Wikipedia:Don't drink the consensus Kool-Aid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Shortcut: WP:KOOLAID

This page in a nutshell: Editors who feel strongly to speak against consensus are encouraged to do so.

Don't drink the "consensus Kool-Aid" all the time, as long as you speak out against consensus in a civil way.

An event at this AFD discussion has prompted some thought. In this discussion, an editor (and apparently a Wikipedia Admin) took a position that another editor thought was "totally unacceptable and disruptive".

Wikipedia is run largely by consensus and established policies. However, speaking out against consensus and policy is not disruptive if it is done with civility. It's not "disruptive"—consensus can change, and the only way it can change is if someone speaks against it.

So don't "drink the consensus kool-aid" all the time, and if someone is civil and speaks out against consensus, they're not being disruptive—they're just having a conversation.

A word of caution: This does not mean that editors have free rein to make changes to the encyclopedia against well-established consensus or policies (such as deletion of articles, nomination for deletion, etc.). There is a difference between speaking against consensus (or even a policy) and taking actions that disrupt the flow of Wikipedia.

EXAMPLE: One guideline that has undergone significant change on Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Notability (sports). It is perfectly acceptable to speak out against this guideline on Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). If an article is in WP:AFD, and that guideline is used, feel free to speak out against that guideline in that discussion. However, editors that intentionally nominate articles for deletion that meet the guideline's notability standard because the editor does not agree with the guideline can be disruptive even if it is done with civility.

See also[edit]

Policies

Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change

Essays

Essays about Wikipedia

Essays on building, editing, and deleting content

Philosophy	Articles must be written Avoid vague introductions Be a reliable source Cohesion Concede lost arguments 8 simple rules for editing our encyclopedia Don't lie Explanationism External criticism of Wikipedia Here to build an encyclopedia Most ideas are bad Not editing because of Wikipedia restriction Neutrality of Sources Oversimplification Paradoxes Paraphrasing POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields Product, process, policy Purpose Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia Tendentious editing The role of policies in collaborative anarchy The rules are principles Trifecta Wikipedia in brief Wikipedia is an encyclopedia Wikipedia is a community

Construction	100K featured articles A navbox on every page Acronym Overkill Adding images improves the encyclopedia Advanced article editing Advanced table formatting Advanced template coding Advanced text formatting Alternatives to the "Expand" template Amnesia test An unfinished house is a real problem Articles have a half-life Autosizing images Avoid mission statements Bare URLs Be neutral in form Beef up that first revision Cherrypicking Children's lit, adult new readers, & large-print books Citation overkill Concept cloud Creating controversial content Dictionaries as sources Don't demolish the house while it's still being built Don't hope the house will build itself Don't panic Editing on mobile devices Editors are not mindreaders Endorsements (commercial) Featured articles may have problems Fruit of the poisonous tree Give an article a chance Ignore STRONGNAT for date formats Inaccuracy Law sources Link rot Mine a source Merge Test Minors and persons judged incompetent "Murder of" articles Not every story/event/disaster needs a biography Not everything needs a navbox Nothing is in stone Permastub Potential, not just current state Printability Pruning article revisions Publicists Put a little effort into it Restoring part of a reverted edit Robotic editing Sham consensus Run an edit-a-thon Temporary versions of articles There is a deadline There is no deadline The deadline is now Walled garden What an article should not include Wikipedia is a work in progress Wikipedia is not being written in an organized fashion The world will not end tomorrow Write the article first Writing better articles

Deletion	Adjectives in your recommendations AfD is not a war zone Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions Arguments to make in deletion discussions Avoid repeated arguments Before commenting in a deletion discussion But there must be sources! Content removal Delete the junk Does deletion help Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument Follow the leader How to save an article proposed for deletion I just don't like it Immunity Liar Liar Pants on Fire Nothing Overzealous deletion Relisting can be abusive Wikipedia is not Whack-A-Mole Why was the page I created deleted? What to do if your article gets tagged for speedy deletion When in doubt, hide it in the woodwork

Essays on civility

The basics	How to be civil Compromise Accepting other users Enjoy yourself Thank you Apologizing Truce Divisiveness Encouraging newcomers Relationships with academic editors High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors

Philosophy	An uncivil environment is a poor environment Be the glue Civility warnings Deletion as revenge Failure Forgive and forget It's not the end of the world Nobody cares Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals Staying cool when the editing gets hot The grey zone The last word Most ideas are bad The rules of polite discourse There is no common sense Wikipedia is not about winning Writing for the opponent

Dos	Assume good faith Assume the assumption of good faith Assume no clue Avoid personal remarks Avoid the word "vandal" Call a spade a spade Candor Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Deny recognition Encourage full discussions Get over it Inform for guidance How to lose Just drop it Mind your own business Keep it down to earth

Don'ts	Don't give a fuck Don't be inconsiderate Don't be rude Don't call a spade a spade Don't call the kettle black Don't take the bait Do not insult the vandals Don't come down like a ton of bricks Don't be ashamed Don't drink the consensus Kool-Aid Don't spite your face Don't call things cruft No angry mastodons No, you can't have a pony Don't be an ostrich Don't template the regulars Don't be a fanatic Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack Don't fight fire with fire Don't be prejudiced Don't remind others of past misdeeds Don't throw your toys out of the pram Don't help too much Passive Aggressive Don't cry COI Don't be obnoxious Don't be a WikiBigot You can't squeeze blood from a turnip

Wiki relations	WikiLove WikiHate WikiCrime WikiBullying WikiPeace WikiLawyering WikiHarassment POV Railroading

Essays on notability

Notability	Alternative outlets Articles with a single source Bare notability Bombardment Businesses with a single location But it's true! Citation overkill Clones Coatrack Discriminate vs indiscriminate information Every snowflake is unique Existence ≠ Notability Fart Google searches and numbers High Schools Inclusion is not an indicator of notability Inherent notability Insignificant Masking the lack of notability Make stubs News coverage does not decrease notability No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability No big loss No one cares about your garage band No one really cares Notability/Historical/Arguments Notability cannot be purchased Notability is not a level playing field Notability is not a matter of opinion Notability means impact Notability points Notability sub-pages Obscurity ≠ Lack of notability Offline sources One hundred words One sentence does not an article make Other stuff exists Pokémon test Run-of-the-mill Significant coverage not required Solutions are mixtures and nothing else Subjective importance What notability is not Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause

General notability guideline	Independent sources Significant coverage Third-party sources Trivial mentions

Humorous essays

Humorous material	Assume bad faith Assume good wraith Assume stupidity Assume that everyone's assuming good faith, assuming that you are assuming good faith Avoid using preview button Avoid using wikilinks BOLD, revert, revert, revert Boston Tea Party Barnstaritis Don't-give-a-fuckism Edits Per Day Go ahead, vandalize Lamest edit wars Newcomers are delicious, so go ahead and bite them No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you Please bite the newbies R-e-s-p-e-c-t How many Wikipedians does it take to change a lightbulb? The first rule of Wikipedia The Five Pillars of Untruth Watchlistitis Why not create an Account?

Inactive historical references	Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Unblock Emails

About essays

About essays	Essay guide Value of essays Difference between policies, guidelines and essays Essays are not policy Don't cite essays as if they were policy Avoid writing redundant essays Finding an essay Quote your own essay

Related subjects	About policies and guidelines Policies Guidelines

List of essay categories

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Don%27t_drink_the_consensus_Kool-Aid&oldid=669729993"

Categories:

Wikipedia:Don't drink the consensus Kool-Aid

See also[edit]

Navigation menu

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

More

Search

Navigation

Interaction

Tools

Print/export

Languages