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

[Ray Saintonge]

Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>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.
>>    
>>
>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.  
>
A whiff of nostalgia!

>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.
>
Just choose the one which best achieves your goals. ;-)

Ec