Shortly after I thought we'd finally killed off the habit of excessive polling, an apologetic, humorous and evidently quite common meme appeared on Wikipedia: the "!vote".
Unlike the "vote", the "!vote" seems to afford the author the latitude to falsely claim that he is opposed to polls and is not in fact engaged in a polling exercise.
In short, a "!vote" is simply a way of recasting polls so as to avoid calling them polls. "!Polls?"
The reason we avoid polls? Because they lead to vote-counting (counting "!votes" is the same thing even if we're supposed to pretend that a "!vote! is not the same as a vote). Because they lead to taking sides. Because they destroy efforts at compromise. Because in the worst case they encourage people to create a separate section for people who agree with one another to congregate their comments, where there is no danger of their comments being mistaken for attempts to reach consensus by discussion.
I'm seeing ban discussions on [[WP:AN]] being turned into polls, and attempts to undo this are resisted by people who apparently believe they're following Wikipedia policy.
It's 2009. Why is this happening?
I'm seeing ban discussions on [[WP:AN]] being turned into polls, and attempts to undo this are resisted by people who apparently believe they're following Wikipedia policy.
I tend to avoid [[WP:AN]]--I don't need moar dramah--but if this is true, then it shouldn't be happening.
Emily On Aug 27, 2009, at 7:39 PM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
Shortly after I thought we'd finally killed off the habit of excessive polling, an apologetic, humorous and evidently quite common meme appeared on Wikipedia: the "!vote".
Unlike the "vote", the "!vote" seems to afford the author the latitude to falsely claim that he is opposed to polls and is not in fact engaged in a polling exercise.
In short, a "!vote" is simply a way of recasting polls so as to avoid calling them polls. "!Polls?"
The reason we avoid polls? Because they lead to vote-counting (counting "!votes" is the same thing even if we're supposed to pretend that a "!vote! is not the same as a vote). Because they lead to taking sides. Because they destroy efforts at compromise. Because in the worst case they encourage people to create a separate section for people who agree with one another to congregate their comments, where there is no danger of their comments being mistaken for attempts to reach consensus by discussion.
I'm seeing ban discussions on [[WP:AN]] being turned into polls, and attempts to undo this are resisted by people who apparently believe they're following Wikipedia policy.
It's 2009. Why is this happening?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/8/28 Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com:
It's 2009. Why is this happening?
Because voting is the only practical way of a large number of people making a decision. The policies date back to when we were a small project and could actually discuss things and reach a consensus, that just isn't the case any more for anything but the smallest of issues (like content disputes on individual articles, they still work by consensus sometimes). In order to make reality fit policy we add a "!". It's a kind of legal fiction, I suppose.
Tony Sidawaytonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Shortly after I thought we'd finally killed off the habit of excessive polling, an apologetic, humorous and evidently quite common meme appeared on Wikipedia: the "!vote".
Unlike the "vote", the "!vote" seems to afford the author the latitude to falsely claim that he is opposed to polls and is not in fact engaged in a polling exercise.
Seems to me the !vote is a way of recognising the fact that the process is very much like a poll, without actually submitting to it. If you vote and lose, you have to accept the outcome. If you !vote and lose, you are entitled to demand a determination of consensus.
Part of me thinks the !vote thing is retarded, but part of me sees some sense in it. It's not a real vote, but it's not genuine consensus building either.
Steve
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 1:39 AM, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Shortly after I thought we'd finally killed off the habit of excessive polling, an apologetic, humorous and evidently quite common meme appeared on Wikipedia: the "!vote".
Unlike the "vote", the "!vote" seems to afford the author the latitude to falsely claim that he is opposed to polls and is not in fact engaged in a polling exercise.
In short, a "!vote" is simply a way of recasting polls so as to avoid calling them polls. "!Polls?"
The reason we avoid polls? Because they lead to vote-counting (counting "!votes" is the same thing even if we're supposed to pretend that a "!vote! is not the same as a vote). Because they lead to taking sides. Because they destroy efforts at compromise. Because in the worst case they encourage people to create a separate section for people who agree with one another to congregate their comments, where there is no danger of their comments being mistaken for attempts to reach consensus by discussion.
