Electowiki talk:The caucus: Difference between revisions

From electowiki
Content added Content deleted
VisualWikitext
(→‎Categories: use of other people's time)
(→‎2022: archived #2021 comments made on Project talk:The caucus, and suggesting that we just use Project:Community portal instead.)
 
(30 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:


Archives:
Archives:
* [[Electowiki:The_caucus/Archive 1]]
* [[Electowiki_talk:The_caucus/Archive 2005]] - discussion archives for 2005
* [[Electowiki_talk:The_caucus/Archive 2008]] - discussion archives for 2008
== Advocacy/Propaganda development? ==
* [[Electowiki_talk:The_caucus/Archive 2013]] - discussion archives for 2013
* [[Electowiki_talk:The_caucus/Archive 2018]] - discussion archives for 2018
* [[Electowiki_talk:The_caucus/Archive 2019]] - discussion archives for 2019
* [[Electowiki_talk:The_caucus/Archive 2020]] - discussion archives for 2020
* [[Electowiki_talk:The_caucus/Archive 2021]] - where the archives for 2021 will be


The discussions below were ''started'' on the year that they are listed under. The years are not yet in reverse chronological order, so the best place to start a new conversation is in the [[#2021]] section below.
What do people think of using this space to hone our propaganda? Here's examples of material I would like to put up:


== 2005 ==
* [http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/politics/condorcet-explain.html A Case For Condorcet's Method] - this was a piece I wrote in 1996, which I still think holds up ok, but could probably use some work.
See [[Electowiki talk:The caucus/Archive 2005]]
* [http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/2/17/23347/8051 Campaign Finance Reform: A Red Herring] - a piece I wrote in 2002 when McCain-Feingold was about to pass.


== 2008 ==
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? -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] 20:58, 11 Apr 2005 (PDT)


See [[Electowiki_talk:The_caucus/Archive 2008]]
: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.) [[User:Homunq|Homunq]] 02:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


== 2013 ==
:: @[[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?
See [[Electowiki_talk:The_caucus/Archive 2013]]


== 2018 ==
:: 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. [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 01:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
See [[Electowiki_talk:The_caucus/Archive 2018]]


== 2019 ==
::: 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. -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 05:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


See [[Electowiki_talk:The_caucus/Archive 2019]]
:::: @[[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 [[Special:ManageWiki/namespaces|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 [[w:Template:Essay|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". — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 21:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
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)? -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 01:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


== 2020 ==
: Also some discussion at [[Talk:Vote_unitarity#Possibly_moving_this_article_to_.22User%3ADr._Edmonds.2FVote_Unitarity.22]]. — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 04:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


See [[Electowiki_talk:The_caucus/Archive 2020]]
== Difference between this and wikipedia? ==


== 2021 ==
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?


See [[Electowiki_talk:The_caucus/Archive 2021]]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Voting_theory


== 2022 ==
[[User:James Green-Armytage|James Green-Armytage]] 00:03, 19 May 2005 (PDT)


[[User:RobLa]] believes he wants to deprecate [[Electowiki talk:The caucus]] and use [[Electowiki:Community portal]] instead.
:One difference is that electowiki has a point of view. see [[Project:Policy|Policy]].


:[[User:Augustin|Augustin]] 18 Aug 2005 ([http://www.masquilier.org 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. [[User:69.171.107.31|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. [[User:24.154.8.81|24.154.8.81]] 06:47, 7 November 2006 (PST)


[[Category:Electowiki caucus|*]]

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

[[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 02:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

==Citing references==
Is there a way to cite references analogously to how it's done on Wikipedia using <nowiki><ref>, {{cite web}}</nowiki>, etc.? I am copying a page I created there over to here, because it is about to get deleted from Wikipedia. See [[delegable proxy]]. Much of that information may get refactored into other articles, as I see there may be some overlap. [[User:Justin Bailey|Justin Bailey]] 16:06, 25 February 2008 (PST)

: There is now! (10 years later.) [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 01:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

==Major delegable proxy project==
Hello, I am currently mulling over some ideas for coordinating and facilitating more effective delegable proxy activism. Many people have come up with this idea independently and started websites about it, but there doesn't seem to be an single unified integration of all the available information into one place on the web.

I want to start two parallel (but intertwining) projects. The first is basically evisaged as a book that would integrate some of the most important research, ideas, etc. on delegable proxy in order to comprise the definitive work on delegable proxy. Depending on how much is out there, it could be a short book, but we'll see when we get there.

The other project will probably take the form of a wiki, and its purpose would be to gather the activists together under one roof, where they could have freedom to do their own thing (e.g. start WikiProjects and sub-WikiProjects on specific subject areas and ideas within the field of DP) while also sharing resources and having mechanisms for coordinating activity.

