Talk:Voting theorist

From electowiki
(Redirected from Talk:Voting theorists)

This is the discussion page (the "Talk:" page) for the page named "Voting theorist". Please use this page to discuss the topic described in the corresponding page in the main namespace (i.e. the "Voting theorist" page here on electowiki), or visit Help:Talk to learn more about talk pages.

Potentials to add[edit | edit source]

--Dr. Edmonds (talk) 02:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Nicolaus Tideman
  • Markus Schulze also for the Schulze method
  • Forest Simmons - agenda methods, impossibility proofs
  • James Green-Armytage - for susceptibility to strategic voting, in particular for Condorcet methods
  • Friedrich Pukelsheim - biproportional apportionment used in Switzerland
  • Thomas Wright Hill, Carl Andræ, Thomas Hare - single transferable vote
  • Ka-Ping Yee, Brian Olson
  • Myself?
Kristomun (talk) 10:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to add all the above. This is not a field with any way to accredit people so it may be best to list as many people as possible. Any thoughts, RobLa? --Dr. Edmonds (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm okay with being more generous than English Wikipedia when it comes to notability, and I'm okay with this list. As you might have seen, we didn't (yet) have a page for Kenneth Arrow before today. Now we do. I'm not sure how we qualify people to go on the list, other than "this person seems to know what they are talking about". Do we have an objective means of rejecting people from the list? -- RobLa (talk)
RobLa How about we use the requirement that they are an inventor/developer of something which is itself worthy of a page? This implies that they have contributed to the field and are not just well versed in the field. Is that a reasonable criteria for notability? I do not think that being on this list should imply that they are notable enough for their own page. --Dr. Edmonds (talk) 07:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Dr. Edmonds, that's infinitely recursive naval gazing, isn't it? What sort of non-electowiki source would we use to decide whether someone is notable enough to be highlighted as an "electoral theorist" (with their own page)? -- RobLa (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
RobLa It is at least something to limit. If somebody wants to invent something to be able to claim that they are a voting theorist then the debate will at least not be a personal one. It seems more fair to say "You have not made any contributions to the field" than "I do not think you know your stuff". If their claim of invention is not worthy of having a page then they do not get to be on the list. The debate then gets focused on their invention. If you have a better idea I am open to it. Requiring a published paper seems strict because a lot of very popular things like STAR were never published. --Dr. Edmonds (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)