Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Voting Systems/archive 1

not sure that even all the existing articles are listed - nor all perspectives from which they can be analyzed.

No, they are not. Like many things on Wikipedia, this page is incomplete.

it's also important to consider what the winner will be DOING, when choosing the voting system but sometimes within it. in politics we assume the winner gets to literally do violence to the loser, by passing laws theydon't like and slamming them in jail if theydon't obey. but that too assumes things about cops, courts, etc. So not sure if this is a way to categorize voting systems in any practical way.

That is outside the scope of this project.

According to you. But we agree that the implications and impacts of a given system, claims and movements, must be addressed as part of the voting system, and so far entries seem to be doing a good job of that.

Also, eliminating the attempt to 'categorize' systems makes the issue moot to a degree. If there is ANY categorization surely it must start with the seriousness of the matters that are actually at stake, which determines the amount of effort/rigor worth puttinginto the system, and how vulnerable it is to claims of unfairness.

is this project worth undertaking, if wikipedians doing actual participatino in wiki governance aren't here? why write a bunch of stuff that theywill ignore?

This is not to decide a voting system for wikipedia. This is to describe existing voting systems in an encyclopedic manner... DanKeshet

which is of course irrelevant to wikipedia's internal organization? You use the word "is" too much. You should find out what it means.

---

I have again removed the parts about "educating other wikipedians". This is both condescending and inappropriate. We are here to write enyclopedic content. If you want to educate other wikipedians, you can do that outside this project, but this project, like Wikipedia, is about writing an open-content, NPOV encyclopedia.

Nonsense. NPOV is a myth. The content is only as 'open' as its server technology and administrative practices and the time people have to both contribute and waste with condescending individuals such as yourself.

This is a contentious topic, and wikipedians regularly hold votes in their talk pages and mailing lists. Obviously if this job is done right it will have an impact on their practices, and if not, then it will not. You are imposing a definition of the project that ensures that it'll fail.

I have also removed the parts about bioregional democracy. I believe that a discussion of which voting systems are appropriate for bioregional democracy should be on that page itself. DanKeshet

Yes, certainly. However, the fact that bioregional democracy and first past the post are fundamentally incompatible is a fact that should be noted on both pages, just as approval voting and disapproval voting are not possible to combine in the same vote. It was only an example, there is no need to invent the word "appropriate" (another word you must learn) to complain. Another example is that instant runoff voting and deliberative democracy are in conflict, as the latter emphasizes the opportunity to do tradeoffs and grow relationships between rounds of voting, and the former avoids that process in favor of single ballot.

---

142: Please, please, please, would you log in? It's not very difficult, but it makes it easier for all of us to track conversation, leave notes on user pages, etc. Especially if your IP changes over time. DanKeshet

No, absolutely not. When you understand how to cooperate in a wiki, you'll realize that there is no great need to do such tracking, which various users have correctly noted, is only of use to the sysops in deciding who to censor.

Just as voters have the right to remain anonymous in a secret ballot, so do authors, if what they are writing is defensible. I have absolutely no interest in permitting anyone who uses the word "is", "appropriate", and "NPOV" as if they made sense other than in his own head, to track every single line written.

Identity is irrelevant, and reputation is dangerous here. If we justify some statement from authority, we incluyde the name of that authoritiy. The article author is not the authority - is that not exactly why you object to the word 'seems'?. Those who have 'reputation' seem mostly to abuse it to censor articles they seem to think they 'own', resulting in very poor articles, e.g. w:ontology, w:philosophy of mathematics, full of over-simplifications and innaccuracies. Thus, there is no value to acquiring such a 'reputation'. --142

---

142,

I will not engage in a discussion of the nature or merits of writing an NPOV encyclopedia right now. This is one of the groundrules we have established as a community ("points of unity" in consensus jargon), that our purpose in being here is to build a free-content NPOV encyclopedia. Some other, less stringently enforced guidelines include Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:Log in before making drastic changes. There are many other places you can discuss these policies; I suggest the mailing list. DanKeshet