I'm trying to figure out, should be this implemented as part of a larger project (e.g. Electorama) or as a separate project, on another site? Is it intertwined with other election methods-related subjects to the point where it would be better to keep it all together on one wiki? I'm only aware of a few overlaps, e.g. Green-Armytage mentioned the possibility of using STV to pare down proposals in a DP system to a manageable workload.

Anyway, rather than post something extensive here, I put some more detailed musings on this topic on my user page. Feel free to contact me if you're interested in collaborating on this. Thanks, [[User:Justin Bailey|Justin Bailey]] 16:06, 25 February 2008 (PST)

== Cleaning up categories ==

There are many different variants of the same category names.

[[User:Jameson Quinn]]'s definitions:

<blockquote>A note on terminology: “Electoral system” means all the election rules of a given country, including voter and candidate eligibility, elections for different offices, campaign rules, etc. “Voting method” is the formal mathematical part of that; the algorithm that determines what information must go on each ballot and how that information is aggregated to choose a winner. I’ve avoided the term “voting system” because it’s ambiguous; it could refer to either of the above, or to the specific machines used for casting ballots.</blockquote>

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Categories/en#Redirecting_a_category says:

<blockquote>Like normal wiki pages, category pages can be redirected to other normal or category pages. However, this is not recommended, as pages categorized in redirected categories do not get categorized in the target category (bugzilla:3311). Some Wikimedia sites use a "category redirect" template to mark redirected categories, allowing manual or automated cleanup of pages categorized there.</blockquote>

Wikipedia style says

<blockquote>categories are almost always given plural titles and many templates are as well.</blockquote>

So I'll re-categorize each page under "voting methods" and delete "voting systems" categories. [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 03:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

== StructuredDiscussions ==

Should we use the [[mw:Extension:StructuredDiscussions|StructuredDiscussions]] extension for Talk pages? This wiki uses it, for reference: https://allthetropes.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page

[[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 02:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

== Redirector ==

You can install http://einaregilsson.com/redirector/ to automatically redirect your browser from <code>wiki.electorama.com</code> or <code>electowiki.miraheze.org</code> to the new domain <code>electowiki.org</code>.

<pre>
Redirect: *//wiki.electorama.com/*
to: https://electowiki.org/$2

Redirect: *//electowiki.miraheze.org/*
to: https://electowiki.org/$2
</pre>

— [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 21:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

== Search Engine Optimization ==

Is there anything we can do to raise this site in Google results? If I search for "Summability criterion", <code>wiki.electorama.com</code> is the first result, but <code>electowiki.org</code> isn't on the first 5 results pages at all. The first result actually points to Category:Voting system criteria, which is weird.

If I search for [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22rather+than+the+highest+total+score%22 a specific phrase "rather than the highest total score"], Google only returns <code>wiki.electorama.com</code>

* Could edit [[MediaWiki:Pagetitle]] to say "Electowiki, the election methods wiki" or something like that.
* Could add a [[MediaWiki:Tagline]]
* I enabled https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:WikiSEO, but not sure how to use it.
* This lists some things that can be done: https://seositecheckup.com/seo-audit/electowiki.org

— [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 22:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

:I'll need to set up redirects as appropriate. The main trouble with doing this is migrating in a way that respects the Creative Commons attribution license, per my comments over on https://phabricator.miraheze.org/T3624 . We can do some soft redirects today, and in fact, I've done that with [[Summability criterion]], and I've got some ideas for how I want to set up the Apache redirects. -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 01:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure redirects are the problem, though. The site appears invisible to Google for some configuration reason. I tried adding it to Google SearchConsole, and testing <code>https://electowiki.org/wiki/Proportional_representation</code>, and got:

<blockquote>URL is not on Google

This page is not in the index, but not because of an error. See the details below to learn why it wasn't indexed.</blockquote>

<blockquote>Duplicate, submitted URL not selected as canonical

Status: Excluded</blockquote>

<blockquote>Google-selected canonical: N/A</blockquote>

The site as a whole says "Processing data, please check again in a few days", so we'll see what it says later.

— [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 19:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


I turned on [[mw:Extension:Description2]] extension and [[mw:Extension:OpenGraphMeta]] extension (which uses the former), and they seem to be working, except there are two description tags on the main page, one from the manual WikiSEO, and the other auto-generated from the first paragraph by Description2.

Google SearchConsole for https://electowiki.org/wiki/Median_Ratings says the same thing:

<blockquote>User-declared canonical None
Google-selected canonical N/A
</blockquote>

While inspecting https://electowiki.org/wiki/Proportional_representation says it is in Google, I guess because it's linked from the main page?

<blockquote>Referring page
https://electowiki.org/wiki/Main_Page</blockquote>

[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22districts+do+not+ensure+that+an+electoral+system+will+be+proportional%22 Another exact phrase search] finds the <code>wiki.electorama.com</code> site, and also the <code>electowiki.org</code> URL, but that is hidden under "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 3 already displayed."

