| Revision as of 06:52, 2 December 2006 editElonka (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators70,958 edits Suggested wording change← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:14, 20 August 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,224,466 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
| (198 intermediate revisions by 45 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{oldmfd|date= 24 April 2007 |result= '''withdrawn, keep''' |page= Misplaced Pages:Straw polls }} | |||
| ==Old talk== | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell| | |||
| I disagree with this proposal completely. I don't think the introduction of formal democracy into Misplaced Pages will help it at all. ] 15:40, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC) | |||
| {{WikiProject Essays}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Archive box|]: 2003-2006}} | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| ==Opening and closing times== | |||
| # Straw polls should not have opening and closing times as votes do. | |||
| # A deadline for the survey should be considered so as to resolve the issue in a timely manner. | |||
| This seems a bit contradictory to me. --] (]) 15:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC):El | |||
| : Yeah I could see this point. I myself am not all that in favor of the policy, but I thought I should put it forth for discussion. ] 15:42, Oct 27, 2003 (UTC) | |||
| eassar|'''Eleassar'''≥→]] <sup>]</sup> 13:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <ref></ref>] (]) 15:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == what happened here? == | |||
| ::On the gripping hand it might be nice to have a set of rules we never invoke. A sort of doomsday option: "Oh no, he's going to invoke democracy, we had best disperse!" -- ] 16:19, Oct 27, 2003 (UTC) | |||
| Why did this policy suddenly become an essay? | |||
| Upped to guideline, will switch to policy if no-one disagrees within 7 days. --] 09:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Policy? I thought you didn't believe in voting? The relevant parts of the guideline were moved to PNSD; the problem with having a guideline called "straw polls" is that it gives people (who tend not to read the entirety of such pages) the impression that straw polls are in most cases a good and useful idea. ] 10:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Alright. Hmm, so where do I find the guidelines to make a proper non-binding opinion poll (aka survey) now? I need them today :-). The Survey Guidelines redirect to here. :-/ --] 10:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::* It goes roughly like this: (1) list options; (2) get people to !vote; (3) argue over results; (4) argue over what the questions were; (5) argue over quorum; (6) argue over the arguing. I am told that surveys like this typically don't provide very much useful data, and that the outcome is going to be biased towards whatever the writer wants to see. ] 11:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: True, but some kinds of survey can ''possibly'' be useful. At any rate, some people feel a burning need for polls. It would be nice to actually describe the safest (for some definition of safe) way to do them, if people must really do them. --] 11:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Like I said, if one would describe the safest (or arguably, least unsafe) way of doing that, people would assume it was always safe, and feel justified in their burning need, and the next thing you know is we have people vote on facts again. ] 11:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: well, that's what we have now too. Usually it helps to be able to point to something solid. :-/ *scratches head* --] 18:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Reworking this back to guideline designation== | |||
| :::I'd like to see this adopted as a guideline, deleting any mention of its being binding. Voting is not the same thing as democracy, you can have either without the other. Misplaced Pages already has a raw but effective democracy to it, and the informal and formal votes we've had are part of it. I think this as a guideline could help a lot, so people organising new votes don't need to reinvent the wheel. And, like any other quideline we have, it should evolve and improve in Wikifashion. ] 18:19, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC) | |||
| Ok, I've decided to take it upon myself to head up getting this page back into shape as a ''descriptive'' explanation for how Misplaced Pages conducts straw polls. It is incorrect to utilize this page as a soapbox for anti-polling as has been previously done. This is not the page to do that. I encourage fellow editors to help formulate this descriptive page to be in accord with what occurs everyday on Misplaced Pages so that it can thereby become a rule of thumb for folks who may be inexperienced on forming polls. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 12:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Hmm, I'd love to write something about people challenging each other's opinions. And we've never really covered the concept of rough consensus before. Feeling up to it? --] 13:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| That's a very good idea. It doesn't mean every dispute has to be voted on. But when a vote is held, it should follow some rules, which tend to be missing in the informal votes we sometimes have. I would propose to add two rules: | |||
| ::That sounds like a good idea... but first this should be returned to being a guideline... as you've previously said there needs to be something '''solid''' for people to look to when they are going to go about gauging some aspect of a discussion. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 13:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hm, interesting... you want a neutral guideline, but at the same time you only want to cover the side of the situation that matches your POV, calling the issues you disagree with "soapboxing" , and hiding the parts of Wikihistory that don't match with your opinion, such as Quickpolls. Needless to say that's not going to work. The best solution would probably be to redirect this page to ], which already covers everything you're trying to cover here. ] 13:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, you're wrong.. this isn't the page to talk about "anti-polling" this is the page to describe current practice on Misplaced Pages. Unfortunately it appears that editors were a bit confused about this previously and I've decided to clear the air. As the page matures it will of course be logical to include a short history of polling on Misplaced Pages but now's not the time... what needs to be done now is to make an illustrative guide on what to do when an editor wants to formulate a straw poll regarding a given issue. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 13:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*Precisely what I said, you want to write a POV essay that covers the issue only from your angle. The most appropriate spot for POV essays is your userspace. ] 13:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| If there's consensus to turn this into a variation on VINE, that's your perogative. But I doubt you'll be able to get it accepted as a guideline if it's taking a pro-polling position. --] 14:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| 1) To prevent foul play, voters should have to be logged-in users with a certain minimum number of edits in their history. | |||
