[WikiEN-l] Interpreting merge votes (was Wikipedia's provable anti-expertise bias)

[Anthony DiPierro]

On 11/20/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Sam Korn wrote:
>
> >On 11/20/05, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>They should be voting "merge and delete", then. If they just vote
> >>"merge" then calling that a delete vote is itself putting words into
> >>mouths, whereas keeping is the default.
> >>
> >>
> >Merge and delete is not a possible vote.  People should not have to
> >vote in such a specific way to prevent vote-hijacking.
> >
> >
> People can vote any way they want.  If people vote that way then it's
> possible.  I don't know anything about the "vote-hijacking" jargon that
> you are trying to introduce.
>
> Ec

The suggestion to merge is a vestige from a time when VfD was about
reaching consensus about what to do rather than about voting and
counting votes.  If you want to count votes, then I guess you could
take two positions.  The first, which I'll call the Al Gore position,
is to try to figure out whether the voter intended the merge vote to
mean delete or not delete.  The second, which I'll call the George W.
Bush position, is to throw out the vote as invalid.

I'd like to take this moment to thank the arb com for banning me from
participating in the joke that has become AfD.

Anthony