikipedia:Essays in a nutshell/Consensus and discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
See also Wikipedia:Essay directory#Discussions and consensus
Essay In a nutshell Shortcuts Impact
False consensus

False consensus applies to any supposed "consensus" arrived at through canvassing, vote-stacking, or other manipulation of a process or discussion contrary to policy or to ArbCom decisions. Admins should disregard any such claimed consensus, and open a re-discussion, barring those who engaged in improper activity. Actions taken on the basis of a false consensus may be discounted by ArbCom or by other administrators.

WP:FALSECON

Procedurally flawed consensus

A procedurally flawed consensus results from editors not following a wikipedia procedure. Procedurally flawed consensus results in a re-examination of the consensus, but not necessarily its overturning

WP:PROCEDURALLYFLAWEDCONSENSUS
WP:PFC

Reducing consensus to an algorithm

While consensus formation on Wikipedia cannot literally be reduced to a mathematical function, the likelihood of success of a proposition in a content dispute is actually fairly simple to predict with a model.

WP:CONALGO

Sham consensus

A sham consensus may not be relied on, because it violates a policy, a guideline, or an ArbCom decision.

WP:SHAMCONSENSUS
WP:SHAMCON
WP:SHAM

Wrongful consensus

A wrongful consensus results from violation of policy or guideline and is not reliable as a consensus.

WP:WRONGFULCONSENSUS
WP:WRONGCONSENSUS
WP:WRONGFULCON
WP:WRONGCON