Electowiki talk:Policy: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (→Using Electowiki to vet new concepts: Reply to User:RpbLa) |
(→Using Electowiki to vet new concepts: EPOV and public forums) |
||
| Line 112: | 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) |
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) |
|||
== Advocacy article templates == |
== Advocacy article templates == |
||