Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Discuss, don't vote/Archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Early comments

Also, has wikipedia decided to change the process? Voting on content, or positions, is kinda different than voting on whether to merge or not. Some things do come down to a yea/nay. Move or don't move. Merge or not. Disambig page, or mentions at the top of the page.
I've also used voting as a way to clarify positions, and I've (nor other people I've seen) never felt bound by the positions put out. Many times I've seen voting break down into, "Yes, but..." And some great clarifications have taken place. I'm thinking about the voting on banning US House IP addresses from editting pages about themselves.
~ender 2006-03-26 19:59:PM MST:There has been a de facto shift toward voting, which is unfortunate but may not be preventable. This page should probably be updated to reflect this trend.

I think you are right that many votes generate useful discussions and deeper understanding -- but that is only insofar as they are not really votes, or insofar as the members choose to subvert the voting process. But when we go into a discussion expecting to vote rather than talk, or when a trial-balloon proposal is greeted with a chorus of automatic "Oppose" votes, real violence is done to the wikiprocess.
Idea: Saying "X is evil" is not really a very helpful guideline. Could this page be redefined as something like Wikipedia:Subvert voting, a how-to guide on facilitating thoughtful dialogue in the face of the "let's-vote-on-it" mentality? -- Visviva 12:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Mathematics of voting: all systems are broken.

  • Mathematics of voting: all systems are broken. see voting system.

I removed the above because it is false. A yes/no vote on a single question is not mathematically broken. I guess that the author of the statement was thinking of multicandidate elections and Arrow's impossibility theorem.--SmokeyJoe 04:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

When was this page authorized by consensus?

I looked at the history of the page. It seems that the page is a copy of an essay from Meta-Wiki. When was this page authorized by consensus? How can it be a guideline without any consensus? Bidabadi 19:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ballots are the devil's work?

This has got to be one of the oddest-titled policy-related pages I have seen. The title of this article, if taken seriously, is not suitable for a policy-related document (and if not to be taken seriously, is not suitable for a policy-related document). The article is also fundamentally self-contradictory, as verifying consensus requires some sort of majority vote for an option. It is a useful rule (expressed by Dale Carnegie, for one) that if you ever wish to state something in a negative way, attempt to turn it into a positive before you say it. Following this principle, I come up with the following statements: "Reasoned discussion is good" and "Consensus is good".

On reflection it might be useful to have a procedure for decision making which has two distinct phases. In the first stage, participants are prohibited from indicating their preferred option, but are allowed to state relevant facts and inferences and discuss them with each other. When discussion has died down the second phase, a vote on the alternatives, can take place. Elroch 13:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't this "Essay" violate "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" and "NPOV"?

I'm a little confused by this "essay" about polls and voting. Doesn't this very article violate some of the central tenants of Wikipedia? First, it's just a soapbox for people who don't like polls and/or voting on content. Second, it only presents one point of view--that polls/voting are satanic.

I've seen in many places that simply categorizing discussion into "yea" and "nea" camps helps editors come to a consensus... the neatness makes the discussion easy to follow instead of being a jumbled mess. I'm not saying that voting should be binding; I'm saying that it simply helps move a discussion forward and makes it easy to contribute.

I vote to remove this one-sided essay. (Just kidding). --Sixtrojans 02:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's articlespace is not a soap box, but the metapedia portions such as out userspaces, here, and the Vote for Deletion areas are under no such restriction. The concept of essays is that they are POV, but since they exist in order to provoke thought, it's all right. Essays are not encyclopedic material, they are opinions of certain users on how we should run the Wiki. (Additionally, you are quite capable of adding a dissenting opinion if you so desire.) Also, I think you misunderstand the point of the essay, which isn't that voting has no place whatsoever, it's that it is overused. The whole "evil" thing is a joke. --tjstrf 03:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Misunderstanding the word "vote"

According to my dictionary:

vote. (1)(a) A formal expression of preference for a candidate for office or for a proposed resolution of an issue. (b) A means by which such a preference is made known, such as a raised hand or a marked ballot.

Or in other words, many WP procedures (such as AfDs) are what is known as "votes", and the people who participate in them are what is known as "voters". There is an odd canard that floats around Wikipedia where people mutter the mantra "(Something) is not a vote", with an apparent ignorance of the meaning of the word "vote".

I suspect a lot of these editors have a particularly constricted experience with decision processes in the world, and were taught rather narrow civics classes (or just picked it up from poor newspaper writers). I think what they have in mind is something like the incorrect notion that "vote" means "decision by simple majority", or at least "decision by exact pre-specified super-majority (or plurality)". Obviously, not much on Wikipedia is those things. At the same time, an admin who claims not to count votes on an AfD or other procedural process is either being daft in misrepresenting what they do... or they're being something much worse than daft if they actually do not count the votes. Sure, votes should be contextualized in various ways: are they new editors? are they sockpuppets? do they make useful comments? is there a trend in the voting pattern? did outside events (such as page improvements) occur between one vote and another vote? But to claim innumeracy as some sort of inherent virtue is extremely harmful to process, to fairness, and to consensus.

In defense of this essay, however, it is not principally concerned with those procedures that need be votes. An AfD or an RfA really cannot ever be anything else. However, things like quick polls on article talk pages exist only at the discretion of the editors of those articles. A quick poll may be, and often is, a useful way to gauge sentiment about some editorial issue, but it need not occur; other mechanisms for discussion and agreement exist, notably simple threaded discussion. Inasmuch as this essay recommends that a quick poll should not the automatic, the default, nor the most definitive mechanism for reaching decisions and consensus, it is entirely right. Editors have an collection of tools to use in discussion, and polls are just one among many, and are only the right tool for some jobs. LotLE×talk 20:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to propose this for inclusion

The following statement was placed in this article to avoid NPOV and create balance. It was removed by LotLE, who feels that balanced here is not appropriate. I would appriciate commentary.

The Statement

Consensus method is seen by many as inherently unfair, as there is no proper adjudication of the issue at hand. After much (or little) discussion, one or more parties may simply declare "Now that we've discussed things, it is clear everyone agrees with me, we have consensus." Only in cases where two or more strong personalities exist within the group will this be challenged. Even if challenged, the result is usually the declarer or challenger being expunged from the group. This is Alpha Male politics at it's worst.
In it's original form, consensus method has some viablity as it requires that there is no consensus unless there are no objectors, hence the parlamentary term "Consent Agenda". If even one member of a group is opposed, consensus does not exist, and deliberations must continue. However, this version is rarely practiced.
Using voting and polls, the support among the group is clearly measured, and defined in a mathematical way. While politics, preference and bias may factor in voting, that is no less true in concensus method

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.152.161 (talk • contribs)

Support inclusion

Oppose inclusion

  1. LotLE×talk 19:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC). To my mind, this editorial statement is more-or-less diametrically opposite the sentiment advanced in the essay. Well, maybe not quite "diametric", but definitely a very different position. This type of material would be better fleshed out in another essay such as Wikipedia:Consensus is evil.
  2. Oppose as it has practically no bearing on the essay at hand. It's also wrong, but that's beside the point. --tjstrf 21:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose as the reasoning is insufficiently rigorous and the writing not tight enough. The sentiment itself validly has some place in the article as a minority opinion, I think. Herostratus 08:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

