2010/5/26 Alex Rollin <[email protected]> > Everyone on this list is so brilliant! I am so glad that you guys are such > experts on all these methods, most of which I was totally unaware of before > listening in here. > > That said, I did a tiny little bit of homework when I joined so I might be > more receptive to the lists blinding insights. The bulk of this reading was > on Wikipedia. > > Are the brilliant writers and experimenters here updating the documentation > on Wikipedia? > > Here's the Condorcet entry that is drawing scrutiny! > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method > > The Schulz method page is pretty well done...I mean, it's got pictures, and > it's organized: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method > > I was reading the recent thread "Drawbacks of Various Methods" and it seems > to me that it should be possible to amend each of the Wikipedia entries to > reflect these insights in a clear and collaborative fashion. >
Wikipedia is not as easy as you might think. If you have consensus, great; if not, you need bulletproof references for everything you say, and a lot of this is not published anywhere. > Maybe? And then, perhaps a reading guide to each of the methods, and > perhaps use cases for different methods with clues about context? > Maybe. Published where, for what audience? > > I volunteer to read and digest, edit, and focus on guides (especially for > cooperative self-owned organizations.) > Thanks for your interest. > > Alex > http://alexrollin.com > > > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info > >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
