2012/9/28 Juho Laatu <[email protected]> > On 28.9.2012, at 22.33, Jameson Quinn wrote: > > > > 2012/9/28 Juho Laatu <[email protected]> > >> Since Wikipedia says in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VOTE that >> "voting" is used maily to help in building consesus. The polls are thus not >> expected to be competitive. The final decisions are not made based on the >> poll results but in a discussion that the polls should help. >> > > Please actually read the essay I linked > earlier<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Homunq/WP_voting_systems>. > It begins by acknowledging that consensus discussion is the norm on > wikipedia, as you say. MJ is proposed specifically for those rare cases > when that does not work and some decision is necessary (such as the "choice > of software tool" example you give). > > > I read it and I tried to cover both competitive and non-competitive > approaches, but I admit that I got too much lost on the non-competitive > side while your text focused on the competitive part. > > I understood that as long as we are talking about the "!voting" system we > are talking about the discussion and consensus driven approach. > > I didn't study the history of the Ireland and abortion activism cases. I > wonder if they were cases where people decided to vote on the Wikipedia > content, or maybe on something else like used tools. > > Both of them are debates centering on article titles. An article can have only one title, and a title can refer to only one article. Redirects and disambiguation pages can help reduce the tensions this creates, but there are cases where the dispute goes too deep, and eventually a vote is called.
So these would fit in the "third level" of your classification, and the technical issues around titles keep some of the normal mechanisms of compromise (ie, do both) from working. Jameson
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
