Wikipedia talk:Sham consensus

Essays Low‑impact

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

talk elsewhere[edit]

The content of this essay is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Consensus#link to essay on sham consensus. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re-write?[edit]

A sham consensus is either a false consensus or a wrongful consensus, or both. In general, a false consensus is in violation of an ArbCom decision and a wrongful consensus is in violation of a policy or guideline. A sham consensus includes an absence of a consensus where the absence has the same cause as a false or wrongful consensus. Discussion in here to a sham consensus includes the absence of a consensus because of such a cause.

This material seems legitimate, but it's hard to understand exactly what's being said. Is the false/wrongful division a natural dichotomy, or is the point of the essay? "Discussion in here" - should that say something like, "For the purposes of this essay..."? Anyway, I suggest giving this essay some serious editing for clarity. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:8DC4:BB80:568F:2021 (talk) 09:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified. It was developed in response to criticisms elsewhere and I tend to write too concisely at times, thus the confusion, but I hope it works now. One preposition was nonsensical and I wrote it originally, but I fixed it. The distinction between false and wrongful is due to other essays already existing and that it was unlikely they'd be merged. I wanted to add this to one of the older essays but that was essentially nixed. I hope the essay is okay now. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]