| :This isn't "pro-polling" nor is it "anti-polling" this is ''describing'' current Misplaced Pages project practices. Was that not understood? {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 14:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :*You're well aware that you are deliberatly omitting the important caveats. ] 14:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| 2) If there are more than two options to a question, it has to be decided in advance how to proceed if no option wins an absolute majority (i.e. should a relative majority be sufficient or should there be a runoff between the two most-voted options). --] 17:41, Oct 27, 2003 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Sorry, since when is ] inappropriate outside of user space? {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 14:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Considering the history of voting experiments as a replacement for consensus-building in this project, it is to be hoped that it never becomes binding. Straw polls to gauge interest are, of course, something else. (Brion VIBBER) | |||
| :::I understand that's how you describe it. I just don't agree that it's describing current practice. --] 14:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So you disagree that polling occurs on an '''hourly''' basis on Misplaced Pages? {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 14:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*Ah, we get the false dichotomy now, and the fallacy of many questions. What's next? ] 14:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*No false dichotomy, just like ] was pointing out above... there needs to be a ''solid'' place for editors to use as a guideline when formulating any one of numerous polls that are conducted on an hourly basis here. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 14:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::**Ah yes, the proof by assertion is next. Unless you're referring to xFD/FAC/RFA, there's no way that we conduct numerous polls on an hourly basis. If you ''are'' referring to xFD/FAC/RFA, we have plenty of suggestion pages on that already. ] 14:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*Well getting this page back to its former guideline recognition is probably going to be a bit like pulling teeth much like ] has been... but that's fine, a healthy debate is ''good''. Given the level of dissent on that page it is a safe bet that there will be plenty of support for a descriptive guideline (particular given ]). {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 15:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::On a site with a million articles, I doubt there's much that doesn't happen on an hourly basis, including vandalism, misspellings, etc. Polling certainly happens, but it often is a mess and makes things worse. Polling can help in some cases, but I think a page talking about how to do polling should be clear about the potential problems so that editors can try to avoid them, or be able to make an informed decision whether polling is even worth it. --] 15:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Of course, all that we need to bear in mind is the mantra ''this page is descriptive, not prescriptive''. That's what makes a good guideline. Minderbinder, have you looked at current version and seen something that wasn't ''descriptive'' in the text? {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 15:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::*Well, yes, your deliberate omission of the facts that don't support your point of view. Half a truth is a whole lie. ] 15:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::(edit conflict) I don't see description of the problems that often happen with polling. It's not really descriptive if it selectively omits part of the description. --] 15:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: Radiant: That information MUST be added sooner or later, as that is the requirement for a descriptive guideline. If you can provide such information, well, that's all the better. :-) --] 15:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Again, this isn't "pro-polling" or "anti-polling", this page isn't meant to address such issues. That unfortunately is where so much confusion here has stemmed from. Now we're moving away from such pro or con soapboxing on this page and heading into guideline territory. I know "voting is evil" and "voting is not evil" folks are going to want to express their POVs here but that sort of editing really needs to be curtailed if this page is going to move forward. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 15:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Note that we're just being NPOV here. And NPOV is NPOV, no matter where it's used: | |||
| Well, since having this be a policy may do more harm than good, how about making it a guideline. Is anyone against that? If not, I'll reword it to match a guideline. ] 15:22, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC) | |||
| I mean , if in particular situations we have found that straw polls blow up in our faces, we write "in this situation, straw polls blow up in our faces". If a straw poll miraculously worked, we say "It miraculously worked here". If it turns out that 99% of all straw polls are abused, we write that 99% of straw polls are abused, beware, you might be messing up too, expected opposition, etc.... | |||
| Why not have this policy out there, and then if a member wants to run a vote according to this policy, they can just say: ''This vote is being run according to the policy at ]''. -- ] 18:13, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC) | |||
| --] 15:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Most people seem to feel that the policy would be too restrictive. The notion of a guideline is still valuable I think and what you are suggesting can still be done with a guideline. ] 00:22, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd agree with that. Let's see how this comes along when the notes at the bottom get integrated. --] 15:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==NPOV/ invitation== | |||
| ==Changed to guidline content== | |||
| Think of this as writing an NPOV encyclopedia article about "Polling on wikipedia". We can do NPOV, some of Reliable Sources, we can't quite cover Original Research or conflict of interest, since this is about our own practices, but we can try to get as close as possible. That's the basic idea. | |||
| If you think that this is a novel concept, think again: this is how all the old policy pages on wikipedia got written. :-) | |||
| OK, I removed most words that made it look like a policy page. If someone objects they may discuss it here and/or revert the changes. I will move the page to ] if there are no objections and link the page from various other pages so it gets more attention. I think it needs more work, but I think it would be a good idea to at least standardize the voting process a bit. ] 00:31, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC) | |||
| == Moved == | |||
| ''(from ] to ])'' | |||
| Worst case this page doesn't make it to policy status, but we might still learn a lot. Care to give it a try? | |||
| #Does this mean all Votes for Deletion need to be announced on ''Misplaced Pages:Announcements'' and on ''Misplaced Pages:List of ongoing votes''? | |||
| #What kinds of votes do you have in mind, specifically? | |||
| ] 06:00, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC) | |||
| --] 16:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : I just wanted a way to standardize the voting process. I think votes should follow at least some structure and publicized more. This is just my attempt. '''Edit at will''' ] 06:05, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| Dori, I liked it better before you made the big edit to change it from 'policy' to 'guideline'. The way it's phrased right now, in the middle of a discussion, somebody can suddenly format a vote block and vote, then nobody else can even edit the option they prefer to make it sound reasonable. Also, I strongly recommend that we at the very least have a list of acceptable voting methods. The three methods that have been accepted around here in the past are ], ] and ]s. ] | |||