JA: I need more clarification of what exactly is being proposed here. Is it the inclusion of the quoted statement on the main page WP:VIE, or something more than that? Thanks, Jon Awbrey 13:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The quick poll is on the inclusion of the quoted statement in the essay. That's it. LotLE×talk 16:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Support and Oppose sections

Wikpedia Policy sates:

Responding to RfCs

Try not to be confrontational. Be friendly and keep calm. Specifically, do not create "disendorsement" sections on RfCs. If you disagree with something someone else has said, you may add your own separate statement discussing how you disagree. Do not create a "Users who do not agree with this summary" section, or the equivalent. This tends be a confrontational act and usually creates more heat than light. Mediate where possible - identify common ground, attempt to draw editors together rather than push them apart. If necessary, educate users by referring to the appropriate Wikipedia policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.152.161 (talk • contribs)

Guideline

This was common practice back when it was a page on META rather than EnWiki. It describes the common outcome of a common process, which by definition equates to consensus. Therefore it is a guideline. --Radiant! 16:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether we want to say that consensus is determined by discussion or by voting of established users, it is clear that consensus is not determined unilaterally. A claim by one editor that something is an accepted or common practice does not constitute consensus. In fact, there is precedent for the use of voting of established users to adopt policies. For instance, the arbitration policy was enacted as a result of the arbitration policy ratification vote. Since this is a contentious issue, it might be advisable to discuss the conversion of WP:VIE into a guideline before decreeing it to be so. John254 16:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You are, I hope, aware that that vote was two and a half years ago? Also, this guideline does not forbid voting, it strongly argues against it. This is accepted and common practice; for reference, you can watch the categories for proposals and guidelines. It seems to me that your argument boils down to "we have voted at some point in the past and therefore we may not recommend against it". --Radiant! 17:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we have voted on two major policies in the past -- see Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement as well. In any case, my argument is not "we have voted at some point in the past and therefore we may not recommend against it". My argument is that, given the fact that two major policies have been created as a result of votes, if we want to recommend against voting now, we should have a discussion about adopting WP:VIE as a guideline, rather than simply stating that WP:VIE has long been a common practice. Furthermore, a discussion to determine consensus to adopt a guideline would require participation by many editors, not merely two. John254 17:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

  • You are being overly bureaucratic over the issue. A statement that describes common practice is a de facto guideline; see WP:3P for how the process works, or as Kim Bruning. We have voted on some policies in the past, and more recently not voted on a larger number of policies. And WhatLinksHere for this guideline shows that it is heavily in use. So yes, it is consensual. --Radiant! 17:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Radiant that the non-bureaucratic nature of Wikipedia is at the heart of this. To say that something is a guideline is merely to describe its function on Wikipedia. Sticking the tag on it is merely a recognition of a de facto state of affairs. We don't need to hold a big discussion prior to sticking the tag on, we just say "this is what we do on Wikipedia so it's a guideline." There has to be a compelling reason not to put the tag on in such circumstances. --Tony Sidaway 17:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony at least has heard my opinion on de facto rules already: they shouldn't exist. By attempting to unilateraly declare something policy, you undercut the support in the process by the lack of openness. The "non-bureacratic nature" of Wikipedia is found in the openness of the processes it uses. Dictatorship is of course also non-bureacratic, but I don't believe that's what you meant by the nature of Wikipedia.

However, since this essay definitely does approach guideline status in its use, I support a consensus of this officially being made a guideline. --tjstrf 18:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose conversion of this essay into a guideline. A complete avoidance of votes to illustrate consensus leaves us without any clear evidence of what the consensus actually is. We are thus left with edit wars in which each opposing side claims -- and legitimately believes -- that their version of a page is the consensus version. The avoidance of votes on policy matters creates problems such as those exhibited on Wikipedia:Deny recognition, where there is an edit war over whether the page is actually a guideline or a proposal, whether there is a consensus for enacting the proposal as a guideline, etc. Due to this dispute, the page is now protected. There is even a dispute as to whether the status of the page is disputed! A vote of established users would be an excellent way to resolve the deadlock as to whether Wikipedia:Deny recognition is really a guideline. A classic objection to polls is the possibility of sockpuppetry -- however, by limiting voting to established users, almost all sockpuppetry can be prevented. If we declare that "voting is evil" as an official guideline, we will cause many edit wars and other disputes simply because nobody will really know what the consensus actually is. John254 18:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • See the definition of guidelines: Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Nobody here suggests a "complete avoidance of votes", soyour argument is a straw man. A vote would be an awful way to resolve WP:DENY, for the very reasons discussed on this page. >Radiant< 19:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed, enacting WP:VIE as a guideline wouldn't really produce "a complete avoidence of votes", it would produce an almost complete avoidence of votes. Which would create all of the problems that I previously described -- most issues that were deadlocked due to an inability to discern consensus still wouldn't be resolved by voting. John254 19:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
A vote doesn't solve that. It is quite valid that a majority vote is not be binding, regardless of whether it was ensured to be purely a vote of established users. It would still be claimed, validly, that a bad policy is still a bad policy; a vote wouldn't solve an edit war over that, only an agreement, which can only be produced by discussion. Your theory of sockpuppets is likewise novel, but the fact remains that while it is trivially simple to discount obvious sockpuppets, there are numerous supposedly established users that are in fact sockpuppets; similarly, any host of tendentious article editors or others with an agenda on this openly accessible and quite popular encyclopedia can easily game the vote. Even if you were to somehow magically ensure that all voters had the fundamental principles of Wikipedia at heart, you cannot ensure that they know an issue well enough or have read the discussion about it to make an informed vote. I won't continue now with the several other problems with voting. The only way to make valid decisions is through reasons with reference to the principles of Wikipedia. Voting is a romantic but increasingly unworkable notion. —Centrx→talk • 20:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
We cannot always act on the basis of "an agreement, which can only be produced by discussion" because there are some issues upon which there will never be any agreement. Of course we attempt to "make valid decisions... through reasons with reference to the principles of Wikipedia", but this does not constitute a method of making decisions because there will disagreements how the principles of Wikipedia should be upheld in particular cases. If there were really "numerous supposedly established users that are in fact sockpuppets", then it would seem that the use of voting in requests for adminship would produce a dysfunctional process -- supposedly, RFA is not a vote, of course, but very rarely does the candidate become an administrator after receiving the support of less than 75% of the established editors commenting on their candidacy. Similarly, pages are rarely deleted if a majority of established editors endorse keeping them. We have employed vote-like mechanisms in these situations because there is really no other way to produce an outcome that will be widely regarded as correct. Of course, where Jimbo Wales has shown leadership on certain questions, his judgment must be respected. What I take issue with, however, is the "anti-voting thesis" that ordinary editors are somehow empowered to act against the wishes of most editors, to create policy that most editors do not want, and to delete pages that most editors want to keep, based on the claim that the principles of Wikipedia are somehow being advanced. Since we disagree on how to apply the principles, the "anti-voting thesis" inevitably leads to anarchy, with every editor edit warring for the version of the page that they favor, and every administrator wheel warring over page deletions based on their personal views of these pages' merits. Editors or administrators who wish to do something that most editors won't like have three avenues of appeal: to Jimbo Wales, to Danny, and to the arbitration committee. Wikipedia has, and needs, leaders, who are free to act against the majority if necessary. However, we cannot endure a situation where all editors proclaim themselves to be leaders in their own right. John254 21:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Appeal to Danny? Dude, where did that come from? Kelly Martin (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • What you have written here is a clear essay against the Ignore All Rules. The point of VIE is the exact opposite: if you vote, whatever the threshold is, one party loses. Discussion, on the other hand, makes people draw up a meaningful compromise, which means that everybody wins. And that's why one should not vote. >Radiant< 21:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Or, even worse, because both parties were too busy pushing and rallying votes, they didn't discuss different possibilities and the reasons for them, so everyone loses. —Centrx→talk • 21:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I do not see Wikipedia:Ignore all rules as a means by which ordinary editors may act against the will of the majority. Instead, WP:IAR simply accounts for the fact that the rules are necessarily written in broad and sweeping language, and cannot possibly anticipate every situation. Thus, there are some occasions upon which it is a good idea to ignore the text of the rules in order to act in the best interests of Wikipedia -- when it is apparent that ignoring the rules in question would be widely regarded as the correct action to take under the circumstances (no actual voting is necessary, but what is known about the opinions of most Wikipedia editors must be respected). The claim that

