Wikipedia talk:Silence means nothing

Contradiction
This essay is in stark contrast to WP:Silence that explicitly "Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident" So to say that silence means nothing is highly dubious and contradictory. Maybe a reword can go but there are ow 2 guideliens to be cited by opposing parties which makes any discussion irrelevant and thus invokign WP:IAR (which side uses that is again another debate)Lihaas (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Essays can disagree with each other. They don't have to be neutral. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 16:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this essay, too. I mean, you can't wait forever if no one says anything at all. Going by the means of this "essay" would essencially block all work on the Wikipedia - you can't usually wait go get everyone's consent before you make an edit. --Krawunsel (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah but it doesn't say that. On a consensus-based website/project it's important to actively seek other's views and to collaborate.
 * That doesn't mean waiting to be granted permission before carrying out all everyday editing tasks--that would result in stagnation. Equally it doesn't mean a enormous amount of people voicing support for a proposed change along with forms filled in triplicate are always needed before making any old change in projectspace--as one user with plenty of experience among WMF wikis notes is sometimes thought about en-wikip.
 * For instance, if a proposal to change something receives only 1 comment and it's against the change, it's a stretch to suggest the thousands of other editors gave it their tacit approval! Similarly, even among those who believe in (so to speak) WP:Silence it's generally held that if it is consensus then it's very weak consensus; that essay even makes that point.
 * Likewise, while consensus can (and sometimes does) change, if consensus on something came about through significant participation, is long-established, and has been relied on, it's a real stretch to suggest that consensus can be "overturned" through silence or near-silence. –Whitehorse1 16:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I approve this message
Guys, have you ever seen a persistent POV pusher at work here? He can go on forever and the second people get tired, he invokes WP:SILENCE even if everyone explicitly disagreed with him a few days ago. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)