| :Yes, and ''descriptive''... again the mantra needs to be: ''no soapboxing either pro or con on the idea of polling''. At this point I don't see a need for this page to ever become policy but there is most certainly a need for a guideline. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 16:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Moved == | |||
| ::While I understand the position that guidelines on Misplaced Pages are supposed to be "descriptive", I see at least two issues with that in this case; first, What if there are '''multiple''' practices in use on Misplaced Pages, depending on which people are the most active in a particular article or group of articles (or policy or group of policies)? This appears to be the case in terms of polling. There are some people who like to run around telling people who start polls that "voting is evil", but they can't be everywhere, and often the people who start the polls just ignore them. How do you "describe" common practice when there are multiple, competing practices with no commonality? Second, wouldn't it be more helpful to the users and especially newer users, to have a page that says when polls '''should''' (and shouldn't) be used, and '''how''' to do them, even if formulating that advice requires some adjustments to, or clarification of, current practice? And it is clear that this '''will''' be required if my first point is correct, as the disparate practices will have to be harmonized. It seems to me that on something as basic (or in Jimbo's recent words, "constitutional") as the fundamental decision-making process on Misplaced Pages, '''some''' "prescription" is going to have to take place. ] 17:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ''(from ] to ])'' | |||
| ==Pointless== | |||
| Removed: | |||
| This page is becoming pretty pointless. We already have a page that accurately describes how and when to poll on Misplaced Pages, and that's ]. If we fill in this page with all the situations and the caveats, that's exactly what we'll end up with. If we leave out what Netscott calls "soapboxing" and what the rest of us call "warnings about when not to use polls", we end up with a POV essay. Either way we're not writing anything here that hasn't been written before. ] 16:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| # The completed polls ''may'' be used to set policy and/or resolve disputes | |||
| :''That hasn't been written before'', indeed... and it was a guideline before as well. When folks are going around saying "voting is evil" there's no mistaking that for what it is, '''soapboxing'''. As I explained on your talk page... polling is not evil it is just a tool. Better to educate editors ''descriptively'' about how to use that tool beneficially than keep our heads in the sand like ostriches foolishly and see editors misuse it through ignorance. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 16:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::When people go around saying "wikipedia is not a democracy" is that soapboxing as well? --] 16:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Right, you might as well add that Misplaced Pages is NOT a government when you say that. The simple fact to the matter is that it is not uncommon to find organizations that are not democracies but that do employ polling. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 16:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Different story, I think. At any rate, polling is... tricky... to get right, at least. Can we agree on that? --] 17:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: That and I haven't seen some of the "points to be integrated" elsewhere, at least not explicitly. Please provide links or diffs if you can point them out? (I'd love to have them to whack people over the head with, when they're being clueless again. ;-) ) --] 17:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Polling guidelilne vs. polling pulpit== | |||
| There is confusion here. This page is going to be for guidelines on how to conduct a poll, not whether polling is ''evil'' or ''not''. Polling happens on Misplaced Pages and editors need a guideline on how to do that. The anti-polling or pro-polling viewpoints should be left to other pages (which obviously this page will reference). {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 08:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Pro- or anti-viewpoints have nothing to do with it. Any page that explains ''how'' to do things needs also explain ''when'' (or when not) to do things. For instance, our blocking policy doesn't only explain how to block, but also when (and when not) to block. Note, by the way, that we already have a ] that explains how to conduct a poll. ] 08:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :*Obviously there is a . I am going to be reviewing the history of the development of this page to try to better understand how its utilization as a guideline became derailed and then see if what caused it to become derailed can be properly addressed. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 09:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :**There is certainly need for a guideline, and that's why we have a guideline: ]. One might argue that there is also need for a policy, and indeed we already have one: ]. ] 09:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::*No, there is reason this page was a guideline (which even you yourself tagged it as such) that is not covered by "polling is not a substitute for discussion" which lets face it PNSD is just a POV fork of its original page ]. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 09:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::**False. PNSD was expanded to cover that, which is why PNSD is a guideline and there is no need fo this page. ] is a POV page, yes, that's why PNSD was rewritten from scratch, doesn't even remotely resemble VIE, and is a neutral guideline. ] 09:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I suggest we move the how-to-do-a-poll parts of PNSD to this page, and leave the explicit "we do consensus" at pnsd. --] 11:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*That's an interesting suggestion, but the result would be that the people who read this page remain unaware that "we do consensus". ] 11:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*WP:PNSD is not a guideline, regardless of whether there is a tag on it that says it is. Part of the reason the tag is still there is that someone got one of their admin friends to threaten to block me if I removed the guideline tag again, and then someone protected the page (although I wasn't going to remove it again anyway, because of the threat). ] 15:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Confusing tag == | |||
