Electowiki talk:Policy: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
(→Using Electowiki to vet new concepts: my explanation of the value of outside vetting) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 133:
:: "that seems really difficult to patrol" I think it would be pretty obvious if someone is trying to sabotage an advocacy page. I think the policy would be more like "permission to revert at will" anything added by people who aren't contributing positively. Indicating their "allegiance" someplace could be good too. — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 05:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
::: For a moment, I had a thought of using election methods to let advocacy groups elect new members (with a supermajority condition), and only letting those members edit... but that's probably overkill. Let's use the simplest thing that works: an advocacy namespace and permission to revert at will should work for now, I think. And perhaps templates "this is Approval advocacy" and "this is a review of/response to the Approval advocacy article X by Condorcetists". (e.g.) [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 11:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
== Criterion compliances and election method template ==
Line 149 ⟶ 151:
: Yes, that's a great idea, and Wikidata seems to have this functionality already. I'm not sure how the technical side works, but I think we can install Wikibase here and have our "own Wikidata" that can still "transclude" info from the main Wikidata? We were [[User_talk:Psephomancy#Criterion_compliance_logic|talking about it on my talk page]]. — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 05:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
:: I'm not very enthusiastic about maintaining a separate Wikidata instance here, but I'm not going to stop you or anyone else from adding it. It seems to me it's a little early to try forking Wikidata's election method data collection. Let's try to come up with a way of expressing compliance in English prose over here, and perhaps come up with template for compliance that we can embed in each method's page. Over the long haul, I'm hopeful that Wikidata will be a good centralized source for compliance information. -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 17:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
::: Can Wikidata data be directly imported into/exported from the article pages themselves? I got the impression that it's a separate source, so to find out whether Schulze passes monotonicity, you'd have to deliberately go to Wikidata to check. What I'm imagining is something more along the lines of being able to add a tag or a section to a page (e.g. "Passes monotonicity" and "Monotonicity proof reference" on the Schulze page), and then that automatically updates the Monotonicity page. I'd like the process to be as effortless as possible. [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 11:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
| |||