Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
I think this essay probably can be merged with Wikipedia:False consensus, an essay that is similar in concept except that it is about consensus that is against ArbCom decisions, whereas this essay is about consensus that is based on violation of policy or guideline. I think false consensus is the better term, although it may be a good idea to reserve wrongful consensus against use for other purposes.
There was disagreement (with an antecedent) on whether any name should exist for a consensus that is created in violation of policy or guideline, so both of these essays may get ignored anyway, merged or not. Perhaps, then, keeping the essays separate may be more useful in educating editors on the advantages of calling the problematic consensus something in order to ease talking about it in particular cases.
I also hope for elevation of both of these essays into the Consensus guideline, if consensus agrees.
Nick Levinson ( talk) 21:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I believe that a "merge" is not the way to go - the new essay appears not to rely on what has been written in the past, but expresses a view specific to editorial behaviour not covered in the past by ArbCom as such. Nor do I feel that multiple editors necessarily are all interested in actually improving an essay either. In fact, it is possible in some cases that editors who dilike the premise of an essay may seek to make absurd and damaging edits to it. I would, moreover, suggest that the new essay be retitled to "Improper behaviour by editors in the consensus process" (or "tendentious consensus"?) as I do not think "wrongful" is really the right adjective to apply to the consensus arrived at. Lastly, Wikipedia does not and ought not insist that essays be "majority opinion" as that way lies madness <g> and interminable argument. As long as the opinions do not damage Wikipedia in any way, let them exist. Collect ( talk) 12:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I am not at all clear what this essay is talking about... it would benefit from some examples of situations when a consensus might be disrupted by nontrivial violation of a policy or guideline. (ideally, these examples would be stated as hypotheticals, but the hypotheticals would be based on actual situations that have occurred) Blueboar ( talk) 17:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I wrote a new essay, WP:Sham consensus. Shortcuts to it are WP:SHAMCONSENSUS, WP:SHAMCON, and WP:SHAM. It incorporates false consensus and wrongful consensus under a single label, while preserving the latter two essays. Nick Levinson ( talk) 16:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
I think this essay probably can be merged with Wikipedia:False consensus, an essay that is similar in concept except that it is about consensus that is against ArbCom decisions, whereas this essay is about consensus that is based on violation of policy or guideline. I think false consensus is the better term, although it may be a good idea to reserve wrongful consensus against use for other purposes.
There was disagreement (with an antecedent) on whether any name should exist for a consensus that is created in violation of policy or guideline, so both of these essays may get ignored anyway, merged or not. Perhaps, then, keeping the essays separate may be more useful in educating editors on the advantages of calling the problematic consensus something in order to ease talking about it in particular cases.
I also hope for elevation of both of these essays into the Consensus guideline, if consensus agrees.
Nick Levinson ( talk) 21:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I believe that a "merge" is not the way to go - the new essay appears not to rely on what has been written in the past, but expresses a view specific to editorial behaviour not covered in the past by ArbCom as such. Nor do I feel that multiple editors necessarily are all interested in actually improving an essay either. In fact, it is possible in some cases that editors who dilike the premise of an essay may seek to make absurd and damaging edits to it. I would, moreover, suggest that the new essay be retitled to "Improper behaviour by editors in the consensus process" (or "tendentious consensus"?) as I do not think "wrongful" is really the right adjective to apply to the consensus arrived at. Lastly, Wikipedia does not and ought not insist that essays be "majority opinion" as that way lies madness <g> and interminable argument. As long as the opinions do not damage Wikipedia in any way, let them exist. Collect ( talk) 12:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I am not at all clear what this essay is talking about... it would benefit from some examples of situations when a consensus might be disrupted by nontrivial violation of a policy or guideline. (ideally, these examples would be stated as hypotheticals, but the hypotheticals would be based on actual situations that have occurred) Blueboar ( talk) 17:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I wrote a new essay, WP:Sham consensus. Shortcuts to it are WP:SHAMCONSENSUS, WP:SHAMCON, and WP:SHAM. It incorporates false consensus and wrongful consensus under a single label, while preserving the latter two essays. Nick Levinson ( talk) 16:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)