Difference between revisions of "Talk:Proportional representation"
::::: Feel free to make changes to what I inserted. If you delete everything I added, I'm likely to be annoyed, and I might just revert you. However, if you trim what I've added down (per my prior comment), and make incremental improvements that also ought to be made to the [https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/what-open-source-upstream upstream] article (to [[wikipedia:Proportional representation]], that is), then I will probably welcome your changes. I may even try to get the changes accepted upstream. -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 06:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
:::::: If your goal was to have electowiki to have lower quality content than Wikipedia then congratulations. The current opening line is the worst definition of PR I have ever seen. It is wrong in several ways which are counterproductive to the reform effort. It would be better if it was nonsense than what it is now because it reinforces a common misconception. I don't understand why you always turn to personal attacks when challenged. I do not care what you think of me. I think I have a very different concept of knowledge than you. I do not care about the source of knowledge and basically consider all people my peers. The purpose of any collection of knowledge is to correct misconceptions and/or propaganda. Truth exists and the goal would be to record it when found. The two places where these are most problematic are when the topic is complex or contentious. Proportional Representation is both. It is complex because there cannot be a clean definition. It is contentious because it is political. I have spent a fair bit of time fixing wikipedia pages, even the Proportional Representation page. I swore it off years ago when somebody kept putting in a common science fiction notion into the quantum field theory page. I would fix it and then the next day somebody would change it back. If the goal is to store the average person's understanding of topics you are not going to have a very good source of knowledge. For the most part, wikipedia is great but it is susceptible to the issue you are promoting. You refer to the standard definition which has existed for decades as "our own definition" as if the experts definition is somehow inferior to the misconceptions of the masses. You are now proposing that I start incrementally correcting the page. Look at the revision history BetterVotingAdvocacy and myself have spent years tuning this page and now you are going to revert everything and tell us to start over. I have read many papers and books to make sure this page was as high quality as it could be. One of the reasons I got into the topic of electoral reform was the issue of widespread misinformation and propaganda, especially on wikipedia.
:::::: Also, I hope the irony of [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] correcting my grammar error on a widely used but incorrect phrase in a push for preferring definitions which are widely used over those which are technically correct is not missed by people reading this.