[Wikipedia-l] Vote on voting method for final round

[Guillaume Blanchard]

Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
> > I didn't read all post (translate is fastidious for me), but in
> > those I read I see words as "silly", "pushy French attitude" and
> > other not so friendly sentence. Hope it's just translation mistake
> > ;o).
>
> Well, I hope so, too.  I have not seen any such remarks, and I
> personally thought you were Japanese.  :-)

According to Anthere it was just friendly moquery, so it's forgiven.
I'm more and more japanese but still a smelly chesse adorer ;o)

> > On the other hand, I didn't read any proposition to make vote
> > process become more close to a consensus. For me, the vote method is
> > not the real problem (average method & Condorcet are not so
> > different in fact). Imho, the problem is a standard vote doesn't
> > offer any dynamic solution.
>
> Well, I share this concern, and indeed this is one of my main
> objections to voting processes in general.  As you may or may not
> know, I'm a longstanding skeptic of voting.
>
> Here's the basic problem with voting -- voting is selection among
> alternatives.  But often, rather than selecting from alternatives, we
> are better off being creative at addressing the concerns of everyone,
> of trying to combine options A and B to get C, which is preferred by
> almost everyone.
>
> HOWEVER, I also think that voting does have some benefits, and it does
> at least scale well.  The problem with consensus is simply that
> ultimately, it comes down to someone (me) saying what the consensus is
> -- and if I'm unfair or don't listen thoughtfully to everyone, then
> the entire process is a sham.
>
> Of course I'm perfect in every way, ha ha, but still I can see how
> people could be concerned about this.

It's why I think we need a system to be able to see at any moment the point
of view of each participant (have a place to debate and an other to give
current summarized opinion (just like a vote)) and why I think dynamic vote
may be a good solution.

> > I'm aware that is only a personal point of view but I expected to
> > ear some alternative solution instead of the eternal debate on the
> > best way of count vote. But perhaps I just miss those discussions.
>
> Maybe.  It's an important topic, and I think your point of view is
> basically correct, i.e. we should be concerned about how a move
> towards voting can give rise to dangerous divisions within the
> community that wouldn't appear if we all continue in a commitment to
> find solutions that are widely accepted.
>
> > I agree consensus become harder as we get bigger. But instead of
> > switch decision process to a standard vote method, we can perhaps
> > just create some rules to make consensus easier to achieve.
>
> I think that's a good idea.

We are now trying to create this kind of basic rules on the French
Wikipedia. I will let you know if those rules survive to a real decision
process ;o)

> And I also think that there need not be *one single* decision method
> for every decision that needs to be made.
>
> There are some decisions, like technical decisions, that need to be
> made by technical people, period.  A popular vote by nonprogrammers on
> whether to use ISAM tables or InnoDB tables would be silly.  A popular
> vote on what kind of hardware to buy, or where to locate servers,
> would be silly.  Those are primarily technical questions.
>
> There are some decisions that don't even have to be made all at once
> -- most editing decisions, for example, can stand to be left undecided
> until experimentation shows us the way.
>
> But sometimes there are decisions that are big, and that have to be
> made in a timely fashion, and have to be made in a transparent manner
> that takes into account as many views as possible, etc., and I think
> voting can be useful for that.

I agree. In fact I think majority vote can also be useful in few case
(essentially for quick decision). The most important is to use this method
only in case all participants agree to use it. For very subjective choice,
as colors for exemple, standard vote can be useful..

> > If I enter the debate it's just because I worried to see Oliezekat
> > spend all his time to try to found alternative proposition (he
> > really worked hard) and to be bother just because he didn't strictly
> > respect the saintly rules.  Imho, the wikipedians must to be more
> > flexible and patient; especially with those you have difficulty to
> > speak/understand English. Next time, a non-American organizer!?
>
> Sure, maybe next time we'll choose a European?  (This is a joke.  Erik
> is not American, he's German.)

I tought about not well represented country (China, India, or why not
Afghanistan). But I fact the more important is not the nationality but the
competence and the trust you have in him. I have nothing to say against
Erik, I think he do is best (even if I don't agree the decided rules). Sorry
for my silly remark.

> --Jimbo

Aoineko