I'm seeing ban discussions on [[WP:AN]] being turned into polls, and attempts to undo this are resisted by people who apparently believe they're following Wikipedia policy.
It's 2009. Why is this happening?
Polling and voting is a good way to see what people think without having to wade through a mass of comments.
On 8/28/09, Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
Polling and voting is a good way to see what people think without having to wade through a mass of comments.
If you can't be bothered to engage in discussion, I agree that voting or "!voting" is the way to go.
You can't build consensus by polling or "!polling". You can't make a decision based on consensus if you can't be bothered to read.
You can't build consensus by polling or "!polling". You can't make a decision based on consensus if you can't be bothered to read.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Emily On Aug 27, 2009, at 7:50 PM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 8/28/09, Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
Polling and voting is a good way to see what people think without having to wade through a mass of comments.
If you can't be bothered to engage in discussion, I agree that voting or "!voting" is the way to go.
You can't build consensus by polling or "!polling". You can't make a decision based on consensus if you can't be bothered to read.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/8/28 Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com:
On 8/28/09, Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
Polling and voting is a good way to see what people think without having to wade through a mass of comments.
If you can't be bothered to engage in discussion, I agree that voting or "!voting" is the way to go.
You can't build consensus by polling or "!polling". You can't make a decision based on consensus if you can't be bothered to read.
You can't make a decision based on consensus when there are dozens of interested parties, full stop. A true consensus requires everyone to agree (or, at least, not object). That just isn't going to happen for even vaguely controversial issues if there are dozens of people. That is why things like RFA work on "rough consensus", which actually just means a vote.
A true consensus requires everyone to agree (or, at least, not object).
You're right.
That is why things like RFA work on "rough consensus", which actually just means a vote.
See, my vision of "rough consensus" is something like "If you eliminate people who !vote without leaving any comment to debate upon, and who hasn't participate in the debate elsewhere, or who do something like WP:WHYNOT, WP:NOTNOW, or WP:I[DON'T]LIKEIT what do you get?" I guess this would be a vote in a sense, albeit a very skewed one.
Emily
On Aug 27, 2009, at 8:28 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/8/28 Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com:
On 8/28/09, Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
Polling and voting is a good way to see what people think without having to wade through a mass of comments.
If you can't be bothered to engage in discussion, I agree that voting or "!voting" is the way to go.
You can't build consensus by polling or "!polling". You can't make a decision based on consensus if you can't be bothered to read.
You can't make a decision based on consensus when there are dozens of interested parties, full stop. A true consensus requires everyone to agree (or, at least, not object). That just isn't going to happen for even vaguely controversial issues if there are dozens of people. That is why things like RFA work on "rough consensus", which actually just means a vote.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/8/28 Emily Monroe bluecaliocean@me.com:
A true consensus requires everyone to agree (or, at least, not object).
You're right.
That is why things like RFA work on "rough consensus", which actually just means a vote.
See, my vision of "rough consensus" is something like "If you eliminate people who !vote without leaving any comment to debate upon, and who hasn't participate in the debate elsewhere, or who do something like WP:WHYNOT, WP:NOTNOW, or WP:I[DON'T]LIKEIT what do you get?" I guess this would be a vote in a sense, albeit a very skewed one.
Sure, but that's not what the phrase is actually used to mean.
Sure, but that's not what the phrase is actually used to mean.
What does it mean then?
Emily On Aug 27, 2009, at 9:08 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/8/28 Emily Monroe bluecaliocean@me.com:
A true consensus requires everyone to agree (or, at least, not object).
You're right.
That is why things like RFA work on "rough consensus", which actually just means a vote.
See, my vision of "rough consensus" is something like "If you eliminate people who !vote without leaving any comment to debate upon, and who hasn't participate in the debate elsewhere, or who do something like WP:WHYNOT, WP:NOTNOW, or WP:I[DON'T]LIKEIT what do you get?" I guess this would be a vote in a sense, albeit a very skewed one.
Sure, but that's not what the phrase is actually used to mean.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/8/28 Emily Monroe bluecaliocean@me.com:
Sure, but that's not what the phrase is actually used to mean.
What does it mean then?
In the context of RFA? It means a vote with a required supermajority of 75% with some obviously invalid votes discounted and on very rare occasions (getting rarer each year) exceptional circumstances are factored in.