Thomas Corell wrote:
I hope we get an automatic voting next time, which don't show who's voting what. It will reduce possible influences. Nothing against publishing the result with names, but not during the voting process.
Oh, I think publishing the names as we go is a very good thing. I think possible influences are good. If people I respect are voting differently from me, it may give me pause. If people I don't respect are voting the same as me, it may give me pause.
Voting isn't supposed to be an alternative to open discussion and consensus building, but a methodology to formalize it.
I agree with Jimbo here, for the reasons I have already explained on Talk:Article count reform. Here's a copy:
Transparency works both ways -- it may encourage groupthink, but it also lets you use strong votes to express dissent with options you dislike that seem to be winning, esp. in a preferential system. In my experience, hiding votes sounds like a good idea at first, but works badly in practice because what is often snobbishly called groupthink is really valuable information that you don't want to do without once you lose it. Should I bother reading this option if all people I trust have rejected it? Should I maybe give this a closer look if people I don't trust have buried it in negative votes? I also find it funny that the argument "groupthink" should be used against open voting, whereas we try to strive for consensus without voting whenever possible, a process which is much more likely to encourage groupthink ("Gee, I don't want to stop the consensus!").
Secrecy is necessary for real world votes, but here we can afford some openness. It's the wiki way.
Regards,
Erik