Wikipedia talk:Discuss, don't vote/Archive1

message: Also, has wikipedia decided to change the process? Voting on content, or positions, is kinda different than voting on whether to merge or not. Some things do come down to a yea/nay. Move or don't move. Merge or not. Disambig page, or mentions at the top of the page.
I've also used voting as a way to clarify positions, and I've (nor other people I've seen) never felt bound by the positions put out.  Many times I've seen voting break down into, "Yes, but..."  And some great clarifications have taken place.  I'm thinking about the voting on banning US House IP addresses from editting pages about themselves.
~ender 2006-03-26 19:59:PM MST:There has been a de facto shift toward voting, which is unfortunate but may not be preventable.  This page should probably be updated to reflect this trend.  
:I think you are right that many votes generate useful discussions and deeper understanding -- but that is only insofar as they are not really votes, or insofar as the members choose to subvert the voting process.  But when we go into a discussion expecting to vote rather than talk, or when a trial-balloon proposal is greeted with a chorus of automatic "Oppose" votes, real violence is done to the wikiprocess. 
:Idea:  Saying "X is evil" is not really a very helpful guideline.  Could this page be redefined as something like Wikipedia:Subvert voting, a how-to guide on facilitating thoughtful dialogue in the face of the "let's-vote-on-it" mentality? -- Visviva 12:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Early comments

message: * Mathematics of voting: all systems are broken. see voting system.
I removed the above because it is false.  A yes/no vote on a single question is not mathematically broken.  I guess that the author of the statement was thinking of multicandidate elections and Arrow's impossibility theorem.--SmokeyJoe 04:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mathematics of voting: all systems are broken.

message: I looked at the history of the page. It seems that the page is a copy of an essay from Meta-Wiki. When was this page authorized by consensus? How can it be a guideline without any consensus?  Bidabadi 19:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: When was this page authorized by consensus?

message: This has got to be one of the oddest-titled policy-related pages I have seen. The title of this article, if taken seriously, is not suitable for a policy-related document (and if not to be taken seriously, is not suitable for a policy-related document). The article is also fundamentally self-contradictory, as verifying consensus requires some sort of majority vote for an option. It is a useful rule (expressed by Dale Carnegie, for one) that if you ever wish to state something in a negative way, attempt to turn it into a positive before you say it. Following this principle, I come up with the following statements: "Reasoned discussion is good" and "Consensus is good".
On reflection it might be useful to have a procedure for decision making which has two distinct phases. In the first stage, participants are prohibited from indicating their preferred option, but are allowed to state relevant facts and inferences and discuss them with each other. When discussion has died down the second phase, a vote on the alternatives, can take place. Elroch 13:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ballots are the devil's work?

message: I'm a little confused by this "essay" about polls and voting. Doesn't this very article violate some of the central tenants of Wikipedia? First, it's just a soapbox for people who don't like polls and/or voting on content. Second, it only presents one point of view--that polls/voting are satanic.
I've seen in many places that simply categorizing discussion into "yea" and "nea" camps helps editors come to a consensus... the neatness makes the discussion easy to follow instead of being a jumbled mess. I'm not saying that voting should be binding; I'm saying that it simply helps move a discussion forward and makes it easy to contribute.
I vote to remove this one-sided essay. (Just kidding).
--Sixtrojans 02:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia's articlespace is not a soap box, but the metapedia portions such as out userspaces, here, and the Vote for Deletion areas are under no such restriction. The concept of essays is that they are POV, but since they exist in order to provoke thought, it's all right. Essays are not encyclopedic material, they are opinions of certain users on how we should run the Wiki. (Additionally, you are quite capable of adding a dissenting opinion if you so desire.) Also, I think you misunderstand the point of the essay, which isn't that voting has no place whatsoever, it's that it is overused. The whole "evil" thing is a joke. --tjstrf 03:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't this "Essay" violate "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" and "NPOV"? 

