Electowiki talk:The caucus/Archive 2005

From Electowiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page is an archive of discussion topics started in 2005. These are copied from https://electowiki.org/w/index.php?title=Electowiki_talk:The_caucus&oldid=13574

Design[edit | edit source]

The design is a work-in-progress. I have added the logo and background images from the main Electorama page. I will continue to update the look-and-feel of the site's default skin to match Electorama, but I'm not a CSS or design wizard. DanKeshet 14:36, 26 Jan 2005 (PST)

Announcements[edit | edit source]

Once this has been announced on the election-methods mailing list and Electorama, I think we should give a chance for the Electorama community to shape it before opening it for wider discussion. We can open it for wider discussion by posting to the appropriate Wikimedia places (Sites that use Wikipedia content; sites that use MediaWiki, etc.), as well as the appropriate voting places. DanKeshet 14:36, 26 Jan 2005 (PST)

Our "Village Pump"?[edit | edit source]

We should probably have some sort of "Village Pump" type page here. Naming this is always traditionally different on a per Wiki basis, based on the flavor of the Wiki. My proposal would be for "Project:Smoke-filled room" or perhaps "Project:The caucus", but regardless, this page should probably be reserved for discussion of the Main Page. -- RobLa 16:02, 6 Feb 2005 (PST)

I've been bold and done it. DanKeshet 16:50, 9 Feb 2005 (PST)

Problems with software[edit | edit source]

I've run into two problems:
  1. Math isn't working. This is pretty big. The math software requires ocaml v.3.0.6; our provider offers 3.0.4. We can either bug our provider or compile the new version ourselves. As it would be much easier to bug the provider, and take up considerably less space, I prefer that.
  2. Search isn't working. I'm going to look into this. Search wasn't working because of a tiny bug in the rewrite rules. Fixed and it now seems to work. DanKeshet 17:20, 9 Feb 2005 (PST)


Logo and theme[edit | edit source]

FWIW & IMHO - (orginal comment concerning the logo and name deleted. Glad to see it's fluid and fun-loving!) See post in Project:logo Wegerje 11:12, 31 Jan 2005 (PST) and Wegerje 06:10, 17 Mar 2005 (PST)

Great to see you here, Jeff! The logo was copied from electorama.com. I don't really care much about logos one way or another, but if you can do better, why don't you upload it and post it at Project:logo and if people like it, I can upload it onto the server directly. DanKeshet 11:30, 31 Jan 2005 (PST)
Regarding the name: that's precisely the reason I use these "Project" namespace links. So that we can change the name of that namespace without too much trouble. With Rob's permission, we could change the title to simply: Electorama. -- (unsigned comment by Wegerje 2005)
Feel free to call this the Electorama Wiki or any other name. I'd caution against getting too wrapped up in gravitas, though. We're going to be at this a very long time, so we might as well have some fun along the way. For what it's worth this isn't the first group with grave concerns about the gravitas of their logo.
The goal behind naming the main Electorama site was to avoid going down the same rathole that most electoral reform pages go down. They either use the old red, white, and blue cliche, or some other textbook metaphor for serious stuff. The problem is that these sites often pronounce how boring and ponderous they will be before someone ever gets a good read. I specifically wanted Electorama to be accessible, and chose the theme accordingly.
So, this Wiki doesn't necessarily have to use the same theme as the main Electorama site. What's more, if there's a better theme for the main Electorama site, I'm happy to adopt it there, too. -- RobLa 22:28, 1 Feb 2005 (PST)

Content contradictions[edit | edit source]

Research thrives in lots of content - the kitchen sink theory - whereas activist "propaganda" thrives in less content - the less is more theory. It will behoove us to craft short, concise, clear activist pages that may point to the dense research pages as needed, but only point and never get bogged down with. Wegerje 11:41, 31 Jan 2005 (PST)

I'm not very worried about this until or unless it becomes a problem, but a custom namespace could always distinguish fact from editorial. DanKeshet 14:57, 31 Jan 2005 (PST)

Categories[edit | edit source]

The first order of business I've been working on is eliminating all the excessive internal links that make sense in the Wikipedia context, but not here. After that, I'd like to make some more and better categories. Ideas: Category:Ballot type, Category:Single-winner voting systems, Category:Multi-winner voting systems, Category:Condorcet method. DanKeshet 14:55, 13 Feb 2005 (PST)

I have done some of this. What I now hope to do is copy over the remainder of the articles from Wikipedia that I didn't get in the first batch. Also, I'd like to present some new examples that involve important Condorcet cycles, and use them in the articles on Condorcet methods. All Condorcet methods work the same on the Tennesee example, so using it is boring. DanKeshet 15:04, 14 Feb 2005 (PST)

I agree that the Tennesee example is boring! Ideally, examples on each method page should be specifically designed to show particular features of that method. James Green-Armytage 00:11, 19 May 2005 (PDT)


Goals[edit | edit source]

In the spirit of beginning with the end in mind, it behooves us to have measureable goals.

