User talk:Psephomancy: Difference between revisions
→Removal policy?
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (→Criterion compliance logic: respond to User:BetterVotingAdvocacy) |
|||
| (35 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 10:
::: [[Template:Stub]] already exists, no?
::: doi should work now. You can make interwiki redirects to Wikipedia. — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 02:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
:::: I thought that was just part of the page because it didn't have any additional formatting (e.g. icon like Wikipedia's stub templates). I've made a suggestion for a stub template with an icon here: [[User:Kristomun/Template:Stub]], but it appears it needs a script, Module:Asbox, to work - I can't just copy over Template:Asbox from Wikipedia. Could you import Module:Asbox, or is it a simple matter of just copying the source from Wikipedia's module article over to a module article with the same name here? [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 11:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Oh I added [[Template:Cite arXiv]], but it requires a bot to complete the citation? That won't work here. — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 03:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Line 27 ⟶ 26:
# Go to https://electowiki.org/wiki/Special:Import
# Click "Browse" and find the .xml file
# Enter an interwiki prefix from https://electowiki.org/wiki/Special:Interwiki for rewriting links to point to the original wiki. (I could swear there was a <code>wikipediawikipedia</code> prefix yesterday, which would point to en.wikipedia's Wikipedia: namespace, but now I don't see it?) (Actually this should probably be <code>wikipedia</code> because it shows up in edit history like https://electowiki.org/w/index.php?title=Help:CS1_errors&action=history, while the actual links always need manual modification anyway)
# Add an edit comment, which will show up in the [https://electowiki.org/wiki/Special:Log/import Import log] and the [https://electowiki.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Columns&action=history edit history of the page].
# Select "Import to default locations"
Line 53 ⟶ 52:
[[User:Kristomun]], I got Citoid partially working, so we can do references like Wikipedia. It isn't working for web links, though. — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 01:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
: What's keeping Citoid from working with web links? I've been trying to refine some references in [[Uncovered_set]], and a few journal articles lack DOI/ISSN numbers and Citer happens not to work on them. Would it be possible to get web to work, or is it currently impractical to fix? (Alternatively, can Citoid be modified to handle other citation formats, e.g. BibTeX?) [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 22:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
:: I don't know. I suspect it's something we can fix locally, but I haven't figure out how yet. I think there are several types of IDs it doesn't work for. Making a list of what works and doesn't work would probably help figuring it out, or finding who to contact to ask about it. — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 23:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
:: [[User:Kristomun]] See https://phabricator.miraheze.org/T5357 — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 15:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
::: [[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 98 ⟶ 107:
::: Not sure if the amount of work to write a bot counteracts the amount of work to just make changes manually. — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 21:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
::: A mutual majority set isn't a clone set. Suppose voters constituting a bare majority rank some permutation of {A,B,C,D} above everybody else, and the remaining 49% voters rank every candidate in a random order. Then {A, B, C, D} is a mutual majority set but not a clone set. So a method of the type "determine what candidates are ranked consecutively in some order by absolutely everybody, replace them with a single candidate, and run FPTP on the result" would be cloneproof and pass majority but would fail mutual majority.
::: I get what you mean, though. The absolute deluxe option would be to have something like a theorem prover and then being able to specify implications (e.g. "Smith criterion" and "plurality criterion" => not "Mono-add-top criterion", or max two of "Mutual majority criterion", "Later-no-harm", "Monotonicity"), and have the system automatically fill criteria it can infer from already specified pass/fail data. Then Electowiki could become a theorem prover library for criterion compliances. But I have no idea how you'd integrate such a thing with the Mediawiki software, and it may well be overkill. [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 20:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
[[User:Kristomun]],
Line 123 ⟶ 132:
:: Things like the proofs I've given on the [[weighted positional method]] page, where the proof is given directly on the page. It might come back to bite us if people start submitting very involved or very subtly wrong proofs, but we could try to deal with that if/when it happens. [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 20:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
== Set theoretic article a good idea? ==
Given how often we discuss set-theoretic concepts (not just things like the Smith set, but even most criteria; for example, if you have 5 candidates and a Pareto preference for the first over the second, then in some sense the "Pareto-compliant set of candidates" is all candidates except the 2nd), should we have a dedicated article for it? Reading things like Schulze's article on the Schulze method might be a lot easier if we have a voting theory-specific guide for understanding set theory. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 19:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
: That's probably fine. What would it say that's different from [[w:Set theory|Set theory]]? — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 19:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
:: I'd think stuff like the Nakamura number, discussion on the relation of various criteria to each other, and in particular, discussion of how set theory can be used in the context of [[PSC]] to find which winner sets are PSC-compliant or not could be very useful. Basically, it could be a glossary of the intersection between voting theory concepts and set theory. I'll make an article, but I'm not too sure how to write it so that it can maximally encompass all of the different voting theory concepts in its various sections. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 19:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
== OR/notability criteria ==
As I've understood it, this wiki is more relaxed than Wikipedia about OR/notability concerns, because it covers a lot of methods that are "original" or not academically published anywhere, much less in use by governments or organizations. But there should probably be some kind of limit, so that new users can't just come up with a ton of methods or method modifications (e.g. Landau//Minmax, "MJ then a tiebreak by Range", "Ranked pairs but only admit A>B if A covers B" etc.).
