Talk:Vote unitarity: Difference between revisions

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)

::: User:RobLa, I'm not User:Dr. Edmonds, but the concept of Vote Unitarity has been discussed at https://forum.electionscience.org/t/different-reweighting-for-rrv-and-the-concept-of-vote-unitarity/201 and within other posts on that forum. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk: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?)

Line 19:

Line 20:

:: I have added a reply to [[Electowiki_talk:Policy#EPOV_discussion_about_Vote_Unitarity_article|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 --[[User:Dr. Edmonds|Dr. Edmonds]] ([[User talk: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. ;-) -- [[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)