    Discussion, on the other hand, makes people draw up a meaningful compromise, which means that everybody wins.

    is an attractive theory; however, many practical applications of Wikipedia:Voting is evil, such as the speedy deletion of the Counter-Vandalism Unit even though most established editors in the second MFD nomination supported keeping it, mean that most people lose. John254 22:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • If you are under the impression that MFD is a vote, you are sorely mistaken. >Radiant< 22:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I also Oppose per John254 Hello32020 22:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

I think we have some misconceptions to address here. First, no amount of arguing here will make this page not a guideline (or policy or whatever): it is already generally agreed upon and in practice, and, most importantly, very sensible. The second misconception seems to be that voting and process are the same; this is very wrong. None of the various XfD processes, or RfA, RfM, etc., or even policy creation, while they are processes, are voting processes. In fact, none of our valuable processes are voting at all, for some very good, agreed-upon reasons, which can be conveniently found at WP:VIE, and none of them are intended to be by the community. WP:DENY and CVU are red herrings; if we accept that they were out-of-process, that is a far cry from accepting that VIE is flawed or without support. The speedy deletion of any page cannot reasonably be an application of VIE. The concept applies only to the decision-making process. It goes like this: "How shall we decide?" "Well, not by voting on it, that's for sure." It doesn't suggest against the commuity's will but rather, that voting is not a valid way of determining such. (What you are referring to is a disputed application of ignore all rules.) This page should be marked as a guideline. Dmcdevit·t 23:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The CVU deletion is an application of Wikipedia:Voting is evil. The closing administrator in the second MFD nomination stated that "This is not a vote. Arguments do count" -- in other words, arguments for the deletion of the CVU, advanced by an indefinitely banned vandal, were more important than the opinions of most legitimate users. This is "voting is evil" at its worst. John254 23:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't a vote. The arguments did count. That's a fact, and anyone who disputes that clearly has no idea how decision making processes on Wikipedia work.--SB | T 23:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be glossing over the fact that there were numerous legitimate users arguing with reason for its deletion. Also, if it had been deleted by a straight majority vote versus strong reasons to keep it, that would not be a reason why voting is bad, just as its application to delete the CVU page, among other reasons, is not a reason why voting is good. —Centrx→talk • 03:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether "voting is evil" is a guideline or a policy, but it's clearly one or the other. I'm perfectly happy with it being labeled as a guideline. Or a policy. Or whatever. Doesn't really matter, since, well, voting is evil, no matter what template tag you stick on this page. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Clearly if one is vote-stacking and vote-canvassing (such as the gentleman above), voting is essential in order to win by numbers. How charming. Please stop. Mackensen (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is an accepted and common practice to post information about ongoing discussions on project pages in boldface type -- for example, see [1], as well as the many other postings about ongoing AFD discussions accessible from the page history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion. It does not appear that administrators have removed these postings, or that members of WikiProject Inclusion have been warned to refrain from such postings -- despite the fact that WikiProject Inclusion is explicitly partisan as to the preferred outcome of AFD discussions. Why, then, is information about ongoing discussions posted on Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit removed, and why am I warned that I must not continue to post it? John254 00:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
You're right, except that they're supposed to be related. The Counter-Vandalism Unit and Voting Is Evil have about as much to do with each other as a streetcar and a herd of cows. Look, you got caught vote canvassing fair and square because you thought, wrongly, that what was happening here had something to do with the CVU. It doesn't. It has plenty to with *fD, but the CVU isn't a deletion process. Mackensen (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
According to WP:SPAM,

Canvassing (also known as "internal spamming" and "cross-posting") is overtly soliciting the opinions of other Wikipedians on their talk pages, and it is controversial.

Since I didn't post this to many different users' talk pages, it doesn't constitute canvassing. My understanding of WP:SPAM is that whether the project page appears to be related to the matter in question is irrelevant -- the only thing that would be prohibited by the guideline is posting to a large number of project pages -- which I didn't do. I only posted this to one project's pages. However, WP:VIE is related to the CVU, since the principle was used to speedily delete the CVU on the basis of arguments posted by a prominent vandal. In any event, I would think that posting information on discussions to explicitly partisan projects, such as WikiProject Inclusion, would actually raise greater "canvassing" concerns, since it would appear to be an attempt to contact editors who are already known to have a particular viewpoint. John254 00:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Nice try, but no. A single precedent does not equate to accepted and common practice. Given the way Wikipedia works, you can claim precedent on just about anything up to and including causing a database lock by deleting the deletion system. That doesn't mean it's common practice, or even a good idea (and boldfaced campaigning for "votes" on something you misunderstood is not a good idea). Anyway, Wikipedia does not work by the letter of rules, but by the spirit. >Radiant< 14:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


