 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
I perceive (without doing a real statistical analysis) that there has been an increase in attention to the question of verifiability vs. consensus during the RfA process. I am unclear on why there is so much discussion about this question. It is hard for me to see a situation where verifiability would not trump consensus. We can't have a few editors, or a few dozen (or even hundred) editors getting together to achieve "consensus" that the earth is flat. We need to verify it, whether one editor or one thousand editors agrees with it. This is not a style question, or a neutrality/POV question, or anything else; we're talking about verifiability, which is a pillar upon which Wikipedia exists. Yes, consensus is a pillar as well, but the day consensus can turn away verifiability will be a sad day indeed for Wikipedia. I invite anyone who feels differently to re-read Wikipedia:Verifiability (especially the first two sections, up to and including Jimbo's quote) and Wikipedia:Consensus and decide for themselves.
If you can find a way to suggest that consensus can (or should) trump verifiability after reading those two pages, please let me know, because I just don't see a way to draw that conclusion.
What do you think?