SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
User voting, whether by poll or by discussion until one side stops discussing (aka, into the ground), is original research. So, yes, consensus applied this way should die. I guess the sources in this case, namely the actual names of the state highways plus the state name, is just too, hmmm, verifiable by reputable and reliable sources like the states, news sources that report traffic accidents, and both published paper and Internet maps.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.net/index.php?title=User:Pro-Lick
--spam may follow-- --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail.
On 9/1/06, Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
User voting, whether by poll or by discussion until one side stops discussing (aka, into the ground), is original research. So, yes, consensus applied this way should die.
Perhaps consensus polling should be tried instead.
http://icannwiki.org/Consensus_Polling
Angela.
On 9/1/06, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/1/06, Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
User voting, whether by poll or by discussion until one side stops discussing (aka, into the ground), is original research. So, yes, consensus applied this way should die.
Perhaps consensus polling should be tried instead.
Perhaps we should stop calling it consensus in those places where there is no desire to find a solution everyone can agree upon.
Anthony
On 9/1/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/1/06, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps consensus polling should be tried instead.
Perhaps we should stop calling it consensus in those places where there is no desire to find a solution everyone can agree upon.
The phrase that's always used is "rough consensus", a recognition of the fact that it may well be impossible to please everyone, or at least highly impractical.
Consensus polling however has seemed to me like an excellent idea, since I heard about it from Angela a while ago. It helps to give some structure to consensus finding, without being as rigid or as blunt as a poll, and is very flexible.
I think it would have great potential on the projects and would be very interested in helping anyone who wants to try it out.
On 9/1/06, Angela wrote:
On 9/1/06, Cheney Shill wrote:
User voting, whether by poll or by discussion until one side stops discussing (aka, into the ground), is original research. So, yes, consensus applied this way should die.
Perhaps consensus polling should be tried instead.
Perhaps we should stop calling it consensus in those places where there is no desire to find a solution everyone can agree upon.
The main problem is that it is still original research. That's fine for a group of experts deciding whether to call Pluto a planet, call it something else, or to simply describe it without any name. In terms of the encyclopedia, it leaves the decision to the editors, not the sources.
I do like the Yes/Not Yet concept. I wish that a definitive yes/not yet threshold would be defined in determining whether something is sourced (and therefore can be included in the article) or not yet adequately sourced (and therefore left out).
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.net/index.php?title=User:Pro-Lick
--spam may follow-- --------------------------------- Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com
But what did you intend as a definitive threshold? To ensure accuracy for any important decision it would have to be around 90%. Surely if one person raises a valuable point, and one that is worth voting 'not yet' for, at least 10% will follow. But 90% will help reduce the effect of mild sockpuppet use etc. Then again, if we allow experienced users to strike votes, we should be going for 95%...
On 9/3/06, Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
On 9/1/06, Angela wrote:
On 9/1/06, Cheney Shill wrote:
User voting, whether by poll or by discussion until one side stops discussing (aka, into the ground), is original research. So, yes, consensus applied this way should die.
Perhaps consensus polling should be tried instead.
Perhaps we should stop calling it consensus in those places where there is no desire to find a solution everyone can agree upon.
The main problem is that it is still original research. That's fine for a group of experts deciding whether to call Pluto a planet, call it something else, or to simply describe it without any name. In terms of the encyclopedia, it leaves the decision to the editors, not the sources.
I do like the Yes/Not Yet concept. I wish that a definitive yes/not yet threshold would be defined in determining whether something is sourced (and therefore can be included in the article) or not yet adequately sourced (and therefore left out).
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.net/index.php?title=User:Pro-Lick
--spam may follow--
Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9/3/06, Akash Mehta draicone@gmail.com wrote:
But what did you intend as a definitive threshold? To ensure accuracy for any important decision it would have to be around 90%. Surely if one person raises a valuable point, and one that is worth voting 'not yet' for, at least 10% will follow. But 90% will help reduce the effect of mild sockpuppet use etc. Then again, if we allow experienced users to strike votes, we should be going for 95%...
