Talk:Vote unitarity: Difference between revisions
→Possibly moving this article to "User:Dr._Edmonds/Vote_Unitarity": I don't have a problem with articles like this
m (typo fix) |
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (→Possibly moving this article to "User:Dr._Edmonds/Vote_Unitarity": I don't have a problem with articles like this) |
||
Line 4:
: [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] Why do you believe it is not vetted? I do not see why something needs to be rediscussed on your mailing list before it can be posted here. I thought the point of this whole wiki was to have more recent developments than wikipedia. I am fine with the banner but there are dozens of other pages like this. There is no reason to single out this page. The committee founded around developing these ideas needs a place to record results for public consumption. If this is not the place for that then it should be decided before we invest more time. --[[User:Dr. Edmonds|Dr. Edmonds]] ([[User talk:Dr. Edmonds|talk]]) 02:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
:: Hi [[User:Dr. Edmonds|Dr. Edmonds]], I replied at length over on [[Electowiki_talk:Policy]] in [[Electowiki_talk:Policy#EPOV_discussion_about_Vote_Unitarity_article|the section labled "EPOV discussion about Vote Unitarity article"]]. In short, when I said that this concept "hasn't yet been thoroughly vetted", I relied too much on [[w:Cunningham's law|Cunningham's law]] to ask my implied question, so I'll make it explicit: in which public discussion forum has [[Vote Unitarity]] been vetted? Can you provide a link? (feel free to answer over there rather than answer here) -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 04:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't really have a problem with articles like this being in the main namespace. There are already a bunch of articles about concepts that were invented here or on the mailing list, as Dr. Edmonds points out. (Though [[PLACE FAQ]] would be equally legitimate by that logic, and he wants that one removed?)
My proposal for an Advocacy: namespace or template was actually for even more blatantly biased articles, like "Why you should choose Method Z instead of Method Q" or "Why Criteria X is more important than Criteria Y".
Maybe the article should just say in the text that it's a new concept, who invented it, and where it has been discussed so far? Some other articles do that. — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 15:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
| |||