I personally support abolishing support for subpages in the software. But some people (GWO, AV) seem to disagree. So I have a proposal: if there is a lack of consensus on whether or not we should get rid of subpages, why not have a vote on it? I have noticed that nupedia-l has held votes on stuff to do with Nupedia (although since I've never been involved in that list, just had a quick peek at the archives, I don't know the details of how they operate...)
We could simply appoint someone as returning officer (hereafter RO) (I think LMS acted as RO for nupedia-l; if he wants to he could do it for this as well; otherwise I'd be willing to do it, or anyone else who wishes to step forward can). We agree on precisely what the question is, i.e. "the support for subpages that exists in the current Wikipedia software shall not be implemented in the new Wikipedia software", and then everyone emails their vote (yes or no; I think we should try to avoid maybes or "its more complicated than that" votes) to the RO. The RO then tabulates the votes and posts the result to the mailing list. (I'd also recommend the RO posting who voted each way -- that way we can ensure against fraud.)
We could have the vote on Wikipedia itself, the only problem there is that fraud would be far too easy. Doing it by email is safer. But we still should notify the election and the result on Wikipedia itself, for the sake of Wikipedians who don't participate in this mailing list.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Find a job, post your resume. http://careers.yahoo.com
I'm not opposed to this, except that I think it would be unfortunate if we got into a mode of voting on things, rather than working to near-unanimous consensus wherever possible.
Sometimes there will be really irreconcilable difference of opinion, and then I would say that a vote isn't a bad idea, but of course subject to the caveat that a vote would only be advisory. For example, I couldn't respect a vote to abandon free licensing, or a vote to turn Wikipedia into a anti-copyright-protest site, etc.
But usually, differences of opinion will not be irreconcilable. A modified proposal might satisfy everyone.
For now, I propose that we respect Larry's decision to do away subpages in the new software, and that we test the new software on meta.wikipedia.com, which will be the newly appointed place for policy discussions and general commentary. (/Talk still belongs on the main site, of course.)
If we use that for a month or so, we'll all probably have a different perspective, grounded in experience rather than speculation, of at least some of the aspets of no-sub-pages.
I'm betting that consensus will grow out of that.
I agree with this...
Larry
On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I'm not opposed to this, except that I think it would be unfortunate if we got into a mode of voting on things, rather than working to near-unanimous consensus wherever possible.
Sometimes there will be really irreconcilable difference of opinion, and then I would say that a vote isn't a bad idea, but of course subject to the caveat that a vote would only be advisory. For example, I couldn't respect a vote to abandon free licensing, or a vote to turn Wikipedia into a anti-copyright-protest site, etc.
But usually, differences of opinion will not be irreconcilable. A modified proposal might satisfy everyone.
For now, I propose that we respect Larry's decision to do away subpages in the new software, and that we test the new software on meta.wikipedia.com, which will be the newly appointed place for policy discussions and general commentary. (/Talk still belongs on the main site, of course.)
If we use that for a month or so, we'll all probably have a different perspective, grounded in experience rather than speculation, of at least some of the aspets of no-sub-pages.
I'm betting that consensus will grow out of that.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org