| This needs to be rephrased. Polling is just one way to reach consensus. --] 00:52, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| It's kind of novel (not to mention confusing) to note that "this page's designation as policy is disputed" on a page that is not in fact designated as policy. I suspect {{tl|controversial}} is what is meant instead? ] 09:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| See also ], though there's little of value there. What's the last item about - people frustrating the vote - what sort of thing are you thinking of? ] 21:45, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :It is not confusing, you are disputing this page being designated as a guideline. Also you've misused the {{tl|controversial}} tag which is only meant for talk pages. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 09:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you are suggesting that this should be a guideline, I suggest you read up on how guidelines are created. At the moment, you are writing a POV essay here. ] 09:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, I am working toward (here tagged by none other than yourself as one). {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 10:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::*But that is pointless as it has been superseded. If you're going to cite me you should also listen to what I'm actually saying, rather than misrepresenting me by ignoring the context. ] 10:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*If you're going to misrepresent this page as only ever having been some non-descript "essay" then I'm going to cite the facts particularly when they involve yourself. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 10:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::**And where did I say that this page "only ever been some non-descript 'essay'"? For starters essays aren't non-descript. See, you're misrepresenting me. Again. Stop that. ] 10:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::* Let's see: . Very misrepresentative. This is not some non-descript "new essay". Such commentary makes it easy to ] regarding your involvement here. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 10:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::**We have a guideline against ], though. I suggest you read that (along with our ]ility policy, for obvious reasons). And yes, this is a new essay you're writing, because you're basically ignoring the points made by the old guideline (which are incidentally also present in the ]). ] 10:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Radiant, let people write out a description here. If it sucks, it sucks, and we drop it. If it works, it works, and we keep it. But please let them work on it, and let's see what they come up with first. | |||
| ::::::: So this page is currently a safe place where folks can be bold and try stuff out. I'd like to see people working on the page itself, not sniping at each other on the talk page for no reason other than to vent their frustrations. Done venting now. Time for working.--] 11:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Thank you Kim Bruning for such a sensible suggestion! :-) {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 11:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: You're welcome. At the same time, it might be a bad idea to label Radiant's quite helpful suggestions as "anti polling propganda". Much of what he's saying are things we learned the hard way, over large periods of time. These are known caveats to polling. You'll have to resolve those issues with Radiant, else the page will never be neutral. :-/ --] 11:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I just want things to read accurately. As I'm doing a survey of polling on the project I'm seeng how it is actually rather commonly used. I really don't appreciate when things are misrepresented. Also I think the {{tl|disputedtag}} should go back up instead of that ] {{tl|controversial}} tag created by Radiant! {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 11:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::*Please look up "accurately" and "common" in the dictionary. Anyone can find a couple dozen instances of polling on Misplaced Pages (aside from AFD/RFA/etc). A couple dozen instances over the course of five years is not "common". ] 12:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::: 12 / ~3 000 000 * 100% = 0.0004% ...Wait, a couple dozen? Let's try 100... 0.0033% . The man might have a bit of a point there. | |||
| :::::::::::: Perhaps polls are mostly used on really busy pages? (I'm guessing there might be 3000 of those? (there were 1000 in jan 2006, when we had ~ 1M pages) ) In that case it'd be 3% of very busy locations. (rough estimate). | |||
| :::::::::::: I think perhaps more polls are being held? I know that ] spams them across the entire main namespace, for instance. | |||
| :::::::::::: How would one search a db dump for polls... via looking for ==Support== perhaps? ^^;; | |||
| :::::::::::: --] 12:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ←Polls have been used in very notable cases on Misplaced Pages when forming guidelines and policies. What is the sense in trying to deny this? {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 12:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Well, when trying to. In the few cases where the polls were defining, the process design typically doesn't work too well. (correlation!= causation, but I have my suspicions... typically it's when people spend more time designing polls and the poll process, than they spend actually designing the darn process itself, ARGH! ;-) ). | |||
| : Most really good processes are formed through consensus and through writing down a descriptive representation of current practice. (So, basically same as what we're trying to do here :-) ) | |||
| : --] 12:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Nobody denies that polls have been used. However, you need to look past the surface and see that (1) in far more cases, polls have ''not'' been used, (2) in nearly all cases where polls were used, the "outcome" of the poll was later superseded (improved) by discussion (because as Kim says, issues designed by poll typically don't work too well), (3) in several cases where polls were used, they didn't actually help, and (4) in several notable cases, polls caused a trainwreck and we would have been far better off without them. ] 12:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :*Well as long as we're going to be ] on Misplaced Pages there obviously needs to be a guideline page specifically addressing that. Kim Bruning is right ] of ] should be here with the rest of the expanded detail about polling. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 13:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :**Based on what I just said as well as on WP:ATT, it would make far more sense to ''not'' continue to have key polls, except when a poll is explicitly requested by Jimbo. ] 13:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Uh, no. That logic is very counter to ]. Look your anti-polling POV is well expressed here why don't you follow Kim Bruning's suggestion above and, "let people write out a description here" as well as, " I'd like to see people working on the page itself, not sniping at each other"... which I completely agree with. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 14:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::**]. If you don't want to see people sniping, stop sniping (as you did in your previous post). Also, the pro-polling POV you're pushing is very obvious, so that's another ]. ] 14:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*Relative to, "let people write out a description here", is not helpful. What was the ] you were trying to illustrate? {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 14:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::**], ], ], ]. I would be happy to discuss that if you promise to stop sniping. ] 15:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Kindly just answer the question please or let us get on with the business of writing this guideline in peace. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 15:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*You haven't stopped sniping yet. In case you haven't realized it yet, you're trying to get people who don't share your POV to stop editing this page, through using demeaning language. There is a word for such behavior... ] 15:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You're avoiding the question regarding your unhelpful edit. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 15:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Woah woah... what makes the edit unhelpful, according to you, Netscott? Radiant, why is that edit helpful, according to you? --] 15:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::They are unhelpful because they are irrelevant in the grand scheme of this page. They're added there to belittle the other rather serious polls that have been conducted surrounding Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. This is clouding the issue. Basically they're there for "red herring" purposes. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 15:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::*False. They're notable polls, which was what you called the section before you decided to focus on the polls on policy. I note that you have refused several times now to stop making personal attacks. It's very unproductive that you want to chase off everyone who doesn't share your POV by attacking them, and demanding they stop editing here. ] 08:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: You guys are BOTH doing that. Stop fighting already, or we'll just delete *both* pages you like ^^;; --] 16:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == |
==Question== | ||
| Given their obviously poor track record, what makes you think we should be "continuing to have key polls" in the first place? ] 15:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ''People who cast a vote in a poll must provide a motivation for their vote in the form of a comment. Simply stating for or against is insufficient. Since an unmotivated vote is useless, it does not count in the poll, and may be deleted at will by anybody. (Polls are there to create consensus, they're not straight and binding votes. This rule prevents such abuse.)'' | |||
| : Can we hold that question for a while? It might sort itself out automatically, as we edit further. ^^;; --] 15:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is a name for the type of logical fallacy engaged in by Radiant above, where one states an unproven assertion ("their obviously poor track record") as the premise for a question in an effort to avoid any discussion about whether the assertion is correct or not, but I forget what it is. I just call it a "When did you stop beating your wife" question. There also is a second rhetorical trick in there, that of putting the word "obviously" in front of an assertion to try to distract attention away from the fact that the assertion is not only '''not''' obvious, but is in fact disputed. Please note, I am not saying that polling has a '''good''' track record; what I believe is that, in highly controversial articles, discussion and polling have equally poor track records, so there is no justification for singling out polling. ] 15:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Just for my own curiosity, what other major polls of the ATT scale have there been before that didn't work out? ], ], and the 3rr polls (can't find the link now). - ] <sup><i>(])</i></sup> 19:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well in order for a poll to "work out" all it has to do is establish what the state of affairs are about a given issue in terms of what views folks hold on the issue. So pretty much the only way a poll wouldn't "work out" is if it was canceled or otherwise wasn't valid in some way (ie: a poll about whether a given logically constructed statement was true or not.... obviously the statement is going to be true or not regardless of the poll). There is now an incomplete list of policy and guideline related polls in the ] of this page that you might like to review. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 20:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Sounds like you have a solid grasp on what a poll is. --] 00:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Just no == | |||
| I've noticed people turning off their brains and just voting blindly during polls. Okay, so maybe they thought about it first, but we'll never know that if they don't explain their thoughts, will we? :-) | |||
| See this thing here. It's called NPOV. | |||
| See this other thing. It's called a straw poll. | |||
| Let's see if people are even paying paying attention at all (I have this suspicion some people aren't). If this guideline is uncontested for 7 days, I'll assume it's acceptable, and start applying it. That's fair enough warning, I guess. ] 19:31, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| When you put them together, there's this big grinding noise. | |||
| :gotcha ;-) how many hours was that? dunno if the ''if nobody notices it must be ok'' logic holds, although I sympathise with your goals ] 13:22, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| Don't make the grinding noise. A kitten is killed by the grinder every time you have a poll. Because they're ''evil''. And evil makes kittens suffer. ] 23:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I like that logic. I tell my kids something similar "you only get in trouble when you get caught, so don't bother me" ;) ] ] 13:30, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| : Ayup. Straw Polls on article content equals wikiality. I think we covered that in points to be included. Perhaps you'd like to edit the page so that that point is in fact integrated with the main text? --] 00:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC) <small>Dang, missed the opportunity to do a cat reference!</small> | |||
| ::Funny enough per ] I'm half-tempted to remove this talk. This talk page is for improving this project page. The "… is ''evil''" mantra is getting tiring already. That is what is known as ]. Straw polls are used daily on Misplaced Pages. It is time to stop denying this and to properly address it with ''guidelines'' on how to best go about employing them correctly. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 01:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Just ask folks to be constructive already. :-/ --] 01:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Oh. I thought Grace Note was supporting polling by satirizing its opponents. No? As for wikiality, it is defined as truth by agreement. It is the so-called "consensus" process that produces wikiality, not polling. Of course, polling should be used with great caution on content pages. We shouldn't be voting on what the facts are. But it can be used for other things. ] 02:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :*''"Straw polls are used daily on Misplaced Pages."'' unless you refer to RFA/xFD/FAC, please provide evidence of this assertion? All you have so far is evidence that we've had a couple dozen polls over the past five years. What you're doing is known as ], not to mention ], and putting up ]. ] 08:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::*What made you think that I wasn't including those? {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 16:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::*(Why don't we all indent the same way? - colons or stars?, make a decision) <p> I think there are more polls over content than Radiant suggests. I've personally seen polls on BC/AD vs BCE/CE, whether to use the word "death" when defining ], whether an infobox should place the ] in a campaign called the "Global War on Terrorism", whether to include images in the ] article, and at least one or two more. I'm only one person, so I imagine there have been quite a lot more. I do a lot of ], and at least 80% of those involve a poll, which isn't directly about article content, but it's close. When you decide which language's name to use for a river or city, or whether an event in a war is an "incident" or a "massacre" or a "tragedy" or a "battle", you're deciding content. Should we be doing it differently? -]<sup>(])</sup> 20:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * +1 for Grace Note here. Here's the thing: ad-hoc straw polls can be a great way of cutting down a number of potential and nuanced versions of a proposal, it's just a bizarre coincidence that the situations in which they are proposed are so often the places where they serve no purpose but to document the fact that there are opposite views to which, if pressed, people who actually broadly agree on something roughly in the middle, will polarise. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :This is absurdity, especially since it is derived from the trolling poll. There, most poll votes without comments are those voting "Yes (I agree with a very elaborate and well-spelled-out policy)". Voting yes with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> is equivalent to saying "yes, I agree with this policy. it is well formulated because of X, Y, and Z." If everyone had to compose their own little blurb to that effect just to vote we would have an extremely bloated page. Those who have taken exception to one or more points, regardless of whether their vote is yes or no, have left comments. A whole fleet of vacuous, essentially identical comments by other voters only masks these concerns unless one wishes to read every single comment for its content. | |||
| :: So then we should stamp out polls entirely. I'm not sure I want to go that far though. Sometimes they are useful at least. A well designed poll might go along lines of "Ok, I agree with mot folks" and "I still have issues I'd like to discuss" .. hmmm... --] 17:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::(e/c)Well by that logic Guy, what are we doing using polls so extensively on XfDs, RfA, ArbCom elections, ].. etc? This view is very simplistic... all a poll does is guage what the state of a consensus on a given issue is. Again, rather than deny this and continue to push for a blanket all "''polling is evil''" mantra let guidelines be formed that at least will ''enhance'' the opportunities that such a poll will have some benefit? This given the absolute certitude that polling is going to continue to play a big roll in the day in, day out functioning of the project. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 17:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Putting some effort towards mitigating the pain at the least, might be worth a couple of hours. :-) --] 18:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Redundencies == | |||
| :All in all, this proposed policy seems like that terrible mandate from an elementary school teacher that you answer a whole sheet of yes-or-no questions with complete sentences and no pronouns. ] 15:23, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| Yes I see several now, you're right, but the overlap is not 100%. This means we're going to have to do an actual refactor, sooner or later (preferably sooner). *sigh*. No time, no time ^^:; --] 16:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == The actual issue == | |||
| :: Well, basically the idea of polling is to discover where a consensus lies, not to determine a yes or no gut reaction kind of answer. Polls are not supposed to answer yes or no questions. If that's what you're using them for, perhaps you shouldn't be holding the poll. Regardless, if people don't start putting down why they're voting, we cant find out what they're thinking, or how the polls are working. | |||
| There is a lot of confusion about the dispute here and on ], so let's look at what it's about. | |||
| :: * If people start putting in short blurbs like you think they will, then we can move to ban polls as being ''Not The Wiki Way''. | |||
| :: * If people actually start to think before voting, then polls are useful, and perhaps they can be used more. | |||
| Now the issue isn't that polling happens; nobody is denying that. | |||
| :: There's only one way to find out! :-) ] 17:06, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| The issue isn't whether we should give suggestions on how to poll; nobody is denying that either. | |||
| :::sorry for "cutting and running" by the way Kim, it was late at night ] time when I spotted your suggestion and I was a bit too tired to be very articulate. (can I also say i find 'not the wiki way' to be pretty unhelpful... if you mean 'not the way we've always done things around here' or 'not what I think the Misplaced Pages is a at its best' than that is what you should say... I think at least) ] 04:17, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| Note how ] already gives a screenful of such suggestions. Are these imperfect? Nobody is denying that either. But we can fix them. | |||
| Then why would we split them off to some other page? The answer is very simple. The people promoting this are largely the same people who object to the very idea of discouraging voting, and want PNSD deprecated. So they are trying to replace a page that discourages and explains voting, by a page that only explains voting but does not discourage anything. | |||
| ---- | |||
| But as we clearly know from article space, a disagreement over a page is not resolved by splitting the page into two "forks". First, this results in two contradictory pages, and second, this gives us ''two'' pages with disagreement on them. Rather than resolving the issue, this approach perpetuates it. | |||
| Here's the proposed rule change again: | |||
| So instead such issues are resolved through careful discussion on the talk page. You have suggestions for improving PNSD? Make them. That's how the wiki process works. ] 07:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ''12. People who cast a vote in a poll must provide a motivation for their vote in the form of a comment. Simply stating for or against is insufficient. Since an unmotivated vote is useless, it does not count in the poll, and may be deleted at will by anybody. (Polls are there to create consensus, they're not straight and binding votes. This rule prevents such abuse.)'' | |||
| == Definitions section gone missing == | |||
| My logic for doing it this way is that ''no one ever seems to actually read the polling guidelines''. I'd like to add a sanction for failure to read them. | |||
| Hey, we totally lost the definitions!? Restored. | |||
| People edit rules all the time, so that's no big deal. | |||
| By changing the guideline and adding a mild sanction to poke people with in exactly this manner, it might keep people from falling asleep at the wheel. ;-) | |||
| Definately needs some editing still... | |||
| I'll just rv it back now, and see when the next person bites (if ever), I hope you don't mind! Else you just know it'll never get discussed. We have 6 days left. If by the end of that time the consensus is to drop, I'll abide by the consensus. | |||
| --] 12:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Notable polls == | |||
| For obvious reasons, there shouldn't be a poll in this instance. In the mean time, is there any reason you actually happen to disagree with the rule? | |||
| I suggest we come up with a workable definition of 'notable poll' (judged by impact, most of these polls weren't notable; judged by ], none of them are) as well as 'significant numbers' of Wikipedians (since we have over a million users, 100 doesn't seem all that significant). By the way I've edited the 'policy polls' section to remove some polls that weren't actually about policy, since adding them there is misleading. | |||