message: According to my dictionary:
:vote. (1)(a) A formal expression of preference for a candidate for office or for a proposed resolution of an issue. (b) A means by which such a preference is made known, such as a raised hand or a marked ballot.
Or in other words, many WP procedures (such as AfDs) are what is known as "votes", and the people who participate in them are what is known as "voters".  There is an odd canard that floats around Wikipedia where people mutter the mantra "(Something) is not a vote", with an apparent ignorance of the meaning of the word "vote".
I suspect a lot of these editors have a particularly constricted experience with decision processes in the world, and were taught rather narrow civics classes (or just picked it up from poor newspaper writers).  I think what they have in mind is something like the incorrect notion that "vote" means "decision by simple majority", or at least "decision by exact pre-specified super-majority (or plurality)".  Obviously, not much on Wikipedia is those things.  At the same time, an admin who claims not to count votes on an AfD or other procedural process is either being daft in misrepresenting what they do... or they're being something much worse than daft if they actually do not count the votes.  Sure, votes should be contextualized in various ways: are they new editors? are they sockpuppets? do they make useful comments? is there a trend in the voting pattern? did outside events (such as page improvements) occur between one vote and another vote? But to claim innumeracy as some sort of inherent virtue is extremely harmful to process, to fairness, and to consensus.
In defense of this essay, however, it is not principally concerned with those procedures that need be votes.  An AfD or an RfA really cannot ever be anything else.  However, things like quick polls on article talk pages exist only at the discretion of the editors of those articles.  A quick poll may be, and often is, a useful way to gauge sentiment about some editorial issue, but it need not occur; other mechanisms for discussion and agreement exist, notably simple threaded discussion.  Inasmuch as this essay recommends that a quick poll should not the automatic, the default, nor the most definitive mechanism for reaching decisions and consensus, it is entirely right.  Editors have an collection of tools to use in discussion, and polls are just one among many, and are only the right tool for some jobs. LotLE×talk 20:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misunderstanding the word "vote" 

message: The following statement was placed in this article to avoid NPOV and create balance.  It was removed by LotLE, who feels that balanced here is not appropriate.  I would appriciate commentary.
The Statement
  
:Consensus method is seen by many as inherently unfair, as there is no proper adjudication of the issue at hand. After much (or little) discussion, one or more parties may simply declare "Now that we've discussed things, it is clear everyone agrees with me, we have consensus." Only in cases where two or more strong personalities exist within the group will this be challenged. Even if challenged, the result is usually the declarer or challenger being expunged from the group. This is Alpha Male politics at it's worst.    
   
:In it's original form, consensus method has some viablity as it requires that there is no consensus unless there are no objectors, hence the parlamentary term "Consent Agenda". If even one member of a group is opposed, consensus does not exist, and deliberations must continue. However, this version is rarely practiced.   
    
:Using voting and polls, the support among the group is clearly measured, and defined in a mathematical way. While politics, preference and bias may factor in voting, that is no less true in concensus method
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.152.161 (talk • contribs) 
=== Support inclusion ===
#
#
=== Oppose inclusion ===
# LotLE×talk 19:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quick poll is on the inclusion of the quoted statement in the essay.  That's it. LotLE×talk 16:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I would like to propose this for inclusion

message: # LotLE×talk 19:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose inclusion 

