Electowiki talk:Policy: Difference between revisions
→EPOV
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (→EPOV: reply to user:RobLa) |
Dr. Edmonds (talk | contribs) (→EPOV) |
||
Line 46:
: I support all of that. I think collaborative advocacy could also be supported (outside of one particular user's page) either by creating a template or category or namespace etc to isolate it from the more encyclopedic content, as was discussed in the Caucus at some point. — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 15:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
:: I have made a lot of edits lately but I am sure they fit this. My thoughts were that this should contain the election science view more than the lobby view. The lobbies tend to exaggerate or misrepresent. This is particularly a problem with contentious issues like [[Proportional Representation]]. Also, I have tried to push systems into a better taxonomy. Of course this is not possible to do perfectly but I have spent a lot of time prior trying to decide what way was best. I have used the one which is consistent with what the CES uses. With regards to bold edits. I think it would be better to keep conflicting perspectives rather than overwrite with your own. For example I have given '''all''' the perspectives on [[Proportional Representation]] instead of just the Lobby view which was there prior. Also, like with the recent nuking of the first past the post page. It might be best to have the main page be a redirect to wikipedia and have an additional page for specific technical considerations which are too deep for wikipedia.
| |||