Have we got rid of any guidelines in the last week? In no then standard opistiontion to adding more guidelines applies.Geni 23:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Errm, if I understand you right, that's a non sequitur.
Anyway, calling this a guideline will encourage people to jump ahead of the process to set any consensus we reach in stone when it is applicable. Generally we have discussions first, decide what to do then, and finally reach a point where we can be satisfied that most people would support it in a formal poll based on the understanding reached in previous discussions. The danger in making this a guideline is that it would remove the verification process. We need to know that when someone says "the final decision is X" that they aren't trying to pull the wool over our eyes. What we need to do is make a page about the recommended way to make decisions on proposals, (including content about WP:VIE and its counterpoint WP:VINE,) and then make that page a guideline.
Cover all the bases. Do it the Right Way. --DavidHOzAu 00:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
DavidH may have the best idea of all here. --tjstrf 00:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
You can verify that by actually reading the discussion. Also note that vote-counting must discount sockpuppets, which for you to verify would require checking it all as well. I don't know what you mean about jumping ahead of process; if, in six months it so happens that this page is not widely considered a guideline, then it could be changed in the same way. I do find it amusing, however, that if a vote were to be called on this matter, there would be an overwhelming majority to make this a guideline. —Centrx→talk • 00:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Discussions are far more subjective and open to interpetation than votes or even "votes", which is one of the few good arguments for using votes in place of the preferable consensus methods on exceptionally messy issues. After having to read 300 kb of discussion, no one can make an unbiased judgment on exactly what happened. (I too would vote for this being a guideline, though only weakly.) --tjstrf 00:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
That's not a reason to replace a judgement that could in some cases be biased with one that is based on how many people showed up that day without regard for the validity of their arguments for Wikipedia, or if they have any arguments or care about Wikipedia at all. The fact is, decisions will still not be made by voting but by reference to policies and principles and reasons, regardless of whether this page is labelled a policy or guideline; it will merely be confusing for new users. —Centrx→talk • 00:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, there's always the method where only "votes" with accompanying arguments "count", like AfD theoretically operates under. The basic point is that no single individual is really capable of neutral judgment of an argument, but they are of a vote. Basically, we need to have a guideline that is feasibly followable. --tjstrf 00:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Votes like "Keep. This is my favorite restaurant." are regularly discounted. It doesn't matter if someone is capable of neutrally judging a vote, the fact is that the vote is not neutral in the first place; a judgement of a vote is someone neutrally judging how many fans gave an utterly biased vote, or someone neutrally judging how many people never even read the nomination. —Centrx→talk • 00:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
And in a discussion, you actually have to judge the opinions of people, not just as to whether their opinion is entitled to inclusion in the total, but as to what their opinion is. Under a vote/discussion hybrid, you don't have to exegesize people's opinions for them, so the risk of the final decision being one person's eisegesis is much lower. --tjstrf 01:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
A person can quite clearly indicate their opinion in a discussion. That does not mean that it counts if their opinion is "Wikipedia is a 19th-century bicycle" or "cool" or even "..." nothing at all. —Centrx→talk • 03:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose as well. There are certain essays that carry a significant bit of weight on their own merits (WP:SNOW comes to mind). After having edited on the project for some time I've never gotten the impression that this essay has garnered a general consensus about it's potential to have "guideline" status. (→Netscott) 00:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it has. If you disagree, hold a vote on something, and see how many people complain about it (-: As well, m:Polls are evil has been edited by a large number of people, while the content of Wikipedia:Voting is not evil has been edited almost exclusively by User:Litefantastic, so it would seem to me that the former is far more likely to "have general acceptance amongst editors". BTW, this is not a vote. JYolkowski // talk 01:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The general consensus, or at least the general reality that I've seen is "voting is discouraged, but not evil". Which reminds me, if we are going to make this a guideline we should really change to name to something that doesn't make moral judgments. I recognize it's intended as a joke, but it's still a rather odd name. --tjstrf 01:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
How about Voting is pernicious. —Centrx→talk • 01:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
How about just Wikipedia:Voting? Short & sweet, and if there's anything good to be said about voting the title could accomodate that too. JYolkowski // talk 01:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, if I had hit "Show preview" I would have noticed that that's a bluelink before saving (-: Actually, a merge into what that redirects to might not be a bad idea. And if that page is a guideline, this sure should be. JYolkowski // talk 01:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, Wikipedia:Voting is a guideline already, and in fact appears to be quite stable with only 15 edits in the last 6 months. I'd be more in favor of creating an article to complement that instead of making WP:VIE or WP:VINE a contradicting guideline. Perhaps Wikipedia:Vote after discussion would be better? That's sort of what we are doing right now, isn't it? --DavidHOzAu 07:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
It's a guideline on how a proper straw poll is formed, not that straw polling is good. —Centrx→talk • 17:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
How about "Don't ever vote, no really we mean don't vote. And by the way did we say, we really mean it: don't vote." Sheesh! How difficult it is to get the message through. --Tony Sidaway 08:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick reply to our little discussion about finding a place to document the current process of confirming discussed consensus. The problem with the article title you suggested is that it bears little resemblance to the style of article we were just discussing, namely, an expanded version of Wikipedia:Voting that also documents Wikipedia:Consensus, both of which have been rather stable guidelines/policies. (If you want to suggest that as the new title for WP:VIE, you are welcome to try.) However, since you sound quite passionate about changing current practice, I suggest you dispute Wikipedia:Voting instead. --DavidHOzAu 11:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Can I put my vote in here for oppose? or is that already moot? hehe, either way i spose it ey? Fresheneesz 09:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I would have no objection to renaming the page, "Voting is evil" does sound a bit silly, the name "No voting" is probably better (and yes, as a guideline, it may have exceptions). This should not be merged with Wikipedia:Voting, which are instructions on how to make a meaningful vote. There is not really a contradiction - we do not vote over acceptance of things, but for instance if we are agreed that all country-related templates should have the same color, we can put up a vote to see if that color should be red, green, or purple. That's a different matter entirely. >Radiant< 14:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
You've cited precisely the sort of situation that I had in mind when I typed the rather lengthy reply on your talk page.
I agree that "Voting is evil" is too silly and informal to serve as the title of a guideline, but "No voting" isn't appropriate either (because it isn't true). Saying that there are "exceptions" is an understatement. (That's like saying that all people are female, with some exceptions.) I realize that you want to discourage inappropriate voting (as do I), but our goal should be to convey an accurate statement in the first place. (Polling can sometimes be helpful, but it also can be harmful and doesn't replace discussion or generate binding outcomes).
For reasons already noted, "polling" (already used throughout most of the page) is a more accurate term than "voting." I would suggest Wikipedia:Polling, but all of the good shortcuts are taken. So how about Wikipedia:Polling guideline (with Wikipedia:Polling and WP:PG as redirects)? —David Levy 17:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree, this page is not fit to be a guideline - and changing it into one would destroy its style as an essay. But making a guideline against voting would be either redundant or contradictory to WP:STRAW. This subject is already covered by guideline, it doesn't need more. Fresheneesz 20:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Will Wikipedia:Voting is evil become a guideline?

The conversion of Wikipedia:Voting is evil from an essay to a guideline is presently being discussed here. Note that a disregard for what most editors want, the principle underlying Wikipedia:Voting is evil, was used to justify the out-of-process speedy deletion of the Counter-Vandalism Unit against the wishes of most established editors commenting on the issue. John254 21:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What does this have to do with vandalism? —Centrx→talk • 22:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
It was used once to the detriment of the CVU, I believe. Otherwise, nothing. --tjstrf 23:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This has a great deal to do with vandalism -- first, altering my signed comments, so that they appear to state something that I never said [2] is considered to be talk page vandalism. Secondly, WP:VIE was used as a rationale for the speedy deletion of the Counter-Vandalism Unit in the second MFD nomination -- arguments offered by a banned vandal held more weight than the opinions of a majority of established users. John254 23:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome to restore your original talk page comment (why it was changed is beyond me) if you please, though not to restore the one on this project page. And that argument, though a valid argument for use in a discussion on WP:VIE, does not make this a relavent issue for posting on this page. --tjstrf 23:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No it wasn't. Not valuing voting has nothing whatsoever to do with doing anything speedily or anything at all related to IAR. If perhaps you meant that there being a delete or keep based on arguments rather than voting would be reason to post this here, that same argument would entail that anyone could post this notice on any article they were a fan of that had been at risk of being deleted. Please explain why this is not just campaigning on your part to get what you want—through the numbers analogous to a vote, by the way, there already was an empty vote by someone who was summoned from this page (the user's edit immediately after was to change his CVU box). —Centrx→talk • 00:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is quite clear that the speedy deletion of the Counter-Vandalism Unit on the basis of arguments advanced by an indefinitely banned vandal was heavily influenced by Wikipedia:Voting is evil -- the closing administrator in the second MFD nomination stated that "This is not a vote. Arguments do count". Perhaps WP:VIE needs Wikipedia:Not voting encourages trolling by indefinitely banned vandals as a counterpoint. John254 03:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
No, the speed of it had nothing to do with voting. You also didn't address whether—well apparently you didn't even read my first comment so I won't continue. —Centrx→talk • 03:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

