mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
==Voter candidacy and vote duration== |
==Voter candidacy and vote duration== |
||
| − | {{ |
+ | {{Adopted}} |
Per discussion [[Forum:Adding Sigrie to external links|on the forums]], it has come to my attention that there is a potential for some irregularities in the voting process. To help prevent these, I would like to propose that voters be required to have a minimum of ten (10) edits with their account and extend the minimum duration a vote can last to a week (seven calendar days) - the closing period requirement will remain the same (i.e., if a vote gains enough votes to close in the first day it should still last a week; and if a vote lasts longer than a week the closing duration of three days should still exist between the winning vote being cast and the vote closing). This policy change will only take effect to votes which begin after the change is accepted. |
Per discussion [[Forum:Adding Sigrie to external links|on the forums]], it has come to my attention that there is a potential for some irregularities in the voting process. To help prevent these, I would like to propose that voters be required to have a minimum of ten (10) edits with their account and extend the minimum duration a vote can last to a week (seven calendar days) - the closing period requirement will remain the same (i.e., if a vote gains enough votes to close in the first day it should still last a week; and if a vote lasts longer than a week the closing duration of three days should still exist between the winning vote being cast and the vote closing). This policy change will only take effect to votes which begin after the change is accepted. |
||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | {{Policy vote}} |
||
===Votes=== |
===Votes=== |
||
Revision as of 12:20, 23 August 2010
Template:Archives2
Voter candidacy and vote duration
 |
This policy has been adopted.
|
Per discussion on the forums, it has come to my attention that there is a potential for some irregularities in the voting process. To help prevent these, I would like to propose that voters be required to have a minimum of ten (10) edits with their account and extend the minimum duration a vote can last to a week (seven calendar days) - the closing period requirement will remain the same (i.e., if a vote gains enough votes to close in the first day it should still last a week; and if a vote lasts longer than a week the closing duration of three days should still exist between the winning vote being cast and the vote closing). This policy change will only take effect to votes which begin after the change is accepted.
Votes
- Yes
- Yes Pcj (T•C) 18:58, August 16, 2010 (UTC) - (Originally proposed)
- Yes
(Sssss/Slithered) 20:51, August 16, 2010 (UTC) - (I think this would be good, I didn't even see that external link vote till it was already pending closure.) - Yes SWM2448 21:18, August 16, 2010 (UTC) - (Meatpuppetry is already disallowed. This would help protect against it more.)
- Yes k_d3 03:06, August 18, 2010 (UTC) - (More time is good. The world (of warcraft) isn't going to end in a week.)
- Yes
Frejya 04:02, August 18, 2010 (UTC) - (Would be nice to see more than 10 edits, imo - people can easily reach that by editing their own user pages; I'll happily concede that argument, though, if it gets things rolling.)
- No
Comments
- Hmm, 3 days on top of the original 7? I'm not sure that's necessary. I would think 7 + 24 hours would be suitable, iff there is enough of a lead to close with.
That said, another concern I have is this whole "minimum number" required to close. The static number (even one which is fluid) doesn't really take into consideration the strength of the votes, or whether there has been enough discussion (though presumably there would have been in a week's time, sometimes discussion doesn't bring out all the points that quickly). I'm not sure how best to deal with it; I like that it's concrete, but it also encourages steamrolling, which is at best inappropriate for a consensus driven model and at worst rude... --Sky (t · c) 19:36, August 16, 2010 (UTC)- You absolutely need a gap of greater than a day between the winning vote being cast and the discussion closing. There may be more votes to be had after the "winning" vote has been cast. As to your other point, it's hard to quantify discussion in a policy. Further, the point being argued may not merit much discussion and consensus may be reached without much discussion, this is again hard to quantify. --Pcj (T•C) 19:44, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
- It's a day between the winning vote and the discussion closing only after the requirement of seven days, which, in seven days, one would hope that you've captured the majority of the comments. This problem, of course, disappears if one removes the absolute (or even liquid) requirement...
Agreed to your first point, disagree with your second. Is a lead of 5 "votes" a consensus, or just a pileon of votes? For example, Fandyllic's taken part in a pair of the recent votes (and not to be discouraging of his votes specifically) with nothing but a "yes" or "no". How is that useful for gauging consensus? He didn't even comment to say, "this person's views align with my own". A simple count of the votes isn't how consensus should be judged. --Sky (t · c) 20:08, August 16, 2010 (UTC)- Your comments agree with your previously described inclination against voting on wikis in general. While I agree that consensus should be the normal method arguments are handled, there is precedent for the usefulness of voting. Aside from completely removing the policy, I don't see any particular way to implement your ideas. I don't think forcing people to comment is a good solution especially in cases where the decision is black and white; it's the grey areas where discussion is more warranted. --Pcj (T•C) 20:13, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
- Haha, I'm sure. Agreed, it is useful, which I acknowledged. I'm also at a loss without going down the road of Wikipedia, which of course, has its own issues. The problem of having it explicit in policy is that we can't give weight to comments without being looked at strangely; i.e., if there's a "winning side" by number but the discussion is closed opposite to the winning side due to superior arguments brought by the opposing side. --Sky (t · c) 20:29, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
- Well and as I said above it's hard to quantify the depth of comments. "If Side A has 10 votes with an average comment strength of 0.75, but Side B has 8 votes with an average comment strength of 1.0 then Side B wins". "Average comment strength" is impossible to measure reliably. The way I look at it, voting is simply a way to measure consensus, where discussion is the means by which consensus is obtained. If someone has a really good argument, then they should be able to sway votes over to their side. The objective of this policy should be to give people enough time in which to make their arguments. --Pcj (T•C) 20:33, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
- Haha, I'm sure. Agreed, it is useful, which I acknowledged. I'm also at a loss without going down the road of Wikipedia, which of course, has its own issues. The problem of having it explicit in policy is that we can't give weight to comments without being looked at strangely; i.e., if there's a "winning side" by number but the discussion is closed opposite to the winning side due to superior arguments brought by the opposing side. --Sky (t · c) 20:29, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
- Your comments agree with your previously described inclination against voting on wikis in general. While I agree that consensus should be the normal method arguments are handled, there is precedent for the usefulness of voting. Aside from completely removing the policy, I don't see any particular way to implement your ideas. I don't think forcing people to comment is a good solution especially in cases where the decision is black and white; it's the grey areas where discussion is more warranted. --Pcj (T•C) 20:13, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
- It's a day between the winning vote and the discussion closing only after the requirement of seven days, which, in seven days, one would hope that you've captured the majority of the comments. This problem, of course, disappears if one removes the absolute (or even liquid) requirement...
- You absolutely need a gap of greater than a day between the winning vote being cast and the discussion closing. There may be more votes to be had after the "winning" vote has been cast. As to your other point, it's hard to quantify discussion in a policy. Further, the point being argued may not merit much discussion and consensus may be reached without much discussion, this is again hard to quantify. --Pcj (T•C) 19:44, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
- I noticed some interesting clauses in WoWWiki:Policy status phases, this is exclusively for policy votes:
- Ratification time – the winning side must remain winner for 1 week (7 days). However, if the ratification ratio is high (4 to 1 in favor) and the number of yes votes is high (15), 3 days is enough.
- Recall time – also 1 week (7 days). However, if the recall ratio is high (4 to 1 against) and the number of recall votes is high (10), 3 days is enough.