User talk:Psephomancy: Difference between revisions
→OR/notability criteria: new section
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
(→OR/notability criteria: new section) |
||
Line 130:
:: 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)
| |||