Wikipedia:Essays in a nutshell/Consensus and discussion
| 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. |
||
| 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 |
||
| 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. |
||
| Sham consensus |
A sham consensus may not be relied on, because it violates a policy, a guideline, or an ArbCom decision. |
||
| Wrongful consensus |
A wrongful consensus results from violation of policy or guideline and is not reliable as a consensus. |
WP:WRONGFULCONSENSUS |