Electowiki talk:Policy: Difference between revisions

Line 75:

: To your EPOV point, all of the recent contributions other than your own have been done by members of the committee working on this. Psephomancy is helping with code, sarawolk is the organizer, BetterVotingAdvocacy‎ is a member too. And some of the pages were submitted on behalf of others in the committee by me. The Equal Vote Coalition has decided to start contributing more to electowiki. Hopefully this momentum keeps up and more keep joining. But if that is the case then what is the POV of this site if not that of its contributors? As the founder of course you are entitled to veto power but why not just join the committee too? --[[User:Dr. Edmonds|Dr. Edmonds]] ([[User talk:Dr. Edmonds|talk]]) 06:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

There are many articles about newly invented concepts/methods that are written primarily by one author:

* [[PLACE FAQ]]

* [[3-2-1 voting]]

* [[Majority approval filter]]

* [[Vote Unitarity]]

* ...

I think it's fine to have these in the main namespace, I thought that this kind of development was one of the main goals of Electowiki (and this is not the kind of "biased" that I had in mind [[Electowiki:The_caucus#Advocacy.2FPropaganda_development.3F|when we were talking about advocacy articles]]).

You can see from the history that each is primarily written by one person. It might make sense to make this more obvious to casual readers in the text? These examples have some mention of where they came from in the text:

* [[River]] ... was "first proposed by Jobst Heitzig on the Election-methods mailing list"

* [[Sprucing up]] ... "was described by Forest Simmons on the election-methods mailing list"

* [[Maximize Affirmed Majorities]] (MAM) "is a voting method developed by Stephen Eppley"

* [[Approval Sorted Margins]] "is a voting system developed by Forest Simmons"

* [[Proportional approval voting]] (PAV) "developed by Forest Simmons in 2001."

Or with some kind of corner template? But I'm not sure that's even necessary. A template would need to appear on many (most?) of the articles here, at which point a general disclaimer might be better.

By all means, prior discussions on mailing lists, Loomio, forums, Reddit, Google Groups, and the like should be linked as references whenever possible.

I guess I see ''this'' as a place where ideas can be vetted? — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 03:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)