Electowiki:Editorial policy: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 08:28, 3 March 2022

Redirect to:

Electowiki:Policy

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-<< [[Electowiki:Policy]]
+#REDIRECT [[Project:Policy]]
-electowiki has a policy somewhat similar to [[NPOV|Wikipedia's NPOV policy]].  However, due to the subjective nature of the topics at hand, it's hard to have a strict NPOV policy without becoming a clone of Wikipedia.  Thus, the policy regarding point-of-view is one of "EPOV".
-== EPOV ==
-"'''EPOV'''" is the "electowiki Point-of-View" policy.  Basically, the [[#Editorial board|editorial board]] serves as the arbiter for what belongs and what doesn't.  Over time, we'll try to evolve more formal guidelines, but for now, here's some general guidelines we plan to use:
-*  '''We have a point of view'''.  electowiki tries to be a general resource for experts to get complete information, but makes no promises about neutrality.  Other sources, such as Wikipedia, should be used to obtain neutral information.
-*  '''Err on the side of neutrality''' - while the EPOV will come out from time-to-time, it should be hard to distinguish it from Wikipedia-style NPOV in the vast majority of cases.
-*  '''Fairness to other points of view''' - we acknowledge other points of view, however far out we may think they are.  We strive not to rewrite history, or misrepresent the support or lack thereof for particular positions.
-*  '''Latitude to editorialize on other positions''' - while acknowledging opposing points of view exist, we also reserve the right to comment on those positions in ways which may not be so flattering
-*  '''Controversial points of view should be vetted on election-methods list''' - if there's a dispute over editorial policy, take it up on the [[election-methods mailing list]].
-*  '''Most jurisdictions need much better election systems ''' - A common view, largely shared in the electowiki community, is that the currently practiced electoral systems in many countries are woefully inadequate expressions of democracy.
-*  '''Privately-discussed ideas should be ''publicly'' well vetted''' - if you have a great idea for a new voting method, please don't immediately create a new Electowiki page in the main namespace describing the method as if it's an accepted fact.  Instead, please vet the issue on the one of the [[:Category:Forum|well-known forums among election method activists]], or restrict your publishing of the idea to your [[Help:userspace|userspace]] on Electowiki.
-Real-world voting reform advocacy and organizational work are also welcome, though we [[Electowiki:The_caucus#Advocacy.2FPropaganda_development.3F|don't yet have a policy for how to organize it]].  We may want to add a bias template to advocacy articles in the [[Help:main namespace|main namespace]], for example.  As for your own userspace, anything is fair game, as long as it's election-related.
-Please let us know your opinions of this policy on [[Electowiki talk:Policy|the policy talk page]].
-== Editorial board ==
-Since its January 2005 inception, Electowiki has had an ad hoc editorial board, with de facto membership based on momentum.  History:
-* 2005: [[User:DanKeshet]] and [[User:RobLa]]
-* 2006 through 2018: [[User:RobLa]]
-* 2019 to current time: [[User:Psephomancy]] and [[User:RobLa]]
-[[User:RobLa]] would like to formalize this somehow, but as of March 2020, hasn't tried to play [[wikipedia:BDFL|the BDFL card]] to declare a process.  [[User:Psephomancy]] ''could'' have declared Electowiki a fork from wiki.electorama.com after migrating to [[meta:Miraheze|Miraheze]], but [[User:RobLa]] snagged the electowiki.org domain name before that became viable.  [[User:Psephomancy]] and [[User:RobLa]] haven't had a lot of time to coordinate on editorial policy, because they have both been busy doing the tech work and hosting work associated with Electowiki.