The person who proposes the consensus poll sets the threshold in the static contract. If the threshold is set too low, then people will vote "not yet" and the contract can then be withdrawn and the person can then try again with a higher threshold. It's a little awkward to change what's in the static contract, but in practice people will probably come to realise that a certain percentage will work most of the time.
The beauty of the consensus poll model is that the voting choices are "yes" and "not yet", in which case the person can propose changes to the action plan so they are happy (providing that standards of behaviour are maintained so that people work constructively in editing the plan).
So the substance of the proposal is always reacting to what people actually want to achieve. If 10% of people aren't happy, then the proposal is continuously tweaked until enough people are happy.
(Really, tweaking continues until enough people are happy to satusfy the cloture threshold, at which point the proposal is locked, and the final consensus is judged a set time after this point.)
The "definitive threshold" suggestion was meant specifically for counting sources, not to editor voting. Editor voting at an article level is original research.
It's best viewed as setting a 3RR threshold to content sources. If the threshold isn't met, then it's simply up to the users that want the change to find additional repubtable/reliable sources, not to re-argue endlessly or to find more puppets to vote for their cause.
So whether or not there is a really good point is left to the external sources, not to a group of editors of unkown expertise.
Because the threshold would be preset, there would be no arguing over whether or not x% represents consensus every time. We would count up the reputable/reliable sources for any proposed change to see if the threshold is reached. If reached, then change.
To put it another way, we, or more likely Jimbo and higher-level admins or the same group that arrived at 3RR, would define a set level at which to decide whether there is a consensus of sources for any given article. From there, that threshold would be used like 3RR for any change to any article. If the source level is reached, that change would be made. No voting. Just counting the sources.
I think this would take care of the ongoing libel issue too. You really don't have to create yet another policy. If 90%, or 80%, of verifiable sources say somebody said "macaca", then the libel is with the sources, not somebody reporting what the sources are saying, which is the somebody Wikipedia is supposed to be. You may, however, still need some monitoring mechanism, other than the supposed efficiency of the grand "Wiki way".
Akash Mehta draicone@gmail.com wrote:
But what did you intend as a definitive threshold? To ensure accuracy for any important decision it would have to be around 90%. Surely if one person raises a valuable point, and one that is worth voting 'not yet' for, at least 10% will follow. But 90% will help reduce the effect of mild sockpuppet use etc. Then again, if we allow experienced users to strike votes, we should be going for 95%...
On 9/3/06, Cheney Shill wrote:
On 9/1/06, Angela wrote:
On 9/1/06, Cheney Shill wrote:
User voting, whether by poll or by discussion until one side stops discussing (aka, into the ground), is original research. So, yes, consensus applied this way should die.
Perhaps consensus polling should be tried instead.
Perhaps we should stop calling it consensus in those places where there is no desire to find a solution everyone can agree upon.
The main problem is that it is still original research. That's fine for a group of experts deciding whether to call Pluto a planet, call it something else, or to simply describe it without any name. In terms of the encyclopedia, it leaves the decision to the editors, not the sources.
I do like the Yes/Not Yet concept. I wish that a definitive yes/not yet threshold would be defined in determining whether something is sourced (and therefore can be included in the article) or not yet adequately sourced (and therefore left out).
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.net/index.php?title=User:Pro-Lick
--spam may follow-- --------------------------------- How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengers low PC-to-Phone call rates.
On 9/1/06, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
Consensus is dead, has been for a long time. We're living in a majoritarian (or supermajoritarian) system, that just calls itself consensus - cf. Weekend at Bernie's
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 02:15:47 -0400, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
Am I the only one to find it ironic that SPUI is complaining about consensus? When was the last time you accepted anybody's opinion but your own?
Guy (JzG)