Electowiki talk:Policy: Difference between revisions
→Using Electowiki to vet new concepts: respond to User:RobLa
(→Advocacy article templates: how can administrators know what the group membership is for an editor?) |
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (→Using Electowiki to vet new concepts: respond to User:RobLa) |
||
Line 116:
:<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)
== Advocacy article templates ==
| |||