4,193
edits
Electowiki talk:Policy: Difference between revisions
→COI: I've created a blank page over at Electowiki:COI. I think we might want to use Electowiki_talk:COI as a place to have a conversation focused on conflict of interest editing. Agreed?
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (→Using Electowiki to vet new concepts: Reply to User:RpbLa) |
(→COI: I've created a blank page over at Electowiki:COI. I think we might want to use Electowiki_talk:COI as a place to have a conversation focused on conflict of interest editing. Agreed?) |
||
| (12 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 112:
Yes, agreed. Did you see [[Electowiki_talk:The_caucus#StructuredDiscussions|my proposal to turn on StructuredDiscussions]], to make Talk pages more like a forum? — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 03:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
:Yup, I did... I just didn't get around to responding until now. See my response over there. In the meantime, I'm thinking we might benefit from a new bullet point in the EPOV policy:
:<blockquote>* '''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 userspace on Electowiki.</blockquote>
:If something hasn't been subject to public discussion, we shouldn't be the first ones to publish it, and the talk pages on this wiki shouldn't be the first time it gets discussed. Thoughts? -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 21:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
:: Sorry I keep procrastinating on responding to this stuff. I guess I just don't understand why we shouldn't be the first ones to publish it. This is as much a public discussion venue as any of the other places you've mentioned. What makes it different?
:: Also, what exactly is meant by "vetting"? Proving that it's "good"? By what metric? If we're just documenting someone's proposal that turned out to be "bad" after analysis, isn't it still beneficial to have it written down, so that others can learn from the mistake? — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 05:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
::: By "vetting" I mean "posted in a low-friction venue for known election method experts". "Known" means (selfishly) "known by me". [[EM list]] has been going for nearly 24 years, and I've tried to get many of the experts I care the most about hearing from to switch technologies, but I haven't convinced all of them. If someone posts a dubious article here on electowiki, I want to hear their thoughts.
::: A wiki is not a good discussion forum. It's a good place to document the result of a discussion. I guess I can't understand your resistance to asking people to put things in their user space first, then discussing it on one of the fora that already have momentum, and only then publishing it in the main namespace.
::: If someone's proposal turns out to be "bad" after analysis, I strongly prefer that anonymous readers of the website aren't subjected to wasting their time reading it. I value my personal time and the time of this site's readers. It seems unfair to me and to them to force us to read and understand proposed systems that haven't been vetted anywhere else. Once the electowiki community has enough independent momentum, perhaps we can reconsider, but I'd prefer that not try to transform the main namespace of his wiki into free-for-all, unmoderated discussion forum. I think the credibility of electowiki will suffer as a result. -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 17:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
== Advocacy article templates ==
Line 118 ⟶ 129:
I was thinking something like [[User:Homunq]]'s proposal, where the template would say something like "This article is written by '''PLACE proponents'''" and edits (other than uncontroversial typos, formatting, adding references, etc.) are only allowed by people who consider themselves to be in the "PLACE proponents" category. — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 03:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
:"''...only allowed by people who consider themselves...''" <- that seems really difficult to patrol. Perhaps we should ask everyone to first indicate that they are a "PLACE proponent" (or "____ proponent", or whatever group they are a member of, as appropriate) someplace. -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 22:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
:: "that seems really difficult to patrol" I think it would be pretty obvious if someone is trying to sabotage an advocacy page. I think the policy would be more like "permission to revert at will" anything added by people who aren't contributing positively. Indicating their "allegiance" someplace could be good too. — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 05:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
::: For a moment, I had a thought of using election methods to let advocacy groups elect new members (with a supermajority condition), and only letting those members edit... but that's probably overkill. Let's use the simplest thing that works: an advocacy namespace and permission to revert at will should work for now, I think. And perhaps templates "this is Approval advocacy" and "this is a review of/response to the Approval advocacy article X by Condorcetists". (e.g.) [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 11:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
== Criterion compliances and election method template ==
Perhaps we should say that claims that a method X satisfies criterion Y should be backed by a proof in-page or a citation to such a proof; and that X fails criterion Y by a reference, disproof or counterexample?