May I please and politely request and suggest that utilizing the CVU for policy lobbying is a poor idea? Phil Sandifer 01:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It is an accepted and common practice to post information about ongoing discussions on project pages in boldface type -- for example, see [3], as well as the many other postings about ongoing AFD discussions accessible from the page history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion. It does not appear that administrators have removed these postings, or that members of WikiProject Inclusion have been warned to refrain from such postings -- despite the fact that WikiProject Inclusion is explicitly partisan as to the preferred outcome of AFD discussions. John254 03:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Nice try, but no. A single precedent does not equate to accepted and common practice. Given the way Wikipedia works, you can claim precedent on just about anything up to and including causing a database lock by deleting the deletion system. That doesn't mean it's common practice, or even a good idea (and boldfaced campaigning for "votes" on something you misunderstood is not a good idea). Anyway, Wikipedia does not work by the letter of rules, but by the spirit. >Radiant< 14:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm considerably less concerned about WikiProject Inclusion, specifically because it is quite honest about what it is and what its interests are. CVU acts in a manner that is, if not official, at least set up so as to be in the penumbra of the official. Phil Sandifer 14:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Phil stop it. You are just wasteing people's time. Go and do something useful like clearing CAT:CSD.Geni 15:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Done. Now can we talk about the matter at hand? Phil Sandifer 15:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Sure, just head over there and talk. As has been pointed out, this page has nothing to do with WP:VIE, so talking about it here really won't help. --tjstrf 15:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe the matter he is referring to is the use of this page as a sort of political constituency of friends for matters that have nothing to do with fighting vandalism, the ostensible purpose of this page. —Centrx→talk • 22:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
That would be an editor-specific issue. Again, talking here won't help. --tjstrf 22:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Once more about this page

Looking over the discussion above, I notice a lot of long-term editors that confirm that this is already a guideline (which is backed by the fact that this is heavily in use and has been so for several years). Setting aside an unfortunate misunderstanding, I notice the following objections: (1) that this must go through some official process before becoming a guideline - however, the reality is that such an official process does not exist on Wikipedia (but feel free to propose one if you want to); (2) objections to the name (which is admittedly tongue-in-cheek and I wouldn't object to renaming this page); (3) objections to the style (well, it's a wiki, you can edit the page to improve the style); and (4) that there are or should be exceptions to what this page says (which is okay since all guidelines tend to have exceptions, and {{guideline}} even says so).

In other words, there aren't really any objections to what this page says, only a few formal objections against changing the status tag on this page. As such, I'm going to to tag this page as {{guideline}} once more, in a hope that this will make it clearer to novice users that it's not such a good idea to e.g. vote on "merge" tags. And yes, Kim's tag is nice, but the very users that tend to vote on merging are the kind of user that tends to think pages are unimportant unless they're policy or guideline (can of worms, I know). My changing this tag won't change anything of how the wiki works, but it should make the way the wiki works clearer to new users. >Radiant< 23:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The claim that "a lot of long-term editors... confirm that this is already a guideline" seems suspiciously like, dare I say it, vote counting, which cannot possibly support the proposition that "voting is evil." For "voting is evil" to become a guideline, we must have some measure of consensus that does not in any way relate to the number of people who support it, since it would be self-contradictory to vote for "voting is evil" (although we might be able to vote against it). I claim that no such "non-quantitative" consensus exists for making "voting is evil" a guideline since substantive objections to this essay have not been adequately responded to. For instance, I argued extensively in the above discussion that an avoidance of votes on contentious issues leads to edit wars since we are left without an objective means of determining what the consensus actually is. Each party can simply interpret the discussion in a manner that favors their own version of the page, and act accordingly. DavidHOzAu objected to "voting is evil" on the grounds that polls are an essential element in confirming the existence of consensus:

Calling this a guideline will encourage people to jump ahead of the process to set any consensus we reach in stone when it is applicable. Generally we have discussions first, decide what to do then, and finally reach a point where we can be satisfied that most people would support it in a formal poll based on the understanding reached in previous discussions. The danger in making this a guideline is that it would remove the verification process. We need to know that when someone says "the final decision is X" that they aren't trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

Quite simply, the claim that "there aren't really any objections to what this page says" is not supported by the available evidence. With serious, substantial disputes as to the merits of making "voting is evil" a guideline, I claim that there is no consensus for this action -- or at least no consensus which may be elucidated by employing non-quantitative measures. If it seems tempting to employ a poll to resolve the deadlock, then perhaps voting isn't so evil after all. John254 23:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This essay itself states that

Establishing consensus requires expressing that opinion in terms other than a choice between discrete option and expanding the reasoning behind it, addressing the points that others have left, until all come to a mutually agreeable solution.

Since the above objections haven't been responded to, and there is no mutual agreement to make this essay a guideline, by this essay's own definition of consensus, there is no consensus to describe it as a guideline. Furthermore, despite the claim that

it is a guideline - 'guideline' decribes how it is actually being applied - if you want to change that, good luck

the guideline template itself clearly states that guidelines are prescriptive as well as descriptive:

This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It has general acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow.

Such a template should not be placed on an essay where there is no consensus to adopt it as a guideline. John254 14:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Consensus does not equate to unanimousness. If you want Wikipedia to change its ways and adopt a process for voting on proposals, by all means draft a propopsal for that and ask feedback. >Radiant< 16:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I see no consensus. There probably is consensus for the basic principles, but the page itself is written in the informal style of an essay. —David Levy 16:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Many guidelines are written in the "informal style of an essay". Feel free to reword, but as you yourself admit, there is consensus for the basic principles. >Radiant< 16:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
It is written in the informal style of an essay because it is an essay. (Yes, I know, I am always good at coming in with the obvious.) It is an essay that expands upon a guideline, and one that has existed in the culture since before it became such an issue to make a practical distinction between things that were simply kept in mind, guidelines, and "official policy". In my interpretation Wikipedia:Consensus is the primary force here, which is indeed tagged as a guideline; this is simply an expansion upon one particular aspect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I realize most "long-term editors" or whatever seem to love "voting is evil", but I am one who doesn't. I think we should vote on many things. Voting scales. Discussion doesn't (witness the trainwreck of RfA every time something outside a routine vote is used to decide the outcome). You really only have consensus if the most politically powerful person around at the time says you have consensus... that's what this whole discussion thing boils down to for me. Voting is much more fair.
But that's just me. Anyway, if this is policy, it seriously needs to be renamed... this has always seemed to be to be saying "Voting is evil, and people who like voting are evil too!" And that's the way it's invoked... when I say something about voting, the first thing people say is "But that's evil!". --W.marsh 17:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the new name is an improvement. Though I'd prefer the sentiment be expressed as "Discuss, don't just vote." --tjstrf 19:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a better name in some ways. However, a note of caution: discussion is also sometimes misused, and we probably don't want to further encourage the trend against boldness by seeing this bit of policy used as an excuse for foot-dragging, pettyfogging or filibustering. We've had many policy discussions that have devolved into metadiscussions about whether there is consensus, not for the policy, but for whether to place a certain tag on the policy. This really is a silly situation and we ought to be thinking ahead and working out how to thwart such obstacles to policy formation where de facto consensus obviously exists. --Tony Sidaway 19:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, discussion is what makes "de facto" policy gain the consensus it requires to become policy. It's not filibustering, and it's that continued attitude about discussion that makes people lean toward the straw poll model. You don't want to vote, but you don't want to discuss, either. There's something bizarre with that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Er, thanks for the move, but I think you meant Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote, heh. We should probably decide on a good permanent/semi-permanent name before moving it around all evening though, so I'm posting here in lieu of making another move. --W.marsh 19:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

