4,211
edits
Talk:Vote unitarity: Difference between revisions
Let's take discussion about the "Advocacy" category over to User_talk:RobLa/Advocacy draft policy
(Let's take discussion about the "Advocacy" category over to User_talk:RobLa/Advocacy draft policy) |
|||
Line 21:
::: Great! I'm assuming you're intending this to be a "not-quite-Wikipedia" article, so I'll treat it as such and remove the banner. I'll rename the article now, and hopefully get to a quick editing pass in the next couple of hours. If you don't see me edit for more than a couple of hours, assume I got distracted and I'm not going to get around to it. ;-) -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 20:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
:::: I'd suggest that "Advocacy" articles should allow for some form of counterargument or criticism to be mentioned somewhere. At the very least, allow at the bottom of the article for either a link to a separate electowiki article with the full criticisms, or allow the criticizers to link to a specific section of the Talk page for that article where they can present their arguments. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 01:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Yesterday, I created a draft advocacy policy ([[User:RobLa/Advocacy draft policy]]) with a slightly expanded version of the taxonomy above (in addition to "Not-quite-Wikipedia" and "Advocacy", the draft proposal now has a third category). Let's take discussion about the about the "Advocacy" category over to the talk page for the draft ([[User talk:RobLa/Advocacy draft policy]]), since we all agree that the "[[Vote unitarity]]" article doesn't read like an advocacy piece. -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 01:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
| |||