Wikipedia talk:Current surveys

message: Is there any point keeping this list of old polls. I just removed some where the links were so out of date, they didn't even take you to a poll, but I can't see the need for the others either. It isn't very maintainable, and I don't think it's very valuable. If there are some that could be used as good examples of sample polls, then those could be mentioned, but for closed polls on issues no longer being discussed, I think they should be removed. Angela. 19:44, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Old polls

message: Wikipedia has some polls that started months ago. The voting virtually stops at some point but is never formally closed and then, months later, someone comes across the page and adds a vote. Like Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance which started more than 7 months ago, received about 70 votes back then, with an inconclusive outcome. Now, it is still getting one or two more votes a month. 
Is that right? Polls should have a certain end date. Could we have all polls formally closed after at most a month, with a clear message put on the page? Andris 23:13, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
:Technically the poll is invalid if it has no end date. Johnleemk | Talk 07:56, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on the type of poll.  I don't see a problem with leaving a poll like the fame and importance one open, as it is one of those global issues that doesn't really change in its fundamental nature.  Remember that polls are essentially meaningless anyway.  They're just rough indicators of how users feel on an issue.  anthony (see warning) 16:45, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Typically, you can say that the poll is useless if not the interpretation of the outcome is decided before the poll starts. ❝Sverdrup❞ 19:05, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion moved from Village pump

message: The above thread about ballot-stuffing got me thinking:
For September tenth, on redirects for deletion, an anonymous contributer listed two of three of the redirects for deletion that day.  ¿Should people with no standing to vote, be allowed to nominate?  It seems like a trouble-making troll with a floating IP could really wreck havoc by randomly nominating all sorts of things to all sorts of things.
I must confess that I participate in the discussion for the redirect male genital mutilation.  I feel that either both male genital mutilation and female genital mutilation or neither both male genital mutilation and female genital mutilation and either both should stay or leave.  I believe that both should stay.  Keeping one while deleting the other is sexist.  In other words, I believe that, now, after disclosing my involvement, I should abstain from  the debate about anonymous contributers nominating things to things.
Ŭalabio 05:48, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)
:I believe it's been the longstanding policy on the VFD to ignore anon votes. I don't think RFD should be any different in that respect. →Raul654 05:50, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
:: Since I am a partisan, I shall not debate but merely clarify:
An Anonymous Contributer Nominated Several Of The Redirects For Deletion.  Someone with no standing to vote started a vote.
Ŭalabio 06:05, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)
Some time ago I raised exactly this issue on Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion, that discussion is now archived but the rough consensus was that anons have every right to list on VfD, but not to vote. I was the dissenting voice, IMO if you can't vote you shouldn't list either. I guess we'd want the same policy on RfD, etc.. It sounds like there might be more to say on this. In the interests of not reinventing the wheel, should I try to find the original discussion? Andrewa 11:29, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standing and nomination 

message: Lovely page - but isn't this mostly redundant with WP:RFC and/or WP:W? If people agree, should we merge or something? Radiant_* 15:22, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
:Definitely not. RFC is a request for comments, not votes. W seems to be a little-used page now hijacked by the Wikipedia:Schools for deletion listings. Admittedly, all these pages are hard to find — someone (preferably someone without a pet project to promote) needs to work on a top-level organization of the Wikipedia namespace. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support merging this with WP:W. Hiding 18:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any reason to change. Maurreen 20:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundant?

message: *"Process" seems rarely to be the subject of the page entries; "Policy" is the subject of part but by far not all (maybe not even most) entries.  Any more general page name includes more possible content but describes it less well and tends to be more vague.  "Current surveys" well describes the polls section of the page and so seems useful. -R. S. Shaw 23:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Should we close the vote? Maurreen (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Can academic researching surveys whow would like to carry some survey of Wikipedia community list their surveys here? What other places they could do this? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that wouldn't be appropriate. You could try the mailinglist, though I don't know how thrilled they'd be there either. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 18:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: No thanks - I get enough 'surveys' spaming me already. I wopuldn't object to a project page, for those who were interested though. (But then again maybe that's a bad precident too) --Doc (?) 18:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Via meta, academic surveys have been conducted there (ask, for instance, user:cormaggio), the current meta page is m:research; see also m:Wikimedia Research Network, Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikidemia, m:Wikiversity - but indeed not this present "current surveys" page --Francis Schonken 19:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic surveys 

