I'm not saying that this is a bannable offense, but it certainly is quesitonable. PP seems to have singlehandedly removed another user's vote from [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/vote]].
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(...
Note, the edit comment read: "(should a user with only one edit really get a vote? )"
I would also like to point out that I've seen PP make some quality edits as well, so this message shouldn't be interpreted as unqualifiedly negative. Nevertheless, I felt that I ought to bring this to the attention of those on the list.
----- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
--- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com wrote:
I'm not saying that this is a bannable offense, but it certainly is quesitonable. PP seems to have singlehandedly removed another user's vote from [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/vote]].
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(...
Note, the edit comment read: "(should a user with only one edit really get a vote? )"
Well. Other perfectly well integrated editors have done similar things. Ie, considering the point of view of editors who had made a very small number of contributions had less weight than them. Imho, that makes sense. Also, he did not try to "cheat" and make the change with noone being aware of it, since he put a comment.
I think were more and more things be decided by votes (how sad), there is perhaps need to check whether there is no double voting.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
--- Anthere anthere6@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com wrote:
I'm not saying that this is a bannable offense,
but
it certainly is quesitonable. PP seems to have singlehandedly removed another user's vote from [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/vote]].
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(...
Note, the edit comment read: "(should a user with only one edit really get a vote? )"
Well. Other perfectly well integrated editors have done similar things. Ie, considering the point of view of editors who had made a very small number of contributions had less weight than them. Imho, that makes sense. Also, he did not try to "cheat" and make the change with noone being aware of it, since he put a comment.
I think were more and more things be decided by votes (how sad), there is perhaps need to check whether there is no double voting.
IMHO, software-bound voting could help in most cases. We shouldn't be facing the problem of people deleting other people's votes. There is probably a php/mysql script for it, and if not, we can just use an external voting system (many websites will let you set up a poll for free). -LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Anthere wrote:
Well. Other perfectly well integrated editors have done similar things. Ie, considering the point of view of editors who had made a very small number of contributions had less weight than them. Imho, that makes sense. Also, he did not try to "cheat" and make the change with noone being aware of it, since he put a comment.
I think were more and more things be decided by votes (how sad), there is perhaps need to check whether there is no double voting.
If we end up in a situation where votes make a difference, we shouldn't put ourselves in a position where double voting will have any significant effect. That's better than trying to devise schemes for frustrating the cheaters.
Where votes are taken they can only give us temporary solutions. New people who join after the vote should have the opportunity to have their influence mean something even if it means reversing a policy..
Ec
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthere wrote:
Well. Other perfectly well integrated editors have done similar things. Ie, considering the point of
view
of editors who had made a very small number of contributions had less weight than them. Imho, that makes sense. Also, he did not try to "cheat" and
make
the change with noone being aware of it, since he
put
a comment.
I think were more and more things be decided by
votes
(how sad), there is perhaps need to check whether there is no double voting.
If we end up in a situation where votes make a difference, we shouldn't put ourselves in a position where double voting will have any significant effect. That's better than trying to devise schemes for frustrating the cheaters.
Where votes are taken they can only give us temporary solutions. New people who join after the vote should have the opportunity to have their influence mean something even if it means reversing a policy..
Quite true. I agree. But hopefully, we won't change order of dates every 6 months :-)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Anthere wrote:
--- Ray Saintonge wrote:
If we end up in a situation where votes make a difference, we shouldn't put ourselves in a position where double voting will have any significant effect. That's better than trying to devise schemes for frustrating the cheaters.
Where votes are taken they can only give us temporary solutions. New people who join after the vote should have the opportunity to have their influence mean something even if it means reversing a policy..
Quite true. I agree. But hopefully, we won't change order of dates every 6 months :-)
Out of the 6 options given in that vote, when I last looked 4 of them had a significant number of votes. When that happens you want to be able to look for a solution that respects all of these views. A winner takes all approach just leaves people angry.
Ec
Dante Alighieri wrote in part:
[PP wrote in an edit summary:]
"(should a user with only one edit really get a vote? )"
An interesting commetn in light of this early PP edit:
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Toby_Bartels&diff=...
-- Toby
I wrote:
An interesting commetn in light of this early PP edit:
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Toby_Bartels&diff=...
Sorry, for the full flavour you also need:
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Toby_Bartels&diff=...
-- Toby