| ] 13:40, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::ohh now I get it... revert wars... now that is the wiki way!! (just joking... kinda) ;-) ] 04:17, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| Additionally, the section on "feature request" polls is misleading in that there are over 9000 such issues (so the two polls are not the common case but the rare exception) and that these two polls were ignored by the devs. ] 10:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I must strongly disagree with this proposed change in policy. People should be able to simply agree or disagree with what is being put forth by a poll. I don't know of any formal legislative body that requires its members to provide a justification every time they vote. This policy would only serve to cripple the voting process. It would take longer for votes to accumulate, it would make people less inclined to vote, and it would encourage mob rule, as people would be able to attack minority votes and claim their justifications were insufficient. | |||
| :Well it is rather common knowledge that at any one time there are generally 1,000 or so active Wikipedians so when 10% or more of that number particpates in a poll that is notable. As far as the featured requests... correct me if I am wrong but the request to have different levels of blocking did go through, did it not? Have you reviewed the What is troll poll? That poll was concerned about policy surrounding trollish behavior. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 10:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Do you have a source for that common knowledge? To my knowledge there are approx 900 active ''admins'', so one would expect an amount of active ''users'' several orders of magnitude larger. Having, say, 100 supports on an RFA is not nearly as special as it used to be. | |||
| ::WRT the blocking feature request, yes, it was implemented, but the poll was not a factor in deciding whether to implement it. Note that the poll started October 2005, the implementation was done in May 2006, and the poll ended September 2006. It is generally not helpful towards the devs to suggest that things will be implemented if enough people ask for it (or that things won't be implemented unless enough people ask for it), because that simply isn't true. ] 11:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is silly to try and downplay whether these polls were notable. What percentage of what happens on the Wiki is determined by those 900 admins? When it comes to policy and guideline forming, etc. you can be sure that those are the folks doing most if not all of the "heavy lifting". As far as the feature request, the polling was undoubtedly a factor in that so there's really no point in trying to downplay that either. Radiant! it is difficult to understand your push to limit the significance that polling has played (and plays) on the project. The fact that polling is itself a part of the dispute resolution process speaks volumes to its standing in the community. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 11:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Proof by assertion isn't, and your opinion isn't fact. Please show any kind of evidence that "those do most of the heavy lifting" and that it was "undoubtedly a factor"? ] 11:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*Now you're just being obtuse, you ask any Wikipedian that has been around for any length of time and you will hear the same thing regarding the "heavy lifting" commentary. As far as the poll being a factor, you don't think the developers read that poll and took what people were actually '''saying''' in their comments as they formulated that new functionality? Your inclination to discount the fact that people actually ''discuss'' and ''comment'' in polls is a bit puzzling. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 11:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::**So you're saying that the ~900 active admins do most of the "heavy lifting", and that therefore having 100 responses to a poll is a "significant figure", ''even though'' most of those poll respondents aren't actually admins. That's comparing apples and oranges, and therefore fallacious. Also, I dispute the assertion that the admins do most of the heavy lifting, based on the fact that many RC patrollers, WSS members, and vandal fighters aren't admins. Simply put, you're assuming things, and as they say, assuming makes an ass out of U and me. ] 12:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I am talking about folks who are the ones formulating policies and guidelines much like what's happened on ] and then in related polls. Again, have you forgotten that folks comment, discuss and make suggestions during polling? {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 12:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*No I'm not, and that's just something you assumed again because I haven't said anything like that. Your assumption that most of the "heavy lifting" is done by admins is contradicted by the fact that most of the respondents to ATT aren't admins. So like I said, 100 users out of an estimate of 90000 active users is not a significant figure. Again I note that you're really not responding to anything I say, but instead simply repeat what you've said before. That's not productive. ] 12:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Actually you've not proved anything yourself. There's a claim you make a counter claim neither of us have any solid "proof" and there we go. I continue to edit according to the fact that polling has been utilized (and is frequently utilized) as a tool to guage consensus for many many aspects of the project's functioning and development and you edit to counter that. Nothing new here. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 12:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*] fallacy. I've proven that 100 users out of 90000 active users is not a significant group, and that implementation feature request is not based upon a poll that closed several months after the request was implemented. But indeed, nothing new here, you just keep repeating the same false assumptions like a broken record. ] 12:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ←(e/c)Your editing strikes me as odd when you yourself as a guideline and you've played an role behind editing surrounding ] (even in its ), etc. I'm not sure what happened but somewhere along the line your mentality shifted. Puzzling. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 12:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Your editing strikes me as odd when you yourself tagged this page as an essay. But yes, somewhere along the line I figured out that polls are pointless and/or harmful more often than not. I'm tempted to add a quote about padawans, but never mind. ] 13:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :*Well we'll get this page to guideline designation or have it properly integrated into a singular page about ''polling'' called ] it just needs a bit of time and work. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 13:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Request removal of mfd tag == | |||
| :I also oppose the manner in which this policy change is being presented. According to the ], if unopposed (who defines opposition? what constitutes opposition?) the policy will simply apply. Where's the discussion? Where's the consensus? New policies should require community approval to go into effect, they shouldn't simply need to lack opposition. The need for approval encourages dialogue about the policy and can lead to refinements and understanding. The reasons for proposing this policy are equally specious. The policy is intended to be a sanction against not reading polling guidelines? Couldn't we find better ways to encourage people to read them (that don't involve discouraging them from voting)? I feel strongly that this proposal must be brought to a vote (the old-fashioned way) instead of just falling into effect. | |||
