The Wikipedia community proudly states that they're not a democracy [1]. I don't even know how that works. People simply think their opinion is the best one while hiding behind statements like, "This is THE consensus, you can't do anything about it. Oh, Wikipedia IS NOT A DEMOCRACY, so your pathetic voting attempt has literally no power here."

[1] : https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:IS_NOT_A_DEMOCRACY...

▲ Sweepi 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Why not quote the rule, if it is so offending?:

  Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting. (Voting is used for certain matters such as electing the Arbitration Committee.) Straw polls are sometimes used to test for consensus, but polls or surveys can impede, rather than foster, discussion and should be used with caution.

  Off-site petitions and votes have no weight in the formation of consensus on Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_no...

	▲	JdeBP 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Fun fact: Sanger wrote the original version of that rule, and its change over the years has reflected a shift from people coming to Wikipedia in the very early years thinking that they could just do whatever the Hell they wanted, to in later years people coming to Wikipedia thinking that it is run like a legislature. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/423054

▲ Kim_Bruning a day ago | parent | prev [-]

My personal read is this:

A democracy can vote that pi=4.

This is not a very useful property for an encyclopedia, so you're going to need a different system for determining outcomes.

Preferably you need a method that is somehow still somewhat fair. And that's how we get to the concept of rough consensus. It's absolutely not perfect, and it's not meant to be, because nothing is. Improvements welcome.