Things like the debate over global warming are purged, and Wikipedia presents one side of an argument as 'consensus'.
The common case in the real world is that one side of an argument does indeed have 'consensus'. More often than not 'consensus' indicates a more solid argument. Sometimes not, but in the cases of the generally spherical shape of planet earth and anthropomorphic climate change it is pretty clearly true.
What Wikipedia's insistence on 'consensus' means is that only one view will ever be presented and the most aggressive group purges all dissent. And the most aggressive group over there is an authoritarian left-wing - that hates sound money. Knowledge is power and their goal is to limit and shape everyone else's. NPOV is of course totally Orwellian, they've simply declared their POV as 'neutral'.
The two annoyances I've had with Wikipedia are when a group of editors were caught red handed trying to color Zionist projects in the Middle East favorably, and when an editor was extraordinarily heavy-handed in making sure that information about strategic failure to deliver (aka, 'naked short selling') was minimized and controlled. Neither of these are remotely left wing. I'm a hard core lefty, and most of the Wikipedia stuff seems pretty even to me. Plus people can challenge info they don't like and readers can make up their own minds. Usually...I guess...never tried it.