[Foundation-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikinews

[Anthere]

Erik Moeller a écrit:
> Anthere-
> 
>>Since voting for the new project wikinews is well
>>under way... I would like to mention 2 things.
> 
> 
>>When Erik set the vote, he set the voting bar at 50%.
>>That means that if the number of approval is just over
>>the number of disapproval, the project will be
>>accepted (and obviously, it will be, since much more
>>than 50% of people are supportive).
> 
> 
> What matters is not just whether people support or oppose, but also to  
> which degree. As you say, in a simple majority vote, 51% of people could  
> say "Uh yeah, let's give this a try", and 49% "IF WE DO THIS, WE'RE ALL  
> DOOMED! THE SKY WILL FALL DOWN ON US! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!" Obviously, this  
> is not a very good basis to start a project on. So I think we should  
> experiment with voting systems which account for the degree of preference.

Agreed.

Currently it is not possible to express a degree of acceptance, and it 
is not either possible to agree with part of the proposal and oppose to 
another part.

Overall, either we shut down our objections and pronounce a contracted 
yes, or we pronounce an unsatisfying opposition.

This is frustrating.


> In general, however, as an innovative organization, I believe we should be  
> willing to try out new things if a majority is enthusiastic about them,  
> and if no significant flaws in the proposal have been pointed out. Those  
> who do not try new things do not learn new things. I fully accept the  
> possibility that Wikinews may be a failure. Even if it will be, it will  
> provide us with many valuable lessons - for the peer review process in  
> Wikipedia, for new projects which operate in a time-critical fashion, for  
> neutrality on current issues, and so forth. And if it succeeds, it will be  
> tremendous.

I think there are some risks we are not allowed to take, because their 
consequences will backfire on all projects.
We are not just making experiments.

> I also hold the notion that we can find consensus on any project  
> substantially different from the existing ones to be very noble, but very  
> unrealistic. On a project like the Wikimedia Commons, where its usefulness  
> is not in dispute by anyone - yes. But something like Wikiversity or  
> Wikifiction - no

Full consensus being an impossibility is NOT an argument for just 
proposing one way to do a project.

> The consensus principle is great for reasonably small groups of  
> contributors working on an article. It can even scale to some extent when  
> certain objections can be ruled out on the grounds of not being  
> "actionable", as they can be on [[en:Wikipedia:Featured article  
> candidates]].
> 
> As one example of consensus going awry, take my  
> [[en:Wikipedia:Quickpolls]] proposal. In this case, I refined the proposal  
> as best as I could to make everyone happy. The result was a lowest common  
> denominator idea which didn't have some of the safeguards in place that I  
> originally wanted. A consensus process with a large group of people, even  
> if it ever arrives at a conclusion, will *not* magically result in the  
> best possible solution. In some cases, it will result in the worst.

The failure of one solution worked along consensus making should not 
orient us in making further decisions without at least trying to seek 
consensus.

> While it is important to listen, it is also important to maintain the  
> integrity and the consistency of an idea. Therefore, even if future  
> project decisions should not use a simple majority rule, I strongly advise  
> against using a consensus rule.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Erik

I am glad to hear that any further projects or rules you will propose 
will not be voted on simple majority rule. I was not asking for more.