User:DGG/Consensus2021
< User:DGG
WHY CONSENSUS FAILS
"Wikipedia NPOV editing is based upon consensus on how the policies and guidelines should be followed.
Sometimes the process fails: either because the prejudice of the general community, or the local bias of a small dominant group of editors in an area.
Recent examples will be presented in areas dealing with politics and science"
Consensus
- Consensus is general agreement
- Consensus is general agreement that everyone is willing to live with
- Consensus is enough general agreement that everyone must live with
Consensus about content is usually decided
- on article talk pages / RfC
- at Reliable sources Noticeboard /RfC (or other noticeboards)
- at AfD / Deletion Review
- (implied generally by arb com)
- (indirectly by Sanctions/Discretionary sanctions)
Consensus is set by those users who care enough to participate
Determining Consensus
- "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy."
- is decided by judging the view of those who understand the issue and base their arguments on policy
- is decided by a rough count of good-faith editors who understand the issue and base their arguments on policy
- is sometimes decided by vote.
Consensus can fail because
- nobody really cares
- there is insufficient agreement
- the closing does not affect the actual editing
- the argument is biased by individuals or a group
- editors are manipulated by the more experienced into doing something unforgivable
- the closing is biased
- the effect of the decision is affected by community bias
Older examples
- Scientology
- Homeopathy
Manipulation
- German war effort
- Race and intelligence
Bias in sourcing
- Origin of covid
- American politics
- Race and Intelligence
- Religions (Roman catholic, Eastern orthodox, Judaism, Shite Islam)
Community bias
- American politics
- Race and intelligence
- Climate Change
- Attractive young people (AfDs)
- Popular products (AfDs)