Talk:Vote unitarity

From electowiki
(Redirected from Talk:Vote Unitarity)

Possibly moving this article to "User:Dr._Edmonds/Vote_Unitarity"

Dr. Edmonds, could we move this article into your userspace? This seems like a concept that hasn't yet been thoroughly vetted. Alternatively, we can use this as an example to try out the banner idea that Psephomancy suggested over on Electowiki_talk:The_caucus, but my bias would be to see a discussion of this topic out on the election-methods mailing list before trying to prematurely codify the consensus here. -- RobLa (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

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. --Dr. Edmonds (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Dr. Edmonds, I replied at length over on Electowiki_talk:Policy in 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 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) -- RobLa (talk) 04:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
User:RobLa, I'm not User:Dr. Edmonds, but the concept of Vote Unitarity has been discussed at and within other posts on that forum. BetterVotingAdvocacy (talk) 01:44, 18 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", where edits are only welcome if they are "friendly" = from people who agree with the premise. This article isn't like those, since it makes sense for anyone to contribute to it, even those who disagree with something and want to insert criticism of it.

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. — Psephomancy (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Psephomancy, thanks for the response here! Ok, I think I have a clearer idea about what to do, using the Vote Unitarity article as an example. Articles in the main namespace should fall into one of two categories:
  • Not-quite-Wikipedia - no banner needed. It needs to be almost up to Wikipedia's reliability standards on many vectors: almost "NPOV", almost "well-cited", almost "notable", not "indiscriminate", and most importantly, on track to be something that Wikipedia would want in the not-TOO-distant future (e.g. five years from now).
  • Advocacy - banner required. These are the articles where only "friendly" edits are welcome. The talk page for the article needs to identify which Electowiki editors are part of the ad hoc friendly curation committee for that article. I have a lot more thoughts about "Advocacy" category, but we should have that discussion elsewhere (maybe at User:RobLa/Advocacy draft policy, if I get around to proposing something).
Since Dr. Edmonds seems to consider Vote Unitarity to be in the "Not-quite-Wikipedia" category (correct, Dr. Edmonds?), then I say we go ahead and clean this one up. I may make a few changes to this myself (possibly starting with renaming the article to "Vote unitarity").
User:Psephomancy: a couple of questions for you: 1. do you more-or-less agree with that taxonomy? If so, we should probably refine the idea over at Electowiki:Policy. 2. Assuming you agree with the taxonomy, you agree that Vote Unitarity seems to be in the "Not-quite-Wikipedia" category?
User:Dr. Edmonds, I'm leaning toward removing the banner from this article. But please help us get the full corpus of unbannered content in the main Electowiki namespace up to "Not-quite-Wikipedia" standards by helping us make sure that at least the stuff you're contributing is on track to becoming Wikipedia content in five years (-ish) by convincing Psephomancy and I by helping us get Vote Unitarity up to the "Not-quite-Wikipedia" standard that I'm laying out here. Does that sound reasonable? -- RobLa (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I have added a reply to the section labled "EPOV discussion about Vote Unitarity article" with details of "vetting". I would think there is a difference between Advocacy and Not-quite-Wikipedia. I was neutral in my writing of Vote Unitarity it is just really new. PLACE FAQ is a good example of Advocacy and reads like "Why you should choose Method Z instead of Method Q". There is a section in Vote Unitarity about its creation and motivations. If more detail is wanted then I can add more --Dr. Edmonds (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
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.  ;-) -- 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. 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. -- RobLa (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The reason for the "Citation needed" tag

User:Dr. Edmonds, I put a "citation needed" tag in this article was for the sentence starting "He coined the term..." because I that seems to be a reasonably easy thing to cite (for someone who was part of the original conversation where the term was coined), yet there isn't a link. Could you provide a link to the forum post or other online conversation where you coined the term? -- RobLa (talk) 01:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh I thought you wanted a citation that the system was passed the Hare Quota Criterion and Vote Unitarity. If you just want to know when I invented the term that is easy. I started using the term in emails in March 2018. The first public mention of the word was here. --Dr. Edmonds (talk) 04:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


User:, I'm not sure if it's correct to capitalize things like "Vote Unitarity" and '"Choose One" Plurality' or not. Generally, we follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style, which says that only proper names should be capitalized. They do not capitalize Proportional representation, for instance. We should decide how we're going to do this, and stick to it, to avoid wasting time as people revert and re-revert each other's changes. — Psephomancy (talk) 02:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)