Jimmy Wales wrote:
Thanks Steve, and I want to make super clear that I
think people can in
good faith have quite varied opinions on different matters.
What I wanted to point out is that we need to be especially vigilent
when we have an area where we know there are POV pushers and trolls who
are active. As Erik pointed out, in a lot of cases like this, a tiny
turnout at IfD will mean that community consensus is not well reflected,
because the POV pushers will show up in force to override the small
number of good editors who come by.
Imagine this case:
100 good editors, 80 voting delete, 20 voting in good faith to keep
4 pov pushers
4 trolls
End result: 80 - 28, consensus to delete
versus
10 good editors, 8 voting delete, 2 voting in good faith to keep
4 pov pushers
4 trolls
End result: 8 - 10, no conclusion, image kept
Such results are plausible, but establishing a series of rules just to
deal with trolls and POV pushers is not likely to be productive. It
would be far better to allow them their votes, but to marginalize the
effects of their votes. This constant group of 8 miscreants seems to be
winning in the second example because they were quick off the mark with
putting in their votes. Keeping votes open indefinitely will mean that
they can't use their quickness to their advantage. If the image is
meant to be deleted the Wisdom of Crowds will prevail over an extended
period of time.
Ec