What should the threshold be, and what should its logic be? It seems difficult to find a balance that admits interesting methods while not opening for the possibility that the wiki will get too cluttered. [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 22:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
: Personally, I think a lot of the current articles are pretty much in the sweet spot. Maybe something like "[[Smith winner]]" doesn't make much sense (or at least, is better off as a subsection to [[Smith set]] rather than its own article), but for the most part, a lot of these articles really do deserve their own space. For example, Condorcet//FPTP is notable because it's one of the simplest Condorcet methods possible, Smith//Score because several ideas can be thought of for mixing the cardinal and pairwise information together in finding the winner, etc. It may help if you can point to some articles that you find to be particularly bad in this respect, then I might be able to give some more ideas. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 23:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
: [[User:Kristomun]], I don't know. I'm pretty inclusionist about such things. My threshold might be lower than anything currently on the wiki. Can you find the worst-case example, from your perspective, and we'll see how I feel about it? :D — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 23:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
:: I was mainly thinking of Smith-Schulze. Being included as part of the Schulze article might give the impression that it is a variant of the Schulze method also proposed by Schulze. [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 11:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
:: In more general terms, though, there could be a situation where we have some very rigorous proofs (with lots of references) and others that someone just thought of at that moment (and that has a greater chance of being false). Since I allow proofs without references as long as the proof is given, it could be difficult to distinguish them. I haven't happened upon such things yet, but if I do, I'll let you know.
:: On the other hand, Wikipedia might have such problems itself. E.g. the Schulze STV "proof" that it is monotone (and that has propagated into its election methods comparison table), that Schulze said he doesn't know whether is true. [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 11:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
::: Kristomun, I've edited the Schulze article to make it clear that "Smith-Schulze" (which I proposed) was not proposed or analyzed by Schulze. I did email him about it by the way, and he seemed okay with it being used as a teaching tool for people to understand Schulze. In the future, I suggest that it's a good idea to just make any concerns that you have known on the discussion page, or simply add disclaimers to the article. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 17:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
: One way to address this concern is to create a wiki article with links to different users' voting methods (hosted on their own page) with the disclaimer that there may be errors. That way, users can create as many methods as they want, and then plop a link to a category of them on their user page from this article. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 19:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
== Majoritarianism vs utilitarianism ==
[[User:Psephomancy]], what would be a good name for an article that encompasses both majority rule and utilitarianism? I think it'd be interesting to make the overarching point that majority rule only counts the number of people who prefer one outcome over another, while utilitarianism also accounts for their strength of preference. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 03:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
: Would that be an advocacy page then? We've talked about those a few times but I don't think any exist yet except in userspace. — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 05:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
:: No, I was thinking more of what the page should be called that encompasses both as a category. I ultimately settled on using the [[Utility]] page for this, with cardinal utility for utilitarianism and ordinal utility for majoritarianism. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 06:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
::: Is that correct though? I know Peter Emerson constantly argues against majoritarianism, but promotes Borda count, which is ordinal. — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 02:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
== Allocation methods ==
I'd like to make a page regarding "allocation methods". Specifically, it should serve as a category for highest-averages and largest remainder methods, and talk a little about some of the impossibilities of creating a perfect allocation method. I think "allocation method", "seat allocation method", "apportionment method" would be good names for such an article, but what do you think? [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 05:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
: Those all sound like good names. :) — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 02:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
== Voter distributions ==
What would be a good way to organize the wiki to describe various commonly discussed voter distributions, such as "bipolarized" (majority vs. minority), "3-cyclic" (3 factions that create a Condorcet cycle), etc? I'm thinking a section could be created under the [[Statistics]] page perhaps. But I'd like to see if more organization can be created such that the resulting page can service more than just a handful of voter distributions i.e. link to and be providing knowledge for more things. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 10:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
: Probably in a [[spatial model of voting]] article? (Though that's notable enough to be a Wikipedia article...) — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 19:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
: I put some notes at [[Talk:Spatial model of voting]] — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 02:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
== PR majority criterion ==
I was on German Wikipedia, and found this article (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehrheitsbedingung) which, if you look at it in Google Translate, discusses a criterion that a majority must always win at least half of the seats in a multi-winner election (the Google translation calls it the "majority condition"). I've often wondered if there is an English equivalent; do you know of any such thing? [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 07:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
: No, I'm not very knowledgeable about PR. — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 02:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
== Notation article ==
Would it be a good idea to have an article explaining some notations often used in voting theory? For example, I think it'd be good to have some redirects such that someone reading Schulze's PDF on his voting method could quickly learn what all the symbols means, as well as find any notations specific to voting theory, such as the formatting of the ballots. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 05:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
: Maybe? What is Shulze's PDF and what symbols? I was certainly confused by the notation in [[Talk:Probabilistic_Approval_Voting]] — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 03:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
:: See page 183, for example, of https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1804/1804.02973.pdf for Schulze's PDF with confusing symbols. I know many in the voting theory community are already familiar with set-theoretic notation and such, but it seems a good idea to me to at least offer a pointer to unfamiliar folks that they should go to this or that article to decode these symbols. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 04:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
::: Yes, I think that's a good idea. A glossary of symbols (and acronyms?) similar to [[w:List of mathematical symbols]] but more focused. — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 17:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
== Advocacy for gov formation reform==
[[User:Psephomancy]], You recently said "I don't think advocacy movements for government formation really makes sense. " Here is a list of some movement groups
* https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
* https://www.openprimaries.org/mission
* https://www.republic.org.uk/
* http://www.canadian-republic.ca/
* https://makeeveryvotecount-always.ca/
There are a ton of different movements. These all have to do with how you go from votes to a governing body and have nothing to do with the voting method itself. Maybe there is a better generic term for it than "Government Formation" or maybe we should deal with each independently. I do not really know or care. My goal it to try and get some of this content onto electowiki. --[[User:Dr. Edmonds|Dr. Edmonds]] ([[User talk:Dr. Edmonds|talk]]) 03:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
: {{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)
| |||