Erik wrote:
Wikipedia doesn't need any warning labels. What it does need is a decision making process.
I've been asking all week for one -- a decision-making process, that is.
Ed Poor
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Erik wrote:
Wikipedia doesn't need any warning labels. What it does need is a decision making process.
I've been asking all week for one -- a decision-making process, that is.
Well, the obvoius would be "proposal - discussion - decision", with decision by voting. Proposals are accepted until one week after the "call for proposals", discussion ends if the number of votes has reached a certain limit (say, 10 or 20), or one week after all proposals have been submitted.
But, that would be too simple, and would prevent discussing every topic to a point where nothing will be done at all. It would also prevent The Honored Cunctator from stopping any development by being the first, last, and only unconvinced resistance fighter ;-)
So, disregard the proposal above as a dream from someone who prefers to get things done...
Magnus
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 03:33:39PM +0100, Magnus Manske wrote:
Well, the obvoius would be "proposal - discussion - decision", with decision by voting.
A proposal/amendment process works quite well IME. A proposal is made, for example;
"That pornographic images should be banned from wikipedia articles"
Amendments are then proposed, using commands such as "insert", "delete", "replace". for example;
Amendment 1 - After "should", insert "not"
Amendment 2 - Before "pornographic", insert "particularly obscene"
Each person then votes for the motion as proposed, or an amendment.
Hi,
I would find it deeply regrettable if we would not use the full power of wikis for a voting process. What works on article pages works just as well on proposals. The only functionality that needs to be added to Wikipedia is a poll system, possibly within its own namespace, and a respective "Recent polls" list.
I have proposed a more detailed scheme here: http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-November/007335.html
(URL needs to be pasted together if broken in the middle)
Regards,
Erik
Magnus Manske wrote:
Well, the obvious [decision-making process] would be "proposal - discussion - decision", with decision by voting. Proposals are accepted until one week after the "call for proposals", discussion ends if the number of votes has reached a certain limit (say, 10 or 20), or one week after all proposals have been submitted.
I don't see what's so "obvious" about this: one week, 10 or 20? How about allowing amendments? Shall we use Robert's Rules of Order?
But, that would be too simple, and would prevent discussing every topic to a point where nothing will be done at all. It would also prevent The Honored Cunctator from stopping any development by being the first, last, and only unconvinced resistance fighter ;-)
If we require only consenus, the a sole resister can't stop us. While Cunc is surely unique in the number of his dissents, he's usually not close to the only dissenter in any given case (counting only those cases where we never reach a consensus).
-- Toby
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 10:27:25AM -0800, Toby Bartels wrote:
How about allowing amendments? Shall we use Robert's Rules of Order?
Robert's Rules are really designed for a situation where everyone is in the same room (and trying to all talk at once). The problems on a wiki or a mailing list are different.
In particular, Robert's Rules rely heavily on having a single chair, which would surely cause difficulty here.
Also, I don't think the method of having a single motion which gets 'voted into shape' by amendments, before the final form is voted on, would be the best for us (if we decide we want to use voting at all).
-M-
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org