Democracy, Wolves, and Wikipedia: When Consensus Becomes a Feast

There's an old saying that "democracy is two wolves voting to eat the sheep for dinner." The proverb captures a paradox of democracy: while majority rule is often celebrated as fair and representative, it can just as easily legitimize injustice when the majority's interests override the rights of the few.

This metaphor applies surprisingly well to the way Wikipedia governs itself. Wikipedia prides itself on being "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," and its editorial disputes are resolved through consensus — summarized in the guideline WP:CONSENSUS. The idea is that through open discussion and reasoned debate, editors will arrive at the most accurate and neutral version of an article. In theory, this process reflects the wisdom of the crowd.

In practice, however, consensus can sometimes resemble the wolves' dinner vote. When a dominant group of editors shares a common perspective — cultural, political, or ideological — that viewpoint can easily become the "consensus," regardless of whether it truly represents the full spectrum of reliable knowledge. Minority opinions, fringe topics, or unconventional interpretations can be overruled, not because they are wrong, but because they are outnumbered.

This is not to say Wikipedia's process is malicious; most editors act in good faith. But the structure of consensus itself tends to favor those with numbers, persistence, and familiarity with policy — traits that often align with entrenched majorities rather than marginalized viewpoints.

If democracy allows two wolves to vote that the sheep be dinner, Wikipedia's consensus can sometimes decide that the sheep is dinner — and then cite policy to prove it.

Recognizing this tension doesn't mean rejecting Wikipedia's model altogether. It means acknowledging that consensus is not synonymous with truth, and that fairness sometimes requires protecting the minority view from the tyranny of numbers. Just as democracy needs constitutional safeguards, Wikipedia's open-editing culture must continually balance inclusion, expertise, and neutrality — lest the sheep become the next well-sourced entrée.