[WikiEN-l] Mother Teresa article

[A Anthere]

> From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> 
> The Cunctator wrote:
> 
> >That is to say, in my opinion, the root causes for
> this current upset
> >lie in failures of the institution (Wikipedia
> policies and customs)
> >rather than the individuals--though the individuals
> should be able to
> >transcend the current failures of the institution
> by avoiding such
> >temptations as calling for NPOV votes.
> >
> I agree to the point that I almost feel ashamed for
> having participated 
> in some of those votes.  The development of voting
> processes seems to 
> lend support to the idea that voting is evil.  In
> the wake of a highly 
> complex process over the logo, the painful Votes for
> Deletion, and now 
> NPOV votes on an individual article it becomes clear
> that voting is a 
> technique for majorities to marginalize minority
> opinions.
> 
> I would say that there is a failure of institutional
> custom in the face 
> of institutional policy.  As a custom NPOV works
> very well; as a policy 
> it begins to cry for clear definitions that may in
> reality be unachievable.
> 
> I believe that there is wide consensus that NPOV is
> something very 
> positive.  That tends to break down when we try to
> define what that 
> means.  Trying to impose NPOV is a very POV
> activity.  NPOV is a natural 
> by-product of open-mindedness and fair-mindedness;
> it's not about 
> ensuring that critics and supporters of a particular
> POV have paragraphs 
> of equal size.  The latter only changes the search
> for NPOV into a 
> pissing match.
> 
> Ec

Someone wrote me offline, to ask me what I thought of
voting, because he noticed I rather rarely did, in
particular very rarely on vfd. He pointed out that
mail from Ec and TC to me.

I had not read it.
I recently aged up a lot on the english wikipedia, so
I am now 8 instead of 6, and isolated this mailing
list here, while I stayed younger in other places.

I think voting is generally bad. Really bad. I can see
an advantage in voting when it is to try to see better
where people stand, as a poll. But a binding vote is
something that imho should just not exist on
wikipedia.

For two reasons

1) When people vote, they inherently think
"democracy". They set percentage for acceptance or
reject. That implies we tolerate to set aside the view
of minorities.
Supposingly, we should work per consensus. I already
said my opinion about what consensus was a while ago.
As for me, it is not per majority, 51 % 75% 90%. I
consider consensus is 100%, given that in the 100%,
some do not care at all, some are not happy but can
live the decision, and some are satisfied. A 90%
satisfaction, leaving in utter madness and despair the
leftover minority of 10 miserable % is a bad choice
for and is not consensus. Everyone should make effort
to be consensual, but veto should be a "right" to me.

Believing that an article could be said "neutral" by
voting per majority upon it, is just something beyond
me. A poll to clarifies things, and perhaps put the
finger on the root points is absolutely ok, but a
binding vote, where the final state of the article is
chosen because 5 people agree when 1 disagree is just
non-sense. NPOV votes ! I think it is hard to believe
! NPOV comes from all of our inputs, all together,
about giving all opinions and trying to mix them so
well we can ALL be satisfied with the result. This
can't come from voting, each person isolated in his
little idea, just happy he finally was able to put in
name in front of a point. So bad ! So desctructive, so
limitative. So uncreative.

2) Voting has a very dangerous drawback, that I often
see on the fr wikipedia, less on en. It had become
classical at some point (less now) that each time a
point had to be discussed, someone set a page, and
divided it in three parts.
1st part : the problem was described in a couple of
lines
2nd part : a collection of choices was proposed by the
initiator, where each one could put his name
3rd part, a heading : discussion

Even before starting discussing a point, most of what
people could see what this vote area. With all mashed
options, just as if there were none others. The
initiator inconsciously manipulating people in
believing these were *the* options, and none else.
Then voted they did, put their names, and without a
comment, hit the button with the comment "my vote !".
So proud.

And gone they were, happy to have done what they were
asked to. Voted. How surprising that after a while,
when results were not showing consensus that
discussion was tough to get started !

A vote (be it a binding vote, or even a poll) should
never be proposed until sufficient discussion has
occurred, so that the various propositions and ideas
of people have erupted, even the wildest ones, which
could feed other people in having themselves other
wild or very bright ideas. That is what brainstorming
is ! If a vote, with the propositions is already
there, all prepared, the brightest enlightment just do
not come, that's all. Asking people to vote is just
the best way to risk not finding the best solution.
Just as shutting up people who have the crazy ideas is
just the way to risk that the problem does not
progress.

I prefer crazy suggestions to any vote.
Just as I would prefer that french people participate
to saying what rules they want to monitor blocking
process, instead of just signing their names and
saying "yes, I want blocking, but only with serious
procedure rules", and just go away waiting for others
to set these rules for them. I should even suggest
stupid rules just to promote reaction :-)

The last point is about votes for deletion.

I have on purpose, never looked at the discussions
over what changes some of you are suggesting to solve
that huge black point that is vfd on en.

Here is just what I do on fr.

I meet something bad, irrelevant, non interesting, I
boldly delete (I must admit, I very boldly delete
since deleted article can be restored easily). My
assumption : if someone is not happy, he will
complain. Then I can restore. Honestly, it did not
happen often.

When I think the content or the title is likely to
promote an interesting discussion (that is not often),
I list it.

In all other cases, I just blank it (usually move the
content in the discussion). I assume that an involved
author watches his article, so will notice the change
occurring. If he has a problem, he will say so in the
talk page or revert. If he was just a bugger, or is
not really interested in what he wrote (?), well, it
is gone (blanked). If nobody restores anything, well,
that was not very important.
Once in a while, I go to short pages, and I delete all
those with 0 bytes (I check discussion pages of
course, but usually, those who raised discussion were
already treated, hence not at 0 bytes anymore).
This way, I am sure not to forget any. I clean up the
place quickly and without pain. It could nearly be
automated, but I do not like the idea.

I consider this way much quicker and much cleaner than
vfd, which I reserve for limited cases where I am in
doubt. Our vfd is short. It's crude, but I think that
is just as effective than spending so much time voting
for articles to be kept or deleted. And somehow, just
as consensual.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/