message: JA: I need more clarification of what exactly is being proposed here.  Is it the inclusion of the quoted statement on the main page WP:VIE, or something more than that?  Thanks, Jon Awbrey 13:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quick poll is on the inclusion of the quoted statement in the essay.  That's it. LotLE×talk 16:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: The conversion of Wikipedia:Voting is evil from an essay to a guideline is presently being discussed here.  Note that a disregard for what most editors want, the principle underlying Wikipedia:Voting is evil, was used to justify the out-of-process speedy deletion of the Counter-Vandalism Unit against the wishes of most established editors commenting on the issue. John254 21:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does this have to do with vandalism? —Centrx→talk • 22:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was used once to the detriment of the CVU, I believe. Otherwise, nothing. --tjstrf 23:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This has a great deal to do with vandalism -- first, altering my signed comments, so that they appear to state something that I never said  is considered to be talk page vandalism.  Secondly, WP:VIE was used as a rationale for the speedy deletion of the Counter-Vandalism Unit in the second MFD nomination -- arguments offered by a banned vandal held more weight than the opinions of a majority of established users. John254 23:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome to restore your original talk page comment (why it was changed is beyond me) if you please, though not to restore the one on this project page. And that argument, though a valid argument for use in a discussion on WP:VIE, does not make this a relavent issue for posting on this page. --tjstrf 23:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, it is quite clear that the speedy deletion of the Counter-Vandalism Unit on the basis of arguments advanced by an indefinitely banned vandal was heavily influenced by Wikipedia:Voting is evil -- the closing administrator in the second MFD nomination stated that "This is not a vote. Arguments do count".  Perhaps WP:VIE needs Wikipedia:Not voting encourages trolling by indefinitely banned vandals as a counterpoint. John254 03:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the speed of it had nothing to do with voting. You also didn't address whether—well apparently you didn't even read my first comment so I won't continue. —Centrx→talk • 03:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It is an accepted and common practice to post information about ongoing discussions on project pages in boldface type -- for example, see , as well as the many other postings about ongoing AFD discussions accessible from the page history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion.  It does not appear that administrators have removed these postings, or that members of WikiProject Inclusion have been warned to refrain from such postings -- despite the fact that WikiProject Inclusion is explicitly partisan as to the preferred outcome of AFD discussions. John254 03:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm considerably less concerned about WikiProject Inclusion, specifically because it is quite honest about what it is and what its interests are. CVU acts in a manner that is, if not official, at least set up so as to be in the penumbra of the official. Phil Sandifer 14:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Phil stop it. You are just wasteing people's time. Go and do something useful like clearing CAT:CSD.Geni 15:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Now can we talk about the matter at hand? Phil Sandifer 15:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, just head over there and talk. As has been pointed out, this page has nothing to do with WP:VIE, so talking about it here really won't help. --tjstrf 15:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the matter he is referring to is the use of this page as a sort of political constituency of friends for matters that have nothing to do with fighting vandalism, the ostensible purpose of this page. —Centrx→talk • 22:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be an editor-specific issue. Again, talking here won't help. --tjstrf 22:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Will [[Wikipedia:Voting is evil]] become a guideline?

message: Whether AFD or anything like it and the close is always based on number of votes and not arguments.  Anomo 21:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's based on both. --tjstrf 21:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The reason that most AfDs are closed in line with the "votes" is because the people who are "voting" all agree on an obvious outcome good for Wikipedia. In many cases you wouldn't even need to have an AfD; the admin, a prototypical Wikipedian, could often look at the article and their decision would most always be the same as the consensus reached on the AfD. For most of the common classes of deleted articles, the major reason for having an AfD is to discover more information about the subject, or to generate ideas about alternate options like merging. That is, not enough is known about it to make a decision, but if the information is known and the possible options are laid out, the decision is pretty obvious and the people commenting on the AfD are going to almost unanimously come to the same conclusion. The people who keep adding meaningless votes are just wasting their time. —Centrx→talk • 05:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Look at any votes page 

message: People arguing here might find this interesting: Wikipedia:Consensus polling. It's a method for adducing consensus for a given proposal. It uses a poll, but it is not a vote: one can either support the proposal or not yet support the proposal, which is editable so that concerns can be addressed.
The idea originated elsewhere, at the Omidyar Network, and the details of the method are fairly well ironed out through experience there. Anyone who finds it interesting might like to try it out, if they can think of a suitable proposal to test it on. --bainer (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus polling 

