WP:consensus vs WP:DEM how does this work?

[Ca$hBag]

On wikipedia to make a change on an article against the wishes of the majority of editors even if there are reliable source is not permitted by this policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus

At the same time we have wp:dem:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus

Which literally contradicts the first policy. I seriously think comparing the two warrants a blog post or article. Months ago I read on wikipedia one of the reasons why editors are leaving is community consensus overrules facts at time.

If 2 plus 2 does not equal four by the majority's ruling, it becomes 'fact' on wikipedia. If it's not been discussed by the Wikipediocracy blog, I'd strongly recommend it as a topic.

[mac]

Contradiction and Wikipedia go hand in hand. For instance, WP:Facebook (T-H-L) redirects to something called Wikipedia:Facebook directory (T-H-L), which has images of Wikipedians, and their corresponding usernames, while WP:NOTFACEBOOK (T-H-L) redirects to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (T-H-L), deeplinked to the section about how Wikipedia is not a social network.

Don't expect uniformity, either. WP:FACEBOOK (T-H-L) (upper case) is a shortcut to a guideline about not using Facebook links as sources, despite the lower case version redirecting to the "Facebook directory".

[Poetlister]

That's the joy of Wikipedia. Given all the vague and sometimes contradictory policies, it is very difficult to edit for long without breaking some actual written policy. That's apart from all the unwritten rules.

[Kelly Martin]

The vagueness and internal inconsistencies of Wikipedia's rules are (at this point) intentional, as they provide many avenues by which a well-positioned Wikipedian can use selected application of the rules to cast some other, less well-positioned, Wikipedian as a "rule-breaker" at any time. There are so many antinomies within Wikipedia's stated and unwritten rules that virtually every editor has broken some of them within hours of their first edit, and the experienced Wikigamer can use this to their advantage.

[Ca$hBag]

The above posted replies should all be compiled into an article for wikipediocracy's blog. It would make a great article; especially when it can directly cite these self-contradicting policies. Assuming there isn't one written about this already, that is.

[sparkzilla]

Ignore_all_rules (T-H-L)

[Ca$hBag]

Ignore_all_rules (T-H-L)

Yeah I read that one. The stupidest one yet, though many well intentioned users could use it. I'd seriously urge wikipiocracy to include them all in it's blog for any upcoming topics.