[WikiEN-l] voting

[Ray Saintonge]

>
> From: Tony Sidaway <tonysidaway at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Voting and "!voting", what's the difference?
>
> On 8/28/09, Al Tally <majorly.wiki at googlemail.com> wrote:
>   
>> > Polling and voting is a good way to see what people think without having to
>> > wade through a mass of comments.
>>     
> If you can't be bothered to engage in discussion, I agree that voting
> or "!voting" is the way to go.
>   

That's a cop out!
> You can't build consensus by polling or "!polling".  You can't make a
> decision based on consensus if you can't be bothered to read.
>   

In that case no-one is accepting responsibility for the results.

Ec

> From: Emily Monroe <bluecaliocean at me.com
>> > A true consensus requires everyone to agree (or, at least, not  
>> > object).
>>     
> You're right.
>   

To a point, but you also need to make allowance for the person who only 
finds out about the issue after the discussion is over, and a decision 
made. If he significantly disagrees with the decision the consensus is 
not longer valid.

>> > That is why things like RFA work on "rough consensus", which  
>> > actually just means a vote.
>>     
> See, my vision of "rough consensus" is something like "If you  
> eliminate people who !vote without leaving any comment to debate upon,  
> and who hasn't participate in the debate elsewhere, or who do  
> something like WP:WHYNOT, WP:NOTNOW, or WP:I[DON'T]LIKEIT what do you  
> get?" I guess this would be a vote in a sense, albeit a very skewed one.
>
> Emily

I'm not about to spend time exploring what these shortcuts mean, though 
they sound very much like excuses for quashing discussion. Maybe the 
person did participate in the discussion elsewhere and elsewhen, but 
under a completely different heading and with completely contrary 
results. Eliminating people who vote without commenting is a problem 
too. They may agree or disagree with the main points and arguments that 
have already been made, but to comment would just add repetitious 
verbiage.  Counting the raw number of distinct arguments made for or 
against as votes isn't very reliable either because it assumes equal 
weight for each argument.

Ec

Ec