W.marsh nailed it precisely; we need a better name. I will however go a step further and say that a move like this should really have been more thoroughly discussed beforehand. I think the title should not have a contraction in it. Although the old title should not have come across as denouncing votes as evil, the move has not improved the situation because it can still gives newcomers the wrong idea. Perhaps renaming the page to Wikipedia:Calling for an early vote is evil would be more profitable because that is the only situation when a vote is evil. (Rationale: Surveys that result in no consensus simply are not discussed enough beforehand, no matter how big of an issue it is. For example, if Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance had been discussed a little bit more, Jimbo's statement about verifiability over fame would been part of the discussion and thus short-circuited the need for a vote; the proposal would have been rejected earlier. Nobody wins when due process is rushed.)
In regards to a comment made by Tony Sidaway, I must warn everyone here that advocating the use of "obvious de facto consensus" is inherently dangerous, especially on policy and guideline pages. That practice may have a limited place in article space, but never in Wikipedia space where any change affects every editor. I advise everyone here to be careful what you wish for because if voting can be misused, so can discussion. It doesn't matter how many people are on a talk page if some semblance of intelligence is encouraged among editors; a mindless discussion only occurs when the concerns of other editors are ignored and overlooked instead of being addressed. (Note that if discussion becomes mindless then nobody is giving it the due attention it deserves, including yours truly.) In that regard, it is easier for someone with an agenda to "muddy the waters" with pointless arguments in a discussion compared to a survey; the nature of a survey prevents minor points from being continually addressed and hindering the decision process. Voting is evil, but not discussing anything for the sake a few outliers is far more evil; do not give the kids ideas.
Discussions and Surveys are not mutually exclusive; they are like a good knife and fork, and they work best together. Knives and forks are not evil per se, but both can be used to kill.
--DavidHOzAu 02:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem with the name "early voting is evil" is that it implies that discussions should end with a vote. That is not the case. Indeed, while you can probably find an exception or two (most of the exceptions are quite old, and the wiki does evolve), voting on guidelines is highly discouraged to the point where people routinely delete such votes; and making the assumption that AFD etc are votes will quickly get you some comments to indicate otherwise.
  • I believe the point Tony is trying to make is that when we write down current practice as a guideline (which of course should see discussion, as you indicate), we sometimes get opposition that state they know it's current practice, but they do not like the practice. A constructive approach for such people would not be to quarrel over the tag on a page, but instead to draw up a {{Proposal}} and try to change current practice. Radiant! 17:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Well put. Obviously current practice doesn't get to be current practice unless a lot of people have had the opportunity to discuss it, see it in action, and agree with it. --Tony Sidaway 18:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
lol. In that case, we should take WP:VINE as a guideline. That's the current practice to my knowledge. --DavidHOzAu 03:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
A belief that Voting is not evil accords with current practice can only arise from unfamiliarity with current practice. --Tony Sidaway 10:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I wish you two good luck in getting this as an accepted guideline. If you eventually announce the proposed change at {{Announcements}} and obtain acceptance by other Wikipedians, go ahead, but you might want to know that this page already qualifies for {{rejected}} due to its contradiction with the long-standing Wikipedia:Straw polls guideline, which was quite stable as of the beginning of this month. Unless, of course, you've edited that too? --DavidHOzAu 04:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

  • The problem here is that you want to do things "by the book" but you are apparently unaware that there is no such book (aka WP:NOT a bureaucracy). Most guidelines spring from documenting existing outcomes. This page is old and heavily in use and has matched the way things work for years. WP:STRAW documents how to hold a poll; this page documents when not to hold a poll. There is no contradiction. >Radiant< 12:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Look at any votes page

Whether AFD or anything like it and the close is always based on number of votes and not arguments. Anomo 21:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It's based on both. --tjstrf 21:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • AFD was specifically renamed away from "votes for deletion" to make clear that it is not a vote. The term "AFD is not a vote" is regularly heard on DRV whenever someone falsely believes that the votes are what matter. The persistence of such misconceptions is precisely why this page is so important. >Radiant< 21:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I dunno. I've definently closed an AfD or three based on the quality of arguments, not just the number of votes. Often those closings go to DRV, where some people (often the same people who say WP is not a democracy) argue that I should have just gone with the votes (of course they call it "consensus"). But sometimes the majority of people in an AfD just get it wrong, and don't understand an important policy like WP:V or WP:NOT. But the small sample size of the average AfD is very important to consider here... it's a lot easier to take into account the quality of arguments when 5 people are involved... if it's a close vote with 150 people involved, it's pretty much just your own personal opinion when you are saying what "consensus" supposedly is. --W.marsh 21:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I see them closed based on votes. I think it's sort of a cautious thing for the closers to do, rather than trying to be subjective by weighing the argument, and potentially making an unpopular decision or a mistake. Anomo 22:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason that most AfDs are closed in line with the "votes" is because the people who are "voting" all agree on an obvious outcome good for Wikipedia. In many cases you wouldn't even need to have an AfD; the admin, a prototypical Wikipedian, could often look at the article and their decision would most always be the same as the consensus reached on the AfD. For most of the common classes of deleted articles, the major reason for having an AfD is to discover more information about the subject, or to generate ideas about alternate options like merging. That is, not enough is known about it to make a decision, but if the information is known and the possible options are laid out, the decision is pretty obvious and the people commenting on the AfD are going to almost unanimously come to the same conclusion. The people who keep adding meaningless votes are just wasting their time. —Centrx→talk • 05:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't scale.

Back in January or so, some well-meaning folks launched a crusade to de-link all dates, years, months, days, and so on, that they deemed "unimportant". I started a discussion about it on the Village Pump. I phrased my comments along an anti-unwikilinking-dates vein. (That is, I said "This mass de-linking of dates is silly and we ought not allow it." Only more verbose, and with subtle layers of sarcasm.)

The ensuing discussion reached no consensus. Many people agreed with me. Many people disagreed with me.

After a few days, it occurred to me that if I had but had the presence of mind to phrase my comments in favor of the thing I was wanting to see stopped, the same thing would have occurred. There would have been no consensus. Many people would have agreed with me. Many people would have disagreed with me.

After which I would have been free (FSVO "free") to use that no-consensus result to stump for the result I actually wanted, e.g. "Well, I tried to drum up some consensus to support the de-linking of wikified dates and years and so on, but there was no consensus to do so. So obviously the idea doesn't have support. So obviously you need to stop with the delinking."

This is something of a stretched example, but the point holds: Consensus will be more and more difficult to come by as the number of Wikipedia contributors grows. It's nearly impossible to achieve in many areas of Wikipedia right now. Wikipedia now has more admins than it had total contributors back in the early days when real, actual "consensus" was an achievable goal. I agree that the solution is not a simple stand-up vote, but I'm also convinced that longing for some sort of nebulously-defined "consensus" like Wikipedia had in the Good Old Days(tm) isn't the solution, either.

