Simplify, Objectify and Stabilize Policies and Guidelines

When I said "consensus is a limiting factor to Wikipedia" I meant just that: in trying to achieve its objectives Wikipedia can not grow further than consensus allows it to. In practice, consensus is a mechanism that is strongly holding Wikipedia back.

But, again, there is a huge difference between "consensus" as it is described in the policy pages and "consensus" as it is practiced, out there in Wikipedia.

I don't think there is much of a difference in practice and policy. Mind you I haven't edited in a long time. There are editors who edit war, but they are sanctioned. There are unverified articles, but they're deleted or merged. There is POV information, but it is tagged and debated and (hopefully one day) fixed.

What is the alternative to consensus? A wikipedia that is a battleground between people with very different ideas of what Wikipedia is. Indeed there are problems and debates. But there is a normalizing or socializing effect of being on Wikipedia for a while. Most of the debates are within an acceptable range of parameters (e.g.: people agree on verifiability but might disagree on certain sources, or how to deal with unverified information in the short term). And the debates that aren't within an acceptable range... well, that tends to affect veteran users and new users alike.

There is a huge difference between policy and practice. Policy says "All editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to reach a consensus that is aligned with Wikipedia's principles."

In practice, "consensus" is anything that a bunch of editors has agreed on, and it may well violate any number of Wikipedia policies. As somebody pointed out here, there is no rule of law on Wikipedia, but only political networks of users. - Brya 05:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)