24:
80:
102:
for citations in an article seem to agree on something, that this constitutes some kind of finding of fact or establishment of consensus (real-world or on-wiki). That is, of course, nonsense. It is sometimes recast in other words, e.g. that the sources already cited should be given primacy over all
106:
Knowledge (XXG) editors consider the real-world consensus (scientific, historiographic, English-language-usage, etc.) as determined by a preponderance of all available relevant, modern, independent, reliable, secondary sources we can bring to a consensus discussion. If this were not true, then:
103:
other sources (as if they have been through some kind of formal vetting process, which they haven't); or that if the sources we're using now seem to agree on something that this is good enough, and further examination of source material is unneeded, even unwarranted.
196:
search results and the patterns they reveal in sources; etc.). The idea that they are to be ignored, or are second place to what just happens to be cited already in the article as of this timestamp, is not only unworkable but absurd. It bears no resemblance to how
126:
of some carefully selected sources that seem synergistic, so as to "lead" the reader to a conclusion not actually found in those sources, while omitting sources that made it clear that this seemingly inexorable conclusion was a
160:
with trivial ease: For example, if you didn't like the fact that our article title used lower-case for something you thought should be capitalized, despite most reliable sources not capitalizing it, you could
165:
by just swapping out all lower-casing sources with upper-casing ones of otherwise equal quality and pertinence, then request a move with the so-called proof that "all of our sources capitalize this".
142:
were edited to predominantly cite entertainment-news sources that referred to her as "Ke$ ha" following her old album-cover stylization, this would produce a faked appearance that her
235:
172:
policy, failing to use newer source material to update formerly accepted but now disproved claims, or other changed facts, that we'd gotten from older source material.
230:
162:
245:
240:
215:
176:
Knowledge (XXG) consensus formation considers all available, valid source material. For simple matters like titling and style questions, we
169:
39:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more
Knowledge (XXG) contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
40:
210:
112:
157:
119:
143:
115:
analysis of anything that all, since only the sources cited right this moment could be used to assess viewpoint balance.
153:
131:
135:
123:
88:
The argument that consensus discussions about content may only (or should primarily) consider those sources
198:
44:
54:
32:
189:
224:
181:
47:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
193:
146:
in reliable sources was in fact "Ke$ ha". Yet not only is that false today, it has
185:
98:
An uncommon but long-term-recurrent argument suggests that if the sources
150:
false, even back when Kesha was using that stylization in her marketing.
139:
122:
could not be identified and removed, chief among them the use of
74:
18:
62:
184:
that track string-usage frequency in books over time;
138:would become trivially easy. E.g., if the article
236:Knowledge (XXG) essays about Wikipedian fallacies
168:Our articles would be frozen in time, against
8:
231:Knowledge (XXG) essays about verification
216:Knowledge (XXG):Specialized-style fallacy
156:and other processes would be subject to
41:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies or guidelines
246:Knowledge (XXG) essays about consensus
7:
211:Knowledge (XXG):Common-style fallacy
241:Knowledge (XXG) essays about style
45:thoroughly vetted by the community
14:
111:It would not be possible to do a
92:for citations is patently false.
78:
22:
16:Essay on editing Knowledge (XXG)
170:WP:Knowledge (XXG) is not paper
1:
262:
52:
199:Knowledge (XXG):Consensus
86:This page in a nutshell:
113:WP:Due and undue weight
180:on aggregate results (
43:, as it has not been
201:is actually formed.
120:WP:Original research
144:WP:Most common name
154:WP:Requested moves
127:misinterpretation.
118:Several forms of
96:
95:
73:
72:
253:
82:
81:
75:
65:
26:
25:
19:
261:
260:
256:
255:
254:
252:
251:
250:
221:
220:
207:
178:directly depend
132:false consensus
79:
69:
68:
61:
57:
49:
48:
23:
17:
12:
11:
5:
259:
257:
249:
248:
243:
238:
233:
223:
222:
219:
218:
213:
206:
203:
190:Google Scholar
179:
174:
173:
166:
151:
149:
130:Imposition of
128:
124:cherry-picking
116:
101:
100:presently used
94:
93:
91:
83:
71:
70:
67:
66:
58:
53:
50:
38:
37:
29:
27:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
258:
247:
244:
242:
239:
237:
234:
232:
229:
228:
226:
217:
214:
212:
209:
208:
204:
202:
200:
195:
191:
187:
183:
182:Google Ngrams
177:
171:
167:
164:
159:
155:
152:
147:
145:
141:
137:
134:and outright
133:
129:
125:
121:
117:
114:
110:
109:
108:
104:
99:
89:
87:
84:
77:
76:
64:
60:
59:
56:
51:
46:
42:
36:
34:
28:
21:
20:
194:Google Books
175:
105:
97:
90:already used
85:
30:
186:Google News
148:always been
136:false facts
31:This is an
225:Categories
205:See also
55:Shortcut
192:, and
158:gaming
63:WP:FSS
163:"win"
140:Kesha
33:essay
227::
188:,
35:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.