electowiki:Policy: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (link to manual of style) |
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (mention that advocacy is ok, fix 14-year-old typos) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
Electowiki has a policy somewhat similar to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Wikipedia's NPOV policy]. However, due to the subjective nature of the topics at hand, it's hard to have a strict NPOV policy without becoming a clone of Wikipedia. Thus, the policy regarding point-of-view is one of "EPOV". |
Electowiki has a policy somewhat similar to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Wikipedia's NPOV policy]. However, due to the subjective nature of the topics at hand, it's hard to have a strict NPOV policy without becoming a clone of Wikipedia. Thus, the policy regarding point-of-view is one of "EPOV". |
||
"EPOV" is "Electowiki Point-of-View" policy. Basically, the editorial board (currently [[User:DanKeshet|DanKeshet]] and [[User:RobLa|Robla]]) serves as |
"EPOV" is "Electowiki Point-of-View" policy. Basically, the editorial board (currently [[User:DanKeshet|DanKeshet]] and [[User:RobLa|Robla]]) serves as arbiters for what belongs and what doesn't. Over time, we'll try to evolve more formal guidelines, but for now, here's some general guidelines we plan to use: |
||
* '''We have a point of view'''. Electowiki tries to be a general resource for experts to get complete information, but makes no promises about neutrality. Other sources, such as Wikipedia, should be used to obtain neutral information. |
* '''We have a point of view'''. Electowiki tries to be a general resource for experts to get complete information, but makes no promises about neutrality. Other sources, such as Wikipedia, should be used to obtain neutral information. |
||
* '''Err on the side of neutrality''' - while the EPOV will come out from time-to-time, it should be hard to distinguish it from Wikipedia-style NPOV in the vast majority of cases. |
* '''Err on the side of neutrality''' - while the EPOV will come out from time-to-time, it should be hard to distinguish it from Wikipedia-style NPOV in the vast majority of cases. |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
* '''Latitude to editorialize on other positions''' - while acknowledging opposing points of view exist, we also reserve the right to comment on those positions in ways which may not be so flattering |
* '''Latitude to editorialize on other positions''' - while acknowledging opposing points of view exist, we also reserve the right to comment on those positions in ways which may not be so flattering |
||
* '''Controversial points of view should be vetted on election-methods list''' - if there's a dispute over editorial policy, take it up on the [[election-methods mailing list]]. |
* '''Controversial points of view should be vetted on election-methods list''' - if there's a dispute over editorial policy, take it up on the [[election-methods mailing list]]. |
||
* '''Meta-View''' - A common met-view, largely shared within this wiki, is that the currently practiced electoral systems in many countries are woefully |
* '''Meta-View''' - A common met-view, largely shared within this wiki, is that the currently practiced electoral systems in many countries are woefully inadequate expressions of democracy. |
||
Real-world voting reform advocacy and organizational work are also welcome, though we [[Electowiki:The_caucus#Advocacy.2FPropaganda_development.3F|don't yet have a policy for how to organize it]]. We may want to add a bias template to advocacy articles in the mainspace, for example. As for your own userspace, anything is fair game, as long as it's election-related. |
|||
Please let us know your opinions of this policy on [[Electowiki talk:Policy|the policy talk page]]. |
Please let us know your opinions of this policy on [[Electowiki talk:Policy|the policy talk page]]. |
||
== Why not just use Wikipedia? == |
== Why not just use Wikipedia? == |
||