All the best,
Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak
23:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The reasonable thing to do is to have dates linked according to whether they are appropriate to context, which is what the manual of style on links currently says. If someone is making changes that the editors on individual articles oppose, then that needs to be discussed with those editors on the particular article. You don't need mass consensus for individual articles. You don't need a mass consensus discussion or vote if something follows from the essential properties of the encyclopedia. The opposition to these changes is to making mass, sometimes disruptive, changes across the wiki—that is, imposing things based on some vague "consensus" or idea of propriety. I don't think many people actually think that all years on every article should be linked, it just should be done in the way most other things are done on the wiki, not through a top-down imposition. —Centrx→talk • 05:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
So, just because there is a blurry area on one issue doesn't mean the system doesn't work. The fact remains that as long as you make sure that the people interested in writing a neutral, free encyclopedia are the ones who reign, there isn't any problem; we have a common goal and minor quibbles along the way aren't a big deal. It just doesn't work to go around telling people to start or stop doing something because "there was no consensus" without explaining the reasons why something should be done or not done and why the consensus-makers disagreed with each other. Anyway, there really is no other way except to have a group, however large, of persons with good faith in a common goal reason out what is appropriate to achieve that goal. —Centrx→talk • 05:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Last I knew, wikilinking dates was what made it possible for the user's date preferences (Month, Day, Year or Day, Month, Year or whatever) work, and was supposed to be done. --tjstrf 06:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This is for dates which aren't affected by the date preferences, mainly plain years like 2004, etc. —Centrx→talk • 18:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Consensus doesn't scale... that's an interesting point, and it depends on what process you refer to. Individual FAC or AFD discussions have a small enough participation that consensus works. Consensual discussion has worked fine for refining policy/guideline proposals. I think the two problematic areas are RFA (which is under heavy discussion elsewhere) and Wikiwide standardization proposals, such as the date issue you mention. The latter problem isn't new; Wikipedia is notorious for being unable to make decisions on e.g. AD vs CE. I fully agree that we need to find some way to resolve these issues - but on the issue you mention, voting wouldn't have worked either since I'm sure people would have insisted on a 65%-70% majority to pass, and it wouldn't have achieved that. >Radiant< 17:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with this, and am beginning to strongly suspect that Wikipedia will need to move in the direction of parliamentarianism in the future. We already made one large step in this direction with the creation of the Arbitration Committee. Maybe should start to do this in the area of policy creation as well. --causa sui talk 17:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
How do you suggest Wikipedia be divided into counties and districts? --tjstrf 17:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
You don't necessarily need to divide up the entire wiki by geography. For some things, it would be sufficient if a small group could break off, work on a specific policy, possibly claim a small set of articles/users/etc, and do a trial run of their ideas. Other people could provide input, but complaints that fall short of "this obviously contradicts our core principles" wouldn't be enough to stop the trial run before the stated end date. Afterwards, the results could be summarized and compared to similar test runs. You'd still need wide acceptance after that to make things policy, but at least it discussions would be based on actual rather than imagined benefits/downsides.
I really think it should be policy that limited-scale limited-term trial runs would be explicitely allowed for things like stable versions, etc. Otherwise, I see dewiki and others becoming the major source of these test runs, rather than enwiki. This sort of thing would let us use our numbers to an advantage rather than a disadvantage (it would let us innovate faster than dewiki rather than slower, since we could potentially have a larger number of small groups brainstorming policy improvements). --Interiot 19:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


I agree that concensus does not scale and wikipedia is heading toward some sort of on-going series of civil wars or a dictatorship by committee if it does not change this approach to things in some concrete ways. I believe both things are already starting to happen. The voting is evil essay has done great damage to wikipedia along this line.--Blue Tie 01:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus polling

People arguing here might find this interesting: Wikipedia:Consensus polling. It's a method for adducing consensus for a given proposal. It uses a poll, but it is not a vote: one can either support the proposal or not yet support the proposal, which is editable so that concerns can be addressed.

The idea originated elsewhere, at the Omidyar Network, and the details of the method are fairly well ironed out through experience there. Anyone who finds it interesting might like to try it out, if they can think of a suitable proposal to test it on. --bainer (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Split out

Based on the above, it should be clear that the established practice on Wikipedia is not to vote if we can avoid it. Note that this page dates from 2004 and has been heavily used since. That doesn't mean voting is prohibited period (nor does this page say so), but it remains discouraged since discussion has been proven to work better. As pointed out before, AFD is sometimes confused for a vote, but it really isn't. The main place where voting seems effective is when a guideline has already been accepted to standardize something, and votes are held on e.g. the color to standardize to.

However, some people make the interesting comment that perhaps we should change our practices since discussing doesn't seem to scale as well with the sheer size of Wikipedia. I think that is a very good point, in particular related to creating new guidelines; housekeeping tasks like FAC seem to have a low enough participation that discussion still works. It is left as an exercise to the reader what to do about RFA. I think it would be a good idea to create a page to discuss how best to deal with that, and possibly change established practice. >Radiant< 17:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Polls are evil?

Although it was done tongue-in-cheek, I think this poll about the question is very telling particularly as the question about the status of this page is discussed now. (→Netscott) 18:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not merely tongue-in-cheek, the poll is quite obviously entirely a joke. It is very similar to Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Jimbo Wales for admin. —Centrx→talk • 03:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

{{descriptive}}

This page describes the experiences, observations, and findings on best practices of wikipedians in the field. As with all wiki-pages, be cautious when using any information or advice contained herein, as it may yet be incomplete. If people haven't already done so, please keep this page up to date to reflect your most current experience on this matter.

In other words: Some Wikipedians really like the opinions presented on this page. Others may not, however.

I don't mean to be harsh, nor to unduly disparage what is obviously a well-intentioned change by an admin I personally have much respect for. But "Some folks like the stuff on this page" seems to be essentially a content-free observation. It provides us with no information that isn't already obvious to the casual observer. {{essay}}, on the other hand, helps to separate the realm of policy from the realm of personal opinion (whether individual opinion or a collective, but minority, opinion). This is especially useful given the fact that many pages marked {{essay}} can often take on the superficial appearance of a policy page to the inexperienced newbie.

WP:VIE is not policy, but neither can it be considered the "best practices of wikipedians in the field" unless you're willing to stipuluate which Wikipedians you're talking about. Because clearly there are many Wikipedians "in the field" who disagree that "Voting is Evil" is a best practice.

