|
== 2005 ==
See [[Electowiki talk:The caucus/Archive 2005]]
=== Advocacy/Propaganda development? ===
What do people think of using this space to hone our propaganda? Here's examples of material I would like to put up:
* [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.
* [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.
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)
: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)
:: @[[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. [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk: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. -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk: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 [[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)
: 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)
=== Difference between this and wikipedia? ===
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
[[User:James Green-Armytage|James Green-Armytage]] 00:03, 19 May 2005 (PDT)
: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)
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)
== 2008 ==
|