4,193
edits
Electowiki talk:Policy: Difference between revisions
→Using Electowiki to vet new concepts: adding header to new conversation, and replying to User:Psephomancy's suggestion we vet things here
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) |
(→Using Electowiki to vet new concepts: adding header to new conversation, and replying to User:Psephomancy's suggestion we vet things here) |
||
Line 76:
: 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)
== Using Electowiki to vet new concepts ==
There are many articles about newly invented concepts/methods that are written primarily by one author:
* [[PLACE FAQ]]
Line 97 ⟶ 98:
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)
:I think you're right that this is meant as an incubator for ideas that are not yet notable enough for Wikipedia. The list you provide is also a great list of articles that seem to have primary authorship by a single person, and may not have a clearly documented audit trail. I wouldn't be surprised if I pressed those folks to create those articles, because I wanted to capture the concepts discussed on the [[election-methods mailing list]] (EM-list) on this wiki. Jobst Heitzig, Forest Simmons, and Steve Eppley were all frequent participants in EM-list discussions. I have no recollection if the concepts they published here were concepts that only the original author agreed with, but as they were posting this stuff, I have no doubt that each of them discussed it at length on EM-list. I took it on faith that I'd be able to go back and read the EM-list discussion, and figure out what they were talking about, because the three of them all have a pretty good track record for defending the concepts that they introduce. I generally found that the discussion on EM-list helped me to understand the concept better, once I actually took the time to understand the conversation.
:I have a bit of a problem using Electowiki as the primary/only place that concepts get vetted. Because this is a wiki, it is ''really'' easy to overwhelm the rest of the existing editing community with drive-by garbage. Mailing lists and online forums are meant for discussion; it's really clear who the author is, and it's generally clear that the author is speaking for themselves. Content on mailing lists and forums naturally expires, whereas new content here automatically becomes part of the "forever" pool of content unless/until one of the editors takes the time to review and deal with it appropriately. Not all new content deserves that level of privilege.
:Moreover, participating in wiki discussions about content is difficult, and in my experience, wikis are a good complement to an online forum, not a replacement for it. There are a lot of people on the [[election-methods mailing list]] that will quickly and helpfully reply to complicated inquiries, but don't feel comfortable replying on a wiki <code>Talk:</code> page.
:As I've said before, EM-list is not the only valid vetting forum. I think that any sufficiently open (and reasonably neutral) discussion forum will suffice. But it doesn't seem to make sense to let people introduce new concepts into the main namespace without first vetting that concept someplace else. -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 03:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
| |||