Talk:Vote unitarity: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted

Inline

Revision as of 15:33, 17 December 2019

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)

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

@@ Line 4: / 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]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 15:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)