Electowiki talk:Policy: Difference between revisions
→Criterion compliances and election method template: new section
(→Using Electowiki to vet new concepts: EPOV and public forums) |
(→Criterion compliances and election method template: new section) |
||
Line 122:
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)
== 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)
| |||