User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy

From electowiki



Welcome to the new Electowiki! See User:RobLa and Electowiki:About for notes about the migration.

Let me know on my talk page if there's anything I can help with, if you know of any deleted articles on Wikipedia that could be resurrected here, etc.

This runs on Mediawiki, so it has a lot of the same features as Wikipedia, but is missing a few (like automatic citation generation) and has a few that Wikipedia doesn't (like support for inline YouTube videos). Images from Wikimedia Commons can be used directly without needing to be uploaded. Templates can also be transcluded from other wikis, though it's better to export and import them.

The wiki is 14 years old and has never had a ton of activity, so the goals/policies were never really solidified. Your input is welcome, especially on how to handle the separation of biased advocacy from neutral informative content (which are both welcome). See Electowiki:The caucus for the discussion topics and Electowiki:Policy. — Psephomancy (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

You can sign your posts by adding four tildes afterwards: ~~~~Psephomancy (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

You forgot something

"as well as traditional Condorcet methods pass this abstract version of the criterion, while ."

while what?

Psephomancy (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

and can you upload images like this so they don't get lost?

Psephomancy (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I fixed both of them. The images I would've liked to have uploaded within the section "Demonstrating pairwise counting" itself, rather than off to the right side, but it should work well enough. BetterVotingAdvocacy (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Some more.. unfinished edits?

??? — Psephomancy (talk) 03:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I think they're fixed now. It's incredible how much the wiki malfunctions when you're editing on a phone. BetterVotingAdvocacy (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Building trust via proper introduction

User:BetterVotingAdvocacy, I really appreciate that you have become the most active editor on this wiki. The changes that you make are probably correct. Though really, I don't have time to make sense of many of the edits you make. When I see the "Recent changes" on this wiki completely dominated by edits that I don't fully understand, it makes me distrust the changes. When I look at your user page (at User:BetterVotingAdvocacy, it doesn't build confidence.

If you'd like to remain anonymous, I can respect that. But I think the combination of anonymity and velocity is potentially toxic to a healthy wiki community. Note that I say "potentially toxic". We can make it work (e.g. just like English Wikipedia has), but I'd appreciate your help. Could you make a better user page that helps us trust you more? For example, is your Twitter handle @BetterVoting? Are you "AssetVotingAdvocacy" on The Election Science forum? It's possible to build trust with an anonymous identity, but it requires a lot of work. -- RobLa (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

User:RobLa, first off, I appreciate the maturity with which you've reached out to me. I'd like to stay anonymous, and I'm genuinely not sure what I can say to build confidence about myself. I am u/Chackoony on Reddit, @BetterVoting on Twitter (though I haven't used that in a while), and AssetVotingAdvocacy on I am more than happy to discuss any and all of the changes I've made to the wiki articles, and I am willing to accept any kind of restrictions (whether you'd like me to voluntarily observe them or impose them on me) or constraints that you want in terms of my changes to the wiki, and will not take any offense if you want to discuss that. For the most part, I try to make edits to articles that attempt to simplify, or offer some kind of useful documentation i.e. in the Pairwise counting#Example without numbers article, I mentioned how many pairwise matchups must be done for a certain number of candidates and the overall formula for calculating that. I generally try my best not to remove content already in an article if I disagree with it, but rather, move it somewhere else (within the same article usually). In general, you'll often see me adding a "Notes" or "Discussion" section to an article to try to emphasize any information that's more tangential or perhaps less relevant to immediately know for the reader.
Maybe just to offer a bit of an idea of how I edit, I'll explain broadly the edits I made today so far. I started off mentioning that Score DSV is related to Smith//Score (since it might help folks move between Condorcet-cardinal hybrid method articles easier), and made a few redirects (i.e. "Choose-one voting" now goes to the FPTP article, "Solid coalition" now goes to the PSC article, etc.). I made a large edit to the mutual majority article which reorganized the article to start off with a simple conceptual understanding of the criterion (i.e. talking about voter preferences rather than referring to a specific vote, such as a ranking or rating) and added a lot of somewhat relevant stuff towards the bottom (i.e. how if you add in "irrelevant voters", that can void the mutual majority criterion, and modifications to address that, or the fact that the mutual majority criterion may deserve to be tweaked when discussing rated ballots, etc.) For the majority criterion article, imo I filled it out mostly with info that's available on other sites (i.e. the majority criterion for rated ballots, how cardinal methods pass a relaxed form that relates to strategic voters, etc.). The Smith//Score article, I gave a somewhat tangential idea on how to better utilize both the cardinal and pairwise information. For the rest of the articles, I either added information that I was more certain about (i.e. the runoff article) or put in information I was confident about but that might not cover every case (i.e. for STAR voting, I mentioned that as long as a majority top-scores their favorite and gives all but one of the other candidates no support, they guarantee their favorite enters the runoff and then wins. This can be easily proven to be true, but it may not necessarily cover all cases where a majority can force victory in STAR). There is a bit of conjecture in the Order theory#Strength of preference article section, though I try to carefully note that.
I should also mention that, as you may have seen, I can help make some graphic materials and images, so if you need any help with that, or want me to edit any of those images, I can reupload them with little issue. Again, much appreciated for reaching out, because it strengthens our working relationship and thus our mutual abilities to provide better voting-related information and documentation for the wiki users, and my apologies if I should've reached out first or made a mistake somewhere. BetterVotingAdvocacy (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Ohhhhh, thank you! Having the "Chackoony" <=> BetterVotingAdvocacy mapping helps me a lot. We've had a lot of dialog over there already. I just didn't realize that you were the same person. Would you mind if I added the following to your user page? (or even better, could you do it?
I am u/Chackoony on Reddit, @BetterVoting on Twitter (though I haven't used that in a while), and AssetVotingAdvocacy on
This would help me (and other readers) remember which anonymous online identity I'm working with, and keep our community here from looking like it's dominated by unreliable sockpuppets. -- RobLa (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Linking to categories (and files)

If you haven't figured it out yet, you put a colon at the front to make it a link instead of it putting the current page into a category" Category:Ranked voting methodsPsephomancy (talk) 03:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)