4,215
edits
electowiki talk:The caucus/Archive 2005: Difference between revisions
electowiki talk:The caucus/Archive 2005 (view source)
Revision as of 08:22, 18 February 2021
, 3 years ago→Advocacy/Propaganda development?: organizing the discussion by adding <h4> level headings (e.g. "==== 2018 discussion between User:Psephomancy and User:RobLa ====")
(Archiving of the conversations started in 2005 on the page now named Electowiki talk:The caucus. Copied from https://electowiki.org/w/index.php?title=Electowiki_talk:The_caucus&oldid=13574) |
(→Advocacy/Propaganda development?: organizing the discussion by adding <h4> level headings (e.g. "==== 2018 discussion between User:Psephomancy and User:RobLa ====")) |
||
Line 3:
== 2005 ==
=== Advocacy/Propaganda development? ===
==== 2005 message from [[User:RobLa]] ====
What do people think of using this space to hone our propaganda? Here's examples of material I would like to put up:
Line 11:
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)
==== 2009 reply from [[User:Homunq]] ====
: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)
==== 2018 discussion between [[User:Psephomancy]] and [[User:RobLa]] ====
:: @[[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?
Line 24 ⟶ 26:
:::: 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)
==== 2019/2020 discussion between [[User:RobLa]] and [[User:Psephomancy]] ====
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)
| |||