User talk:Psephomancy: Difference between revisions
→Removal policy?
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 60:
::: [[User:Kristomun]] This should be fixed now, by the way. See [[Electowiki:Sandbox#Citoid]] — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 02:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
:::: I noticed. Thanks :-) [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 10:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
== Electowidget ==
Line 211 ⟶ 213:
: {{ping|Dr. Edmonds}} Yes, but the wording "movement for government formation" doesn't really work. It's "movement for NPV" or "movement for open primaries", etc. Anyway the link is still there, I just moved it. — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 03:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
== Social movement article ==
I think there's some interesting things that could be said about voting theory in the context of social movements. For example, STAR voting was used in (https://www.starvoting.us/bassnectar), and I think one of the reason STAR advocates market precinct-summability is because it allows it to be more "vote-on-the-go" than IRV. There's also https://electowiki.org/wiki/2012_Occupy_Wall_Street_polls. And it can't be understated how crucial being able to better aggregate group judgements is to a well-functioning social movement. Given all of that, how would you want to compile such information into one or several articles? In general, I think it's a good idea to discuss how to compile information on previous uses and ways of implementing voting theory beyond governmental elections and ballot measures. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 06:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
== Removal policy? ==
I'm a bit concerned with the "Distributed Voting" page, as it's a downright promotion of a system instead of a good-faith attempt at impartial documentation. The author also invented a loaded-terminology "Honesty criterion" specifically designed to only be passed by their system. Discussions on Reddit have also been very unproductive and the author seems incapable of accepting criticism. What's the policy here? [[User:lucasvb|lucasvb]] ([[User_talk:lucasvb|talk]]} 09:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
: What parts of those articles do you want to remove? I'd say any removal of content ought to be mainly because it's straight-up wrong or inappropriate, because otherwise, it's probably easier to edit it to express it as an opinion rather than fact i.e. if someone wrote "this system is good because of X", change that to "this system is claimed to/may be good because of X". The "honesty criterion" does seem to have too good a name, but otherwise I think a lot of what you want to achieve could perhaps be done by first creating some kind of "Criticisms" or "Other people's opinion on this system" section where you can write out your critiques (hopefully while allowing and encouraging others to write out responses, etc.). Heck, even just linking to the discussions you had on Reddit will go a long way in letting people know what disagreements there are on the quality of those things. Given that Essenzia will probably contest what you wish to remove, it seems that including both of your perspectives is the easiest move to start off with at this time. You can also edit those articles' Talk pages to voice what you think is problematic for future editors, even if you can't get consensus to remove right now. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 10:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
| |||