The "Comparison of electoral systems" criterion compliances page on Wikipedia gets some compliances wrong because they're either not referenced, they've tried to put the proof in the table itself. So having each electoral method page directly provide reasons for why the method fails that particular criterion would be good. And in the case of counterexamples, perhaps they could be transcluded into the election criterion page, so that e.g. the monotonicity criterion page shows every method that fails monotonicity and why they fail it.
On the other hand, that could become a bit cumbersome and could make the articles very long. Any ideas? [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 15:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
: This is a really good idea! My MediaWiki markup+template writing skills aren't (yet) up to the task, but if there is someone here who could make an attempt at page design, that would be greatly appreciated.
: One other thought: this seems like it would be a perfect task for Wikidata since Wikidata is designed for this. As an example, I just added a claim that Copeland's method complies with the monotonicity criterion to the Wikidata page for Copeland's method: ([[d:Q5168347|Wikidata Q5168347]]). The Wikidata item for a Wikipedia article can be found on almost every Wikipedia article; in the left navigation column, under "Tools", there's a "Wikidata item" link. I did not yet add a citation for Copeland's monotonicity, but Wikidata is designed to allow for citations on relationships (and encourages them).
: By itself, that doesn't solve the problem for Electowiki, but we already have links between Electowiki articles and their English Wikipedia counterparts. We could start creating more direct links between Electowiki articles and their Wikidata counterparts. Thoughts? -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 20:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
: Yes, that's a great idea, and Wikidata seems to have this functionality already. I'm not sure how the technical side works, but I think we can install Wikibase here and have our "own Wikidata" that can still "transclude" info from the main Wikidata? We were [[User_talk:Psephomancy#Criterion_compliance_logic|talking about it on my talk page]]. — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 05:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
:: I'm not very enthusiastic about maintaining a separate Wikidata instance here, but I'm not going to stop you or anyone else from adding it. It seems to me it's a little early to try forking Wikidata's election method data collection. Let's try to come up with a way of expressing compliance in English prose over here, and perhaps come up with template for compliance that we can embed in each method's page. Over the long haul, I'm hopeful that Wikidata will be a good centralized source for compliance information. -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 17:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
::: Can Wikidata data be directly imported into/exported from the article pages themselves? I got the impression that it's a separate source, so to find out whether Schulze passes monotonicity, you'd have to deliberately go to Wikidata to check. What I'm imagining is something more along the lines of being able to add a tag or a section to a page (e.g. "Passes monotonicity" and "Monotonicity proof reference" on the Schulze page), and then that automatically updates the Monotonicity page. I'd like the process to be as effortless as possible. [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 11:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
:::: Yup, Wikidata data is public domain, and we can import/export/do-whatever with it. I don't know how tightly coupled Miraheze wikis are with Wikidata, but I believe it's possible to use Lua to pull Wikidata data from Wikipedia in real time. The ideal solution would be to do it in a way that works with Wikipedia. Even if there isn't currently an "ideal" way of doing it on Wikipedia, there are a number of different strategies we could take to extract the data from Wikidata: a) immediate real-time update, b) bot-based periodic update, c) editor-driven, script-assisted update, or d) totally manual synchronization. My preference would be to start with a combination of "c" and "d", and then graduate to "b" and eventually "a" over time. Even "d" is valuable, though, because we populate a well-regarded repository that could also serve as a source for Wikipedia in all languages. -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 16:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
== Using Wikidata on Wikipedia for method compliance ==
I just did a little fiddling around with Wikidata querying in my sandbox on English Wikipedia: [[w:User:RobLa/sandbox/wikidata]]. I think there's an opportunity to make compliance templates for all of the election methods that are documented on Wikipedia. We can then decide if it's worthwhile to maintain a more complete database over here at Electowiki. [[User:Kristomun]], I suspect that nudging the [[w:Comparison of electoral systems]] discussion over to Wikidata will solve some of the concerning logistics issues with citations. -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 17:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
== COI ==
I've created a blank page over at [[Electowiki:COI]]. I think we might want to use [[Electowiki_talk:COI]] as a place to have a conversation focused on conflict of interest editing. Agreed? -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 23:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
| |||