http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Removing_administrator_rights/Pr...
Read the proposal and discussion.
- d.
That is a strange straw poll. I would probably oppose it myself, since despite the infrequent furor there seems to be little need for it. The strange part is that a few people see no consensus, and so vote oppose (in the poll to determine consensus) even though they support the proposal. Does that strike anyone else as illogical?
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:56 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Removing_administrator_rights/Pr...
Read the proposal and discussion.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
That is a strange straw poll. I would probably oppose it myself, since despite the infrequent furor there seems to be little need for it. The strange part is that a few people see no consensus, and so vote oppose (in the poll to determine consensus) even though they support the proposal. Does that strike anyone else as illogical?
Not entirely. It is entirely reasonable to say "I don't support this proposal while there are outstanding objections that could be dealt with".
I'm not convinced that is what people are saying, but that would be a good reason to oppose. (Not that there aren't other reasons...)
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
That is a strange straw poll. I would probably oppose it myself, since despite the infrequent furor there seems to be little need for it. The strange part is that a few people see no consensus, and so vote oppose (in the poll to determine consensus) even though they support the proposal. Does that strike anyone else as illogical?
No, I see that as a perfectly reasonable position. It's certainly reasonable for people to think that it will be worse if this proposal passes without consensus than if it doesn't pass at all. They're saying "Look, I do support the proposal, but on wikipedia we work on consensus, and there's clearly not a consensus to support it. We should work together to find a solution that will be acceptable, so that if this passes, it will have legitimacy with the larger wikipedia community".
I see nothing wrong with this position, it's all about respect for the process and respect for the community.
--Oskar
2008/10/20 Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
That is a strange straw poll. I would probably oppose it myself, since despite the infrequent furor there seems to be little need for it. The strange part is that a few people see no consensus, and so vote oppose (in the poll to determine consensus) even though they support the proposal. Does that strike anyone else as illogical?
No, I see that as a perfectly reasonable position. It's certainly reasonable for people to think that it will be worse if this proposal passes without consensus than if it doesn't pass at all. They're saying "Look, I do support the proposal, but on wikipedia we work on consensus, and there's clearly not a consensus to support it. We should work together to find a solution that will be acceptable, so that if this passes, it will have legitimacy with the larger wikipedia community".
I see nothing wrong with this position, it's all about respect for the process and respect for the community.
I agree. The mistake was starting a straw poll (the wording suggests it's intended to be a final decision, rather than used to aid discussion as straw polls should be), people making their decision based on their perception of consensus is entirely appropriate.
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I agree. The mistake was starting a straw poll (the wording suggests it's intended to be a final decision, rather than used to aid discussion as straw polls should be), people making their decision based on their perception of consensus is entirely appropriate.
This is an excellent point -- the poll is worded to place "implement right now" against "reject right now".
Yet another poorly worded poll.
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 5:38 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I agree. The mistake was starting a straw poll (the wording suggests it's intended to be a final decision, rather than used to aid discussion as straw polls should be), people making their decision based on their perception of consensus is entirely appropriate.
Exactly. Straw polls can be wonderful tools when used correctly, to get an idea about where everyone stands. If you do hold a straw poll, and 95% of the people says that they fundamentally agree with a position, then you can go on with the process. But they shouldn't be like the deciding test whether to enact a policy or not.
--Oskar
2008/10/20 Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 5:38 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I agree. The mistake was starting a straw poll (the wording suggests it's intended to be a final decision, rather than used to aid discussion as straw polls should be), people making their decision based on their perception of consensus is entirely appropriate.
Exactly. Straw polls can be wonderful tools when used correctly, to get an idea about where everyone stands. If you do hold a straw poll, and 95% of the people says that they fundamentally agree with a position, then you can go on with the process. But they shouldn't be like the deciding test whether to enact a policy or not.
I find they work better the other way around - if 95% of people are against the proposal you can just stop there. If it's a more even split or there is general support then you can have a proper discussion and try and solve the problems people point out.
The point of the poll seems to be to determine what people think of the proposal. A poll for that purpose makes sense - lots of people have participated in the discussion, on various subtopics and with concerns that may or may not have been addressed.
What doesn't make sense is a poll to determine the consensus view of whether or not consensus has been reached. You're using an exact metric to measure a nebulous phenomena. Someone made a comparison to voting for Obama or McCain based on who you think is most likely to win, but I think an even more apt comparison can be made to RfA. It's like having a long discussion about an RfA candidate (c.f. Ironholds) and then asking voters "So, did we agree in that discussion or not?"
Either way, people are clearly voting in answer to different questions. Folks who set up straw polls really need to be more careful.
Nathan
2008/10/20 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
The point of the poll seems to be to determine what people think of the proposal. A poll for that purpose makes sense - lots of people have participated in the discussion, on various subtopics and with concerns that may or may not have been addressed.
Some people have responded as if it's a poll on what people think of the proposal, others has responded as if it's a poll of whether or not the proposal should be implemented right now (since that's what it actually says), those are very different questions. The former is a suitable question for a poll, the latter is not.
What doesn't make sense is a poll to determine the consensus view of whether or not consensus has been reached. You're using an exact metric to measure a nebulous phenomena. Someone made a comparison to voting for Obama or McCain based on who you think is most likely to win, but I think an even more apt comparison can be made to RfA. It's like having a long discussion about an RfA candidate (c.f. Ironholds) and then asking voters "So, did we agree in that discussion or not?"
Indeed. If there is a true consensus then it will be completely obvious that that is the case since there will be no-one objecting. The problem is that we don't usually go by consensus for big policy decisions because too many people are involved for a true consensus to ever form (half a dozen people editing a given article can discuss an issue, someone can implement what they think the conclusion way and then if no-one reverts you know you have a consensus and everyone is happy, the same does not apply to 100 people debating intricate matters of policy). We usually go by "rough consensus" which we don't really have a definition of, which makes determining whether it exists or not extremely difficult.
Either way, people are clearly voting in answer to different questions. Folks who set up straw polls really need to be more careful.
Very true.
On 10/20/08, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
That is a strange straw poll. I would probably oppose it myself, since despite the infrequent furor there seems to be little need for it. The strange part is that a few people see no consensus, and so vote oppose (in the poll to determine consensus) even though they support the proposal. Does that strike anyone else as illogical?
Yes.
This reminds me of some rather delusional RFA comments I've seen, to the effect of "bureaucrat, if the percentage is close enough that I alone would change the outcome, please count my vote as the opposite of what I wrote".
(and just what kind of genetically engineered scottish sheep vote is that?)
People who want to take the winning side shouldn't play. People who don't know what they want don't deserve it. People who assume they are wrong because the majority says they are wrong are... um... wrong. People who are offended by this should get over themselves.
—C.W.
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 3:56 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Removing_administrator_rights/Pr...
Read the proposal and discussion.
I don't get what's silly about it. Misguided to believe that anything will change, perhaps, but not silly.