User talk:Psephomancy: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 144:
: [[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)
== Majority and 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)
| |||