message: Summoning a bunch of visitors to various "polls" under the pretext of voting on what is properly instead the subject of discussion is misleading and not conducive to accurate articles. A poll can be useful for a long, complex debate in finding out where the discussants stand, currently or "in the end", after they have considered the discussion, without trying to adduce consensus from sifting through endless comments. Bringing people to a Talk page for the express purpose of simply voting, not participating in the discussion or even encouraging reading the discussion, is not consensus; consensus requires agreement, which is impossible without knowing the points at issue. Thus, any vote that is actually productive or relevant requires that the voter have read or participated in the discussion, and it makes sense to bring non-partisans with a fresh view to that discussion from this page here, but not directly to some "poll". Ultimately, the "Polls" section is either useless, in that a person comes to the discussion and, being interested, will in the end participate in such a consensus-guaging (not consensus-making) poll, or its use is wrong, in that it brings people who don't engage the issue but would simply register an ill-informed yay or nay. So, I propose that the "Polls" section be removed. See also WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy and "Voting is Evil". - Centrx 02:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  De-emphasize polls 

message: The recently added table format makes it less simple to add surveys to the page. It should be phased out. It is not used at RfC either. Seeing as there was no discussion for this change and it is non-standard, I am changing it back. —Centrx→talk • 21:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to be too bold. The table format may make adding surveys less straightforward, but I'd say it makes the lists easier to scan. I'd guess anyone who's reached the point of wishing to add a survey to these lists has very likely seen the table syntax before. Even if not, I'd say they'd be able to copy an existing entry, then modify it accordingly. Meanwhile, please direct me to where the relevant standards are listed – thanks!  David Kernow 04:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many, maybe most, users edit only text in articles and even inexperienced users should be able to easily add a survey. Wikipedia:How to use tables does state that "Tables shouldn't be used simply for layout...", only for information that is "tabular in nature", that tables should not be used for long lists in which case the standard list format is preferred, and that "Tables may be hard for other people to edit...". Also, WP:RFC listings and similar sorts of things do not use tables. —Centrx→talk • 06:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the pointer. I'm torn between using and not using a table for the reasons we've stated; I suppose I regard the information here (and similar pages) as tabular. Maybe a couple of fields on the page for less experienced users (that are then converted into a table entry) could be provided... Alternatively (and more simply) perhaps a divider "----" between each entry might improve readability. Regards, David 15:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table format accessibility 

message: :no longer used much, 
The history log disagrees.
:and all or nearly all uses of it are just substitutes for putting it at RFC
?
While voting's not as good as reasoned debate, it has its place when e.g. a nutter has more time than the other editors. A poll is better than dealing with someone who's reckless and lacks common sense. -- Jeandré, 2006-09-16t21:34z
:I don't see how a poll would make someone stop, and there are few to no entries here are about correcting a lone wacko—I can't find a single one in this batch. Of the ones that start formed as polls, most of them actually just progress into discussion. The fact is, most all of the entries here are typical RfC issues, and those adding them here are disserved because RfC has a lot more people following up on issues. People are adding surveys here, but they are getting less outside comment than they would get if they had realized they should post it at RfC; some of them get no outside comment. So, in practice the discussion is usually identical to RfC, but with less exposure. Polling is another issue: it isn't a good idea, see above when I brought it up in May without response, but the more significant issue is that this is currently just a wayward, lonely stop before a user realize they should have put it on RfC. —Centrx→talk • 21:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought this place was for policy and style issues.  I posted on RFC was Centrx's suggestion but got 0 response there, too.  Anomo 22:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's rather unlikely to get a response immediately for either here or RfC. I have responded there; basically I think that anyone coming to it would see that it is not a proposal, that it is just a collection of thoughts on different subjects that should be brought up in their respective Manual of Style pages. Very few policy issues ever get posted here to Current surveys. —Centrx→talk • 15:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect to Rfc?