Maybe turning on https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgEnableCanonicalServerLink would help? It seems to be enabled on Wikipedia. — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 20:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


[[User:Reception123|Reception123]]:

So I'm looking at Google SearchConsole now that it's finished the Coverage report.

There are a bunch of URLs in the category "Duplicate without user-selected canonical" of the same form:

https://electowiki.org/w/index.php?title=Voting_system&veaction=edit&section=10&mobileaction=toggle_view_mobile
https://electowiki.org/w/index.php?title=Majority_Judgment&veaction=edit&section=2
https://electowiki.org/w/index.php?title=Instant-runoff_voting&veaction=edit&section=11

Similar URLs also show up below the "omitted similar entries" fold at the bottom: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22districts+do+not+ensure+that+an+electoral+system+will+be+proportional%22&filter=0&biw=1440&bih=789

So I think it's deducing the wrong canonical URLs for certain pages, including the old domain, weird API URLs, etc. and so it hides the correct one. I think the only way to fix this is to add link rel="canonical" tags to each article, which I think you need to do using https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgEnableCanonicalServerLink Google doesn't seem to care about the og:url tag provided by WikiSEO extension.

That's the second method listed on
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139066?hl=en

It's not possible to do the first method since that requires me to own both miraheze.org and electowiki.org and it seems like an obsolete method anyway. I don't think I have the power to do any of the others, either. — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 02:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

== Template for mailing list posts ==

It might be good to have a template to reference mailing list posts. Is there a unique ID for each post or something like that? — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 17:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

== Help page ==

Should probably have a Help page to explain the features that aren't present on Wikipedia, list the Wikipedia features that aren't present here, and link to Wikipedia for the things that are the same. For now, check out [[User:Psephomancy/Sandbox]] — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 05:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

== Meta-articles ==

Which of these should be moved to Electowiki: space?

* [[Method evaluation poll 2005]]
* [[Essential Questions]]
* [[Method evaluation poll 2008]]
* [[Method support poll]]
* [[Electowidget]]
* [[Election-methods chat]]
* [[Election-methods mailing list]]
* [[Electowidget/2000 U.S. Presidential Election example]]
* [[Electowidget Bug tracking]]
* [[Electowidget Configuration Reference]]
* [[Electowidget Installation]]
* [[Election Config Schema]]

— [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 00:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

== Archiving off older discussions ==

I'm going to start archiving off older discussions. We don't have a bot framework to do it automatically yet, but I'll be copying things off to child articles much like the bots do on Wikipedia talk pages. I'm also going to be reordering these so that new stuff shows up on the bottom -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 01:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

== Interwiki redirects ==

Whoa, I didn't know interwiki redirects worked!

[[The Center for Election Science]]

A little jarring that you silently end up on a different site, though. I wonder if there's a way to delay it momentarily. — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 01:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

== Categories ==

[[Special:UncategorizedPages|The list of uncategorized articles]] is growing over time, but I'd like it to always be shrinking to zero.

New articles were created by [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy]], [[User:Toby]], [[User:Dr. Edmonds]]. Can you all try to add categories to new pages so they are easier to find and so they can show up in dynamic lists? (I think this will notify you since I mentioned you.)

I enabled the DynamicPageList extension, so we can do things like automatically list all proportional cardinal methods:

<DPL>
category = Cardinal voting methods
category = Proportional voting methods
</DPL>

or all multi-winner single-mark methods:
<DPL>
category=Multi-winner voting methods
category=Single-mark ballot voting methods
</DPL>
etc. — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 03:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

: [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] I do not have the time to do this level of organization right now. There is already categorization for most of this on the pages [[Multi-Member System]], [[Cardinal voting systems]] and the most high level one [[Voting system]]. You could just copy this structure. --[[User:Dr. Edmonds|Dr. Edmonds]] ([[User talk:Dr. Edmonds|talk]]) 04:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

:: [[User:Dr. Edmonds]], I do not think that [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] made an unreasonable request of your time, given your level of activity on this wiki. Please reconsider your response. -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 01:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 08:02, 3 March 2022

To start a new discussion, click the "Add topic" link at the top of this page.

Archives:

The discussions below were started on the year that they are listed under. The years are not yet in reverse chronological order, so the best place to start a new conversation is in the #2021 section below.

2005

See Electowiki talk:The caucus/Archive 2005

2008

See Electowiki_talk:The_caucus/Archive 2008

2013

See Electowiki_talk:The_caucus/Archive 2013

2018

See Electowiki_talk:The_caucus/Archive 2018

2019

See Electowiki_talk:The_caucus/Archive 2019

2020

See Electowiki_talk:The_caucus/Archive 2020

2021

See Electowiki_talk:The_caucus/Archive 2021

2022

User:RobLa believes he wants to deprecate Electowiki talk:The caucus and use Electowiki:Community portal instead.

Retrieved from "https://electowiki.org/wiki/Electowiki_talk:The_caucus?oldid=15110"