User:Andrevan/Consensus isn't mob rule

☕ A@📧mail ☕ 🐣c🐣 😎 💀d💀 😎 ⭐b⭐ 🧮 🗄️ 🧹

A truism on Wikipedia is that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Yet because many of the rules of thumb of WP:CONSENSUS, which is not a vote (!vote), involve tallying percentages of support in a group, sometimes people falsely assume that consensus means that the "ayes have it" and that any discussion on an RFC is disruptive WP:BLUDGEONing. Less disruptive, these young grasshoppers reason, just let people pick a side and the biggest, loudest group wins.

That couldn't be further from the truth. The point of Wikpedia is endless discussion, ad nauseum. If discussion stops the engine stops. People are a raucous, disorderly lot, and will always find some bone to pick or a fly in the ointment. The purpose of Wikipedia's norms, policies, processes, principles, mindsets, cultures, and values, should encourage discussion and regard it not only as necessary, but helpful. Whereas voting is a necessary evil, and that's why the object or the operative part of consensus-building is not the vote. That's the end of the process, and not its object. The object of the process is to get to the root of the best way to write the article, i.e. a content dispute.

Consensus is a reasoned argument with the parameters of logical fact-finding, i.e. providing evidence, attacking evidence or impeaching credibility or expertise of sources, dismantling or constructing chains of reasoned argument through the adoption of axioms and the development of premises. You don't "win" the debate, the point of the discussion is to unpack the idea. Writing for the opponent and WP:NPOV are about finding balance and weight within the conceptual space of what the article is about, the proxy for which are the sources. Shutting down debate, either with ad hominem, fallacious or sophistic argumentation, or substituting procedural discussion for substantive discussion to game the system, are ways that flawed outcomes can come about, due to no conscious intention or fault of the participants, but a product of natural human nature and organizational behavior. Most people are not inherently rational but motivated by dopamine, serotonin, adrenaline, norepinephrine, etc. The desire to "win," for recognition, prestige, being right, and the security of one's identity are powerful motivators for a blind spot. Being charitable in a point of view means entertaining the possibly that the opponent has a constructive point that will produce an improved thesis, antithesis, metathesis, synthesis.

That means good-faith minority objections aren't disruptive. That means compromise is a part of the process. That means that your work isn't done because a consensus was reached at a prior time. WP:CCC, and new information or just new participants and thinking can oftentimes prompt a different result or approach, and a moratorium that thinks it is stopping disruption or relitigation of solved problems may actually be stifling the natural process. Edit-warring is considered harmful, but continued robust discussion, as long as it is treading new ground that isn't repetitive, or constructive critique that may or may not be brief or easy to quickly understand, are critical to actually writing good articles.