4,193
edits
Electowiki talk:Policy: Difference between revisions
Clarifying the banner that I put on top of Vote Unitarity
(→EPOV: retroactively signing my 2019-11-28 comment (actually, it was 2019-11-27 PST)) |
(Clarifying the banner that I put on top of Vote Unitarity) |
||
Line 48:
:: 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. --[[User:Dr. Edmonds|Dr. Edmonds]] ([[User talk:Dr. Edmonds|talk]]) 17:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
== EPOV discussion about Vote_Unitarity article ==
I put a banner on the top of [[Vote Unitarity]], asking that the concept get better vetted before living in the main namespace (with a banner that I just created for the purpose). Over on [[Talk:Vote_Unitarity]], [[User:Dr. Edmonds|Dr. Edmonds]] wrote the following:
: [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] Why do you believe it is not vetted? I do not see why something needs to be rediscussed on your mailing list before it can be posted here. I thought the point of this whole wiki was to have more recent developments than wikipedia. I am fine with the banner but there are dozens of other pages like this. There is no reason to single out this page. The committee founded around developing these ideas needs a place to record results for public consumption. If this is not the place for that then it should be decided before we invest more time. --[[User:Dr. Edmonds|Dr. Edmonds]] ([[User talk:Dr. Edmonds|talk]]) 02:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
[[User:Dr. Edmonds|Dr. Edmonds]], first to answer "Why do you believe it is not vetted?" Well, where is it vetted? Can I trust the people that did the vetting? It's quite possible that you can give me a link to a long conversation that happened years ago that will work to my satifaction.
My reason for wanting things to be vetted to my satisfaction is that I believe that readers of Electowiki (and people who link to this website) are expecting things to be in [[Electowiki:EPOV|EPOV]], and share my instinct for what counts as "vetted". You're correct that the rules for "notability" are more lenient than those of Wikipedia, but it is not correct to say that the singular point of this wiki is to have more recent developments than Wikipedia. My personal goal (as guardian of the wiki for 14 years) has been to find a middle ground between these two things:
# Wikipedia's strict notability rules which make it difficult for researchers to collaborate on electoral reform writing
# A wide open wiki that's a susceptible to crackpots, spam, and criminals.
Since I have a lot of respect for Wikipedia's process, my intuition is that it's better to be similarly conservative about accepting new content. This wiki still has too small of a community to curate the content that it has, and my sense is that we should be deleting more than we add right now. There's a lot of janky old cruft that was recklessly copied over from Wikipedia in 2005-2006, and left to languish while most folks (rightfully) focused on improving the version hosted on Wikipedia.
I am sympathetic to your frustration about [[Vote Unitarity]] being singled out. I put the banner on because my instinct told me that it was worth stopping and revisiting whether Electowiki needs to talk about this as if it was a group opinion or talk about it as if it was just barely below the threshold for notability on English Wikipedia, rather than way below that threshold. As a site curator, I'm lazy, and I hope we can create robust self-curation systems. So, my first instinct is to say "go post on [[election-methods mailing list]]", and then later on , I can go ask someone on the list that I trust and say "hey, is this legitimate?" We haven't known each other online for very long, so we haven't had the opportunity to build up much mutual trust yet. I'm optimistic we'll get there, but we're not quite there yet.
In general, my hope is that it becomes typical for articles to start in User space, and then move to main namespace after they've been sufficiently vetted. As to why I'm insisting on [[election-methods mailing list]]: I'm not. When you post a large amount of stuff for site readers to read, I want to come up with a good auto-curation system where I don't ''have'' to read it, but I can trust from other signals that it's been vetted. My personal tool for gauging whether or not something has been vetted is to post on [[election-methods mailing list]] and say "hey, what do you all think of this?", but I realize that's not everyone's preferred mode of vetting things. The other current de facto member of the editorial board is [[User:Psephomancy]], and they might have a different preferred way of vetting things (e.g. using reddit's /r/EndFPTP or something).
So, it seems as though I relied too much on [[w:Cunningham's law|Cunningham's law]] to ask my implied question, so I'll make it explicit: in which public discussion forum has [[Vote Unitarity]] been vetted? Can you provide a link to the discussion? -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 04:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
| |||