Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by writing and discussion, not by voting. The debate should aim to reach a consensus. Consensus is a group debate where everyone`s opinions are heard and understood, and a solution that respects those views is put in place. Consensus is not what everyone agrees, nor is it the preference of the majority. Consensus leads to the best solution the group can achieve at this stage. Remember, the root of “consensus” is “consent.” This means that, even in the case of the parties, the parties` opinion is generally agreed to resolve the issue. This requires the collaboration of publishers with differing interests and opinions. Consensus does not mean “unanimity” – even though it is a rule that has been adopted as part of a decision-making process. The amount of agreement required to make a decision is called the “decision rule.”   I think this is one of the main reasons why consensual decisions are so popular, even in meetings where the statutes indicate that decisions are taken by vote. Deciding on every fucking topic on the agenda can be very demanding. Consensus allows people they trust and/or those they deem competent to make the choice in principle.
Philippe Urfalino: The decision by apparent consensus: Nature and properties. In: European Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. P. 47-70. DOI: 10.4000/ress.86 A decision-making process that aims for broad convergence among the members of the group. Here`s the advice I`m proposing to boards. Embrace respectful debate and dissent. Disagreement is a sign of the board`s strength, not a weakness, as long as it is respectful. In his book on Wikipedia, Joseph Reagle examines the benefits and challenges of consensus in open and online communities.  Randy Schutt, Starhawk and other direct-acting practitioners focus on the dangers of apparent convergence, followed by actions where group divisions become dangerously obvious. Consensus is not a majority vote.
Every opinion counts. Consensus takes diverging views into account and is attacking it, even if it does not always take into account. A preferred option on 51% of the population is generally not enough to reach consensus. A narrowly privileged option almost never agrees. “Agreement between Experimental Observations and Theory” Some time ago, I read a well-articulated article by Tim Herbig entitled “Orientation doesn`t need to agree.” Tim shared the following graph that explains Jeff Bezos` idea of disagreement and commitment. As the graph shows, you may not be happy with the decision, but you are committed to it for the good of the team and the organization. Some proponents of consensus would argue that a majority decision reduces each decision-maker`s commitment to a decision. Members of a minority position may feel less compelled to vote by majority, and even majority voters who have taken their positions along parties or blocks may have a reduced sense of responsibility in the final decision. In the view of many supporters of consensus, the outcome of this reduced commitment is potentially less willing to defend the decision or act.
Therefore, despite its reputation, consensus is not necessarily an egalitarian form of collective decision-making, as it “involves a general acceptance of inequality in individual contributions to collective decision-making.