Talk:Voting theorist: Difference between revisions
→Potentials to add
(→Potentials to add: - What sort of non-electowiki source would we use to decide whether someone is notable enough for a page?) |
Dr. Edmonds (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 32:
::::: [[User:Dr. Edmonds|Dr. Edmonds]], that's infinitely recursive naval gazing, isn't it? What sort of ''non-electowiki'' source would we use to decide whether someone is notable enough to be highlighted as an "electoral theorist" (with their own page)? -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 21:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
:::::: [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] It is at least something to limit. If somebody wants to invent something to be able to claim that they are a voting theorist then the debate will at least not be a personal one. It seems more fair to say "You have not made any contributions to the field" than "I do not think you know your stuff". If their claim of invention is not worthy of having a page then they do not get to be on the list. The debate then gets focused on their invention. If you have a better idea I am open to it. Requiring a published paper seems strict because a lot of very popular things like STAR were never published. --[[User:Dr. Edmonds|Dr. Edmonds]] ([[User talk:Dr. Edmonds|talk]]) 22:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
| |||