Message: 5 Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 10:31:10 +0800 From: "Andrew Lih" alih@hku.hk
On Behalf Of Brian Corr
A) Seek Consensus, But Vote: For example, most of
the
organizations have a board of director that votes
and uses majorities when
necessary, but most hesitate to accept a vote if it
is close, and they
prefer to achieve something approaching consensus,
but will accept a decision
if there is a large majority (this seems similar to
Wikipedia).
Yes, this is one of the things we're trying to pin down with VfD policy revisions: see [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy]] and [[Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy]] for exact details, but we are going with majority vote, and qualifying voters.
he ! you succeeded to push me to go and read the new policy Andrew. That is the qualifying voters terms that motivated me.
I read the new proposed policy, and this were my feelings
* majority of 2/3 : this is a very low treshold. Definitly not consensus any more. I was thinking of all those cases where only three people give their opinion, two on one side, one against, and those three being trusted users. And I was wondering if the fact someone showed expertise or on the contrary never showed any sign of being knowledgeable in a field would make a difference. Say, if I create an very specific article on an agriculture matter, perhaps one I even work in, and two users that know nothing in agriculture just say it gets only 100 hits on google, so just delete it, it will just be deleted even though these people know nothing of the matter ?
That sounds weird.
*100 major edits and one month old registration. Whaou, that is huge. I reflected as well on the number of french editors that stay only about a month, but provide us 30 very good articles. I see not why they would not have the right to speak their mind. I understand quite well the need to avoid vandals voting, but really, is not the 100 edits a bit high ? Dunno, a user is allowed to give his opinion on a very important communication matter such a logo, but is - by definition, as long as he has not written enough - not trusted to help cleaning the place ?
Also weird
One reason why true consensus doesn't really work in Wikipedia is that voters are not stakeholders, as in your example of American Friends Service Committee (AFSC). The ease of editing in Wikipedia means any passing joker can throw a pebble into the gears and jam the system.
That is not true. Everything can be reverted. Even what a sysop do. A passing joker can not *jam* the system
So true consensus works only in a membership which is filtered in some way, or voters are stakeholders in the result.
Probably true. But then, on votes for deletion, there is now a proposed procedure to filter the people who have the right to speak up, still true consensus is not the choice. 2/3 for filtered, trusted people is very low.
So in the revised voting procedures for VfD, we try
to >filter or distinguish stakeholders from ballot
stuffers -- valid voters must have existed for a
while >(days to weeks) and have made 100 article edits.
yup, but no true consensus afterwards nonetheless
This seems to be a reasonable enough of a requirement to make sure voters are stakeholders in Wikipedia's coherence. This isn't the first time, the Logo vote (gasp!) also stipulated voters have at least 10 edits to their name.
I disagree with 100 major edits being reasonable requirement.
I hope that this does not progress with only filtered people over 100 major edits having the right to vote for NPOV :-) Seriously
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/