Suggested by Wegerje 06:10, 17 Mar 2005 (PST)

  • Become the first page to appear in various Google searches.
  • Become the source for links in the blogosphere (Often replacing Election Methods.org, no offense Russ)
  • Providing from page one a clear and inviting path for those seeking:
    • First time information about electoral methods and why and when some may be better than others
    • Experts looking for well crafted information and in depth information on electoral knowledge

-- (unsigned comment from Wegerje 06:10, 17 Mar 2005 (PST))


Advocacy/Propaganda development?[edit | edit source]

2005 message from User:RobLa[edit | edit source]

What do people think of using this space to hone our propaganda? Here's examples of material I would like to put up:

This is the area that gets harder to manage in a wiki without clear ettiquette, which is why I hesitate to use a wiki for this type of material. Still, I think it would be cool to collaboratively edit advocacy pieces. Thoughts? -- RobLa 20:58, 11 Apr 2005 (PDT)

2009 reply from User:Homunq[edit | edit source]

Personally, I'm all for it. The etiquette I'd advocate for would be:
  • "Friendly" edits (ones which agree with the points being made) to the page, "unfriendly" ones to the talk page
  • However, clear factual errors can be corrected or noted in-place, even if it weakens the argument. (Be charitable in your interpretations of terms before deciding something's a clear factual error.) Homunq 02:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

2018 discussion between User:Psephomancy and User:RobLa[edit | edit source]

@User:Homunq @User:RobLa I think this makes sense. But are there then "neutral" articles and "advocacy" articles? And how are they distinguished? Category? Namespace?
I want to put a bunch of my arguments from reddit on here, so I can link to them instead of repeating myself. Maybe I'll put them in userspace for now. Psephomancy (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, reflecting on it now (13 years later), I think putting it in your userspace is the right thing to do to start off with. I worry about setting a precedent that would cause this wiki to get overwhelmed with opinion pieces, since it really would only take one prolific disruptor to make life miserable for the admins of the site. Moreover, we probably need a more robust code of conduct, lest we open ourselves up to some serious trolling and use of this site as a means of distributing horrific propoganda and offtopic gibberish. -- RobLa (talk) 05:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
@User:RobLa: Actually, I've been thinking about this and I think it's a good idea to make a place for it in the main space, so that people with a similar POV can collaborate on articles together, rather than writing their own articles in their own userspace (or repeating the same arguments over and over in many different one-on-one discussions that only reach a few people).
I like Homunq's idea of Friendly/Unfriendly edits and separating POVs into different articles. It should be possible to make an Advocacy: or Opinion: namespace? So something like Advocacy:Problems with Instant-Runoff Voting
Or maybe it could just be done with templates, like Wikipedia's Essay template, so it would be Problems with Instant-Runoff Voting with a big box at the top that says "This is an essay written by opponents of IRV and doesn't represent everyone else etc etc". — Psephomancy (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


2019/2020 discussion between User:RobLa and User:Psephomancy[edit | edit source]

The current state (as of 01:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)) is that most of the conversation has happened over at Electowiki_talk:Policy, based around the edits made to Electowiki:Policy. My sense of things is that if we rely on a banner, the banner needs to identify a particular editor that is the lead signatory for the article. How can we make sure that future editing curators on this are excited to see new activity in Special:RecentChanges, and build a sense of shared voice, based on the consensus of the Election-methods mailing list (or appropriate venue)? -- RobLa (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Also some discussion at Talk:Vote_unitarity#Possibly_moving_this_article_to_.22User:Dr._Edmonds.2FVote_Unitarity.22. — Psephomancy (talk) 04:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Difference between this and wikipedia?[edit | edit source]

A question: How should the electowiki site differ from wikipedia's "voting theory" category? How do we prevent wasted effort in editing the two pages separately? In what circumstances is it okay to paste wikipedia text into electowiki and vice versa?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Voting_theory

James Green-Armytage 00:03, 19 May 2005 (PDT)

One difference is that electowiki has a point of view. see Policy.
Augustin 18 Aug 2005 (Alternative voting phpBB MOD)
We're also more specialized. However, I would say certain articles could be copied to wikipedia; for instance Robert's Rules of Order could appear on Wikipedia as Voting methods in Robert's Rules of Order or something similar. 69.171.107.31 19:13, 6 November 2006 (PST)

There's no sense in making edits here to major voting system articles here that came from Wikipedia. Lock pages like single transferable vote from editing after adding a template referring editors to the Wikipedia article if they want to make changes. Copy the Wikipedia STV page here every x days so our version of the article stays current. Redirect our STV talk page to the Wikipedia talk page. 24.154.8.81 06:47, 7 November 2006 (PST)


Obviously this is an old discussion, but my point of view is that purely encyclopedic content that can go on Wikipedia should go on Wikipedia, where it will be seen and edited by many more people. Maybe include a quick summary of it here, but otherwise don't duplicate effort in multiple places.

Content that isn't appropriate for Wikipedia belongs here, such as original research, advocacy, things that are not "notable" or cannot be reliably sourced, etc. So:

  • Biographical information about Condorcet: Wikipedia
  • Discussion about what the Condorcet criteria means: Wikipedia
  • List of which systems meet which criteria: Both?
  • Description of a new voting system that hasn't been used in the real world: ElectoWiki
  • Explanation of why system X is better than system Y: ElectoWiki
  • Analysis of real-world elections and who would have won under different voting systems: ElectoWiki
  • Results of every real-world United States Senate election: Wikipedia
  • Results of some minor party's experiments with IRNR: ElectoWiki
  • Detailed analysis of Wikimedia's Board elections: ElectoWiki :D

Psephomancy (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)