All the best,
Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak
06:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I fully agree that this is not policy (and nor should it be), and that the current tag is not really meaningful. But you are incorrect that essays "take on the superficial appearance of a policy page" - to most novice users, the "essay" tag implies "this page is some random person's opinion and can safely be ignored". Witness how often people on e.g. AFD say "do this per WP:THATPAGE" and novice responds with "you can't do that, WP:THATAGE is not policy!". >Radiant< 08:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • However, what we should look for is not "best practice", but "current practice". As discussed above, DDV does explain the common outcome of a common process - that AFD should not be seen as a vote, and that proposals should be discussed rather than voted upon. There are always some exceptions (as is propoer) but as a whole Wikipedia favors discussion over voting; this page has been heavily in use since its creation in 2004. Hence, the appropriate tag is {{guideline}} - anything else is confusing to new users. Remember that guidelines aren't set in stone.
    • I realize that some people would prefer if Wikipedia took the voting approach more often, and that is a good point that should be discussed. However, guidelines are descriptive not prescriptive. Guidelines describe the status quo. If and when the status quo changes, we change the guidelines to reflect that.
    • As a side point for the "has this been properly discussed" people - this page has been in CAT:G for awhile already; a page in that category should have the proper tag. >Radiant< 08:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Works for me. As I mention earlier on the talk page, I'm in agreement that turning things into a pure stand-up vote is not a road we wish to travel down. As an admin who occasionally dips his hand into the AFD well, I like the fact that I am not bound by sheer numbers when deciding the outcome of a particularly thorny discussion.
All the best,
Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak
12:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a guideline

This has never been a proposal, and isn't a guideline. If you want to change it, find consensus. Fresheneesz 08:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Why are you the one dictating what the status quo is? Where the hell is consensus for this? Where can I see the status quo? The above is *ONE* editor in addition to yourself - that means absoulately nothing. Fresheneesz 18:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
You have to either explain how his description of the status quo is wrong or explain why voting would be good. —Centrx→talk • 19:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not even *saying* the description of the status quo is wrong. There needs to be offered up some proof that its *correct*. We can't just make every and any possible guideline until someone proves each of them to be "not the status quo". Fresheneesz 07:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you talking about WP:STRAW ?? That has been a guideline for a looong time. *that* is the status quo. Fresheneesz 02:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that this has never been a proposal because it has been an accepted part of Wikipedia for so long... long before these various bureaucratic categories of "guideline," "essay," etc. came into general use. I don't think the other core principles of Wikipedia have ever been formal proposals either. I would have to agree with Radiant! (and believe me, that doesn't happen often) that it was purely an oversight that this was not tagged as a guideline earlier. Both this and WP:STRAW are very much part of the status quo. That status quo is somewhat messy and contradictory, at least on the surface, but Wikipedia is itself a contradictory and messy place (at least on the surface). That's not a bad thing. -- Visviva 02:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Disputed Tag

As described extensively this page, there are reasonable and legitimate objections to making this essay a guideline by a large number of editors. Furthermore, there is a serious dispute as to whether this essay actually has the requisite consensus to establish it as a guideline. To avoid continuing to have the tag of this essay/guideline reverted back and forth, I am adding a disputed tag template to the guideline version. John254 00:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

  • This is circular reasoning - you say it is a dispute because it is a dispute. Also, you seem to be unaware of how Wikipedia guidelines actually work or are generated. We've been debating this for awhile and as you can read above this matches common practice. It's as simple as that. If you don't like common practice, try and change it; and if you do, this page will follow suit. >Radiant< 07:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It is disputed whether this essay matches common practice -- the 3RR enforcement vote, and the arbitration policy ratification vote present ample examples of policy making by votes as I have described above. Furthermore, almost all requests for adminship, except Carnildo's, have been decided essentially on the basis of votes by established users. The arbitration committee itself uses votes as an internal decision making procedure. XFD's are almost always decided in a manner consistent with numerical consensus, although the closing administrators occasionally assert that "this is not a vote", and close the XFD against the wishes of most established users who have commented. Furthermore, reviewing this talk page in its entirety, it is quite obvious that far more than two users have raised cogent objections to characterizing this essay as a guideline. If nothing else, the existence of an edit war over whether this essay should be a guideline, with multiple users on both sides, should indicate that their is a dispute over the "guideline" status of this page. I am therefore restoring the disputed tag template. John254 11:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
      • 3RR and arb ratification are several years old; 3RR is indeed an exception (you are aware, I trust, that guidelines have exceptions); the arb ratification poll is an open-ended mechanism that has entirely failed to work the way it says it does. That is certainly not "ample examples". Requests for adminship is supposed to be a discussion and is under heavy debate at the moment; however, XFD is most certainly a discussion, and is most definitely not a vote even though novice users sometimes think it is. Any attempt to e.g. votestack XFD is thus denied because it misses the point.
      • More importantly, you misunderstand how Wikipedia guidelines are formed: something that has been accepted practice for several years now is a guideline. Some people think that removing its tag will somehow make it less accepted practice or make it not a guideline; that is false. Some other people think that something is not a guideline unless it is voted upon; that is also false. Some other people argue that since they don't like it, it shouldn't be a guideline; that, too, is false. The argument that this isn't accepted practice is based on misunderstandings and straw men. >Radiant< 11:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • XFDs are protected against votestacking; however, all this means is that if a number of new or unregistered users show up for the discussion, their opinions won't be counted. The fact that closing XFDs against the wishes of most established users is atypical and raises significant controversy when it does happen indicates that the XFDs are really votes most of the time. That some users want the requests for adminship process to be less of a vote doesn't make it less of a vote today. We don't vote on everything, and voting isn't always the best way to resolve disputes. However, as we do vote more than occasionally, even today, this essay shouldn't be a guideline. John254 11:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
      • That's a non sequitur. That AFDs aren't closed against consensus does not imply that said consensus is arrived at by voting. AFD used to be called "votes for deletion" and was renamed precisely becease it was often misunderstood as a vote. As for RFA, go ask any bureaucrat and they'll tell you it's not a vote. That you want it to be more of a vote doesn't make it more of a vote today. You seem to be implying that this guideline forbids voting and that thus any single instance of voting would "prove" its invalidity. That is a straw man. >Radiant< 12:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
      • No, good reasons given by newly registered users to keep the AfD'ed page are perfectly valid and both sway later discussion and are considered in themselves by the closing admin. Conversely, in general me-too votes by established users are heavily discounted if considered at all. (Also, in the vast majority of cases, admins are not going to browse the contributions of all the users to determine who is new, they are going to read the comments.) —Centrx→talk • 15:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
What john is saying is that most afds are closed based roughly on the number of supporters vs dissenters. It would be ridiculous to delete an article that has 3 admins that want to delete it, and 50 new (non-sock puppet) people that want to keep it. Thus one can conseptualize that as a vote. Perhaps long time users, and people who explain their vote, get more weight - but that doesn't change the fact that majority means something. Fresheneesz 07:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
My comments weren't fallacious, you're just misunderstanding me. I'm not saying a vote is taking place, but I'm saying that the very *idea* of consensus is the *same* very idea behind binding votes. Although we don't use binding votes on wikipedia, we *do* use non-binding votes - ie polls. Fresheneesz 00:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Discuss, don't vote is the logical consequence of the english wikipedia being run by wikipedia:consensus arrived at by negotiation and compromise. You can't have both at once. Kim Bruning 08:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You can have both. Polling can fuel discussion, and help gauge consensus. Why do you think they are mutually exclusive? Fresheneesz 00:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
So far, 3 out of the 4 times I have seen substantial disputes on wikipedia, I have not seen any real regard for concensus. I am new here, and I believed the stories and lines about discuss and concensus and so on. I no longer believe those things to be accurate portrayals of the way wikipedia works. In my observation it works as an odd combination of oligarchy and ochlocracy with a degree of bullying to go along with those aspects. --Blue Tie 09:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You are welcome to propose a more formal system of rule creation (e.g. the one used on the French wikipedia). I would be interested in seeing how that could work. At the moment, Wikipedia is a cluocracy. >Radiant< 11:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

On wikipedia, with (straw-)polling, we mean a specific method of gauging consensus. I think maybe this is uniquely an en.wikipedia use of the word though :-/ Kim Bruning 12:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Discuss,_don%27t_vote/Archive1&oldid=1089919292"