Wikipedia:Headcount alone does not constitute consensus

{{nutshell|Dissenting votes in a nearly-unanimous discussion can be significantly more relevant than the number of editors on the other side of discussion. When closing, weigh dissenting opinions by the strength of their arguments instead of their total amount of supporting editors.}}

{{nutshell|Dissenting votes in a nearly-unanimous discussion can be significantly more relevant than the number of editors on the other side of discussion. When closing, weigh dissenting opinions by the strength of their arguments instead of their total amount of supporting editors.}}

[[File:The Royal Navy during the Second World War A22736.jpg|right|thumb|A group of well-versed editors preparing to launch a well-aimed snowball into an otherwise unanimous !vote]]

[[File:The Royal Navy during the Second World War A22736.jpg|right|thumb|A group of well-versed editors preparing to launch a well-aimed snowball into an otherwise unanimous !vote]]

The process of building consensus, whether through discussions, silent consensus, or the [[WP:BRD|bold, revert, discuss cycle]], is a vital part to the curation of content on Wikipedia. Disputes that pop up are almost always solved through [[WP:CONSENSUS|community consensus]] instead of [[WP:OA|office action]] by the [[Wikimedia Foundation]], and in this way, Wikipedia has a unique community of editors curating an encyclopedia of content written in a much more neutral and methodical way compared to many other places across the internet. Arguments about content are often settled using [[Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion|the !vote process]] on talk pages, using bolded '''support''' and '''oppose''' votes. When an uncontroversial change appears, and a desiring editor chooses not to [[WP:BOLD|be bold]] and change it themselves, a discussion opens. Many times, these end up being stacked with supporting !votes, or end up ignored - in both cases, consensus is unanimous or assumed to be through [[WP:SILENTCONSENSUS|silent consensus]], and, to avoid holding up uncontroversial changes through bureaucratic means, discussions are often closed using [[WP:SNOW]] - the snowball clause, which states some variant of "the argument has a snowball's chance in hell of failing" to close discussions much earlier than they would have otherwise.

The process of building consensus, whether through discussions, silent consensus, or the [[WP:BRD|bold, revert, discuss cycle]], is a vital part to the curation of content on Wikipedia. Disputes that pop up are almost always solved through [[WP:CONSENSUS|community consensus]] instead of [[WP:OA|office action]] by the [[Wikimedia Foundation]], and in this way, Wikipedia has a unique community of editors curating an encyclopedia of content written in a much more neutral and methodical way compared to many other places across the internet. Arguments about content are often settled using [[Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion|the !vote process]] on talk pages, using bolded '''support''' and '''oppose''' votes. When an uncontroversial change appears, and a desiring editor chooses not to [[WP:BOLD|be bold]] and change it themselves, a discussion opens. Many times, these end up being stacked with supporting !votes, or end up ignored {{ndash}} in both cases, consensus is unanimous or assumed to be through [[WP:SILENTCONSENSUS|silent consensus]], and, to avoid holding up uncontroversial changes through bureaucratic means, discussions are often closed using [[WP:SNOW]] {{ndash}} the snowball clause, which states some variant of "the argument has a snowball's chance in hell of failing" to close discussions much earlier than they would have otherwise.

Some dissenting arguments made in the later stages of otherwise unanimous discussions can raise good points, arguments with solid foundations that should not be ignored. Discussions closed prematurely through the snowball clause should avoid not considering the arguments of these "well-aimed snowballs" when closing through the snowball clause, as doing so can create a shaky consensus that is ripe to be challenged later down the line. [[WP:DEADLINE|There is no deadline for discussion to end]] and you need not be hasty to "save other editors' time" if the tide of consensus could reasonably change with the newer arguments that appear.

Some dissenting arguments made in the later stages of otherwise unanimous discussions can raise good points, arguments with solid foundations that should not be ignored. Discussions closed prematurely through the snowball clause should avoid not considering the arguments of these "well-aimed snowballs" when closing through the snowball clause, as doing so can create a shaky consensus that is ripe to be challenged later down the line. [[WP:DEADLINE|There is no deadline for discussion to end]] and you need not be hasty to "save other editors' time" if the tide of consensus could reasonably change with the newer arguments that appear.