message: Based on the above, it should be clear that the established practice on Wikipedia is not to vote if we can avoid it. Note that this page dates from 2004 and has been heavily used since. That doesn't mean voting is prohibited period (nor does this page say so), but it remains discouraged since discussion has been proven to work better. As pointed out before, AFD is sometimes confused for a vote, but it really isn't. The main place where voting seems effective is when a guideline has already been accepted to standardize something, and votes are held on e.g. the color to standardize to.
However, some people make the interesting comment that perhaps we should change our practices since discussing doesn't seem to scale as well with the sheer size of Wikipedia. I think that is a very good point, in particular related to creating new guidelines; housekeeping tasks like FAC seem to have a low enough participation that discussion still works. It is left as an exercise to the reader what to do about RFA. I think it would be a good idea to create a page to discuss how best to deal with that, and possibly change established practice. >Radiant< 17:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split out 

message: Although it was done tongue-in-cheek, I think this poll about the question is very telling particularly as the question about the status of this page is discussed now. (→Netscott) 18:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not merely tongue-in-cheek, the poll is quite obviously entirely a joke. It is very similar to Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Jimbo Wales for admin. —Centrx→talk • 03:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Polls are evil?

message: This has never been a proposal, and isn't a guideline. If you want to change it, find consensus. Fresheneesz 08:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why are you the one dictating what the status quo is? Where the hell is consensus for this? Where can I see the status quo? The above is *ONE* editor in addition to yourself - that means absoulately nothing. Fresheneesz 18:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to either explain how his description of the status quo is wrong or explain why voting would be good. —Centrx→talk • 19:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not even *saying* the description of the status quo is wrong. There needs to be offered up some proof that its *correct*. We can't just make every and any possible guideline until someone proves each of them to be "not the status quo". Fresheneesz 07:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Are you talking about WP:STRAW ?? That has been a guideline for a looong time. *that* is the status quo. Fresheneesz 02:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that this has never been a proposal because it has been an accepted part of Wikipedia for so long... long before these various bureaucratic categories of "guideline," "essay," etc. came into general use.  I don't think the other core principles of Wikipedia have ever been formal proposals either.  I would have to agree with Radiant!  (and believe me, that doesn't happen often) that it was purely an oversight that this was not tagged as a guideline earlier.  Both this and WP:STRAW are very much part of the status quo.  That status quo is somewhat messy and contradictory, at least on the surface, but Wikipedia is itself a contradictory and messy place (at least on the surface).  That's not a bad thing.  -- Visviva 02:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not a guideline 

message: As described extensively this page, there are reasonable and legitimate objections to making this essay a guideline by a large number of editors.  Furthermore, there is a serious dispute as to whether this essay actually has the requisite consensus to establish it as a guideline.  To avoid continuing to have the tag of this essay/guideline reverted back and forth, I am adding a disputed tag template to the guideline version. John254 00:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What john is saying is that most afds are closed based roughly on the number of supporters vs dissenters. It would be ridiculous to delete an article that has 3 admins that want to delete it, and 50 new (non-sock puppet) people that want to keep it. Thus one can conseptualize that as a vote. Perhaps long time users, and people who explain their vote, get more weight - but that doesn't change the fact that majority means something. Fresheneesz 07:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My comments weren't fallacious, you're just misunderstanding me. I'm not saying a vote is taking place, but I'm saying that the very *idea* of consensus is the *same* very idea behind binding votes. Although we don't use binding votes on wikipedia, we *do* use non-binding votes - ie polls. Fresheneesz 00:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *That statement is self-contradictory. >Radiant< 11:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  You can have both. Polling can fuel discussion, and help gauge consensus. Why do you think they are mutually exclusive? Fresheneesz 00:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So far, 3 out of the 4 times I have seen substantial disputes on wikipedia, I have not seen any real regard for concensus.  I am new here, and I believed the stories and lines about discuss and concensus and so on.  I no longer believe those things to be accurate portrayals of the way wikipedia works.  In my observation it works as an odd combination of oligarchy and ochlocracy with a degree of bullying to go along with those aspects. --Blue Tie 09:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *You are welcome to propose a more formal system of rule creation (e.g. the one used on the French wikipedia). I would be interested in seeing how that could work. At the moment, Wikipedia is a cluocracy. >Radiant< 11:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed Tag