| {{tl|editprotected}} The ] was withdrawn, so please remove the {{mfd}} tag. | |||
| :] 17:15, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC), hoping to not sound too harsh | |||
| ::yeah what Acegikom1 said! including the bit about being harsh. ] 04:17, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| (Is it time to unprotect the page yet?) | |||
| :The justification for the proposed rule is that people are "turning off their brains and just voting blindly". It's a shame if that is happening, but requiring people to write out their motivation won't solve the problem. A brief justification of a vote is wholly insufficient to weed out insincerity and knee-jerk reactions from thoughtful participation. The simplest example is complete consensus. Suppose there is a poll on the topic '''Vandalised pages should be reverted to a previous version''', and it happens that everyone completely agrees. Then voting under the new guideline will look something like this: | |||
| ** User 1: Yes, vandalism makes the content of an article worse, and reverting vandalism will make it better again. | |||
| ** User 2: Yes, reverting vandalism protects the content of an article from being made worse by vandals. | |||
| ** User 3: Yes, article content will be made worse by vandals unless we revert it to a previous good version. | |||
| ** User 4: Yes, but I like the way User 1 justified it better than the way User 3 justified it. | |||
| ** User 5: Yes, and I think all the justifications given above are equally good. | |||
| ** User 6: Yes, vandalism makes the content of an article worse, and reverting vandalism will make it better again. | |||
| Cheers, ] 17:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Under the guidelines without the new number 12, we would have had six yes votes, and we wouldn't have known whether they were thoughtful and sincere. Under the quidelines with the new number 12, we have six yes votes, and we still don't know whether they are thoughtful and sincere. Maybe User 5 genuinely embraced what everyone else said. Maybe User 6 happened to think about it on his own in exactly the same terms User 1 did, and couldn't come up with a more articulate way to say it. Maybe User 4 hasn't reflected on the issues at all, and is drawing a distinction just to appear to meet guideline number 12. There is no way to know. | |||
| I would like to see the page unprotected please. <cross fingers> --] 12:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :In short I strongly oppose the new guideline. Since it won't solve anything, implementing it would be akin to ]. By all means, let us promote the development of consensus by participating in thoughtful debate, but let us not silence the voices of people who we suspect are not sufficiently thoughtful. | |||
| :I unprotected the page, as discussion has died down in a few places. ] · <small>]</small> 14:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Peace, --] 18:00, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ==Opinion headnote== | |||
| :: If those situations do occur a lot as you predict, then we can remove polls from the dispute resolution process entirely, since we'd have shown conclusively that polls Do Not Work | |||
| I have deleted the <nowiki>{{rejected}}</nowiki> headnote that was posted by a a now inactive editor. The headnote was added in 2007 and removed . --] (]) 15:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :: On the other hand, perhaps polls will start a lot of interesting discussion this way, that's what I'm hoping for in any case. | |||
| :: (see my comment above for details) ] 18:15, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| == Vandalism edit request == | |||
| ::: Your arguments seem based on the premise that the only valid function of a poll is to help create consensus. You consider the unanimous poll I gave above as an example of how polls Do Not Work. I respectfully disagree. Polls have another very useful function, namely establishing whether or not consensus already exists. If a vote goes overwhelmingly one way, we don't need a poll (or any other means) to establish consensus, because it already exists. If a vote is evenly divided, the poll makes it obvious that there isn't an existing consensus, and further discussion is necessary if consensus is to be achieved. Either way, the poll has served a purpose, and my example is a way in which polls Work Perfectly Well. | |||
| {{edit semi-protected|<!-- Page to be edited -->|answered=yes}} | |||
| ::: We should by no means forget the goal of producing consensus, as opposed to merely testing whether it exists. To the extent that polls are an element in producing consensus, they are doing double duty. But even if polls do nothing but measure consensus without advancing it, they serve a useful function. | |||
| <!-- Begin request --> | |||
| At the Definitions: Polling and Voting section of the page, there are the phrases "door gods" and "Pepsi". These phrases should be "particular points" and "time" | |||
| <!-- End request --> | |||
| ] (]) 04:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{done}}. --] (]) 04:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Rare experiments == | |||
| ::: Peace, --] 18:48, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ", although there are very rare experiments." Did the writer mean "exceptions"? (Also, whatever the case may be, is "very rare" accurate?) --] (]) 03:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::: You're absolutely right! The problem is that sometimes polls are misused. I've seen people try to use polls in the recent past to force POV of a vocal <s>minority</s> group into articles. In the end things worked out ok I think, mainly because people were paying attention. | |||
| :::: To make things easier, we need some way to check whether a poll has been conducted correctly. Even if it's a bit more work to read through, fine, but at least in the new worst-case we'd have *some* meta-information, no matter how vague, as opposed to none at all. | |||
| :::: ] 19:09, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| I don't think the proposed guideline is helpful, and I have removed it. In many polls or surveys on Misplaced Pages, the reasons for someone's opinion/vote have already been stated by others, or are so basic that people think it odd to express them. '''Requiring''' a comment is not useful when all someone feels like adding is "I agree with X", or "me too". It's so much easier for them to do with just <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. Part of the point is to find out the opinions of people who might not join the discussion because they don't have anything original to say. | |||
| To deal with the problems of polls, I have instead renamed this page Survey guidelines and changed the text accordingly. I proposed this idea at ] and nobody objected there, so I've gone ahead with it. I think this will help address the problem of blind voting and the misperception some people have that polls have a binding effect. --] 23:18, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| fair enough Michael, It raises the point of how policy does get agreed though. Does it come down to consensus on the policy pages in the light of surveys? ] 04:17, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :See ]. That may not answer your question fully, of course. I would say it does come down to consensus, either via discussion or based on existing practices that nobody objects to. Surveys can be a useful tool to figure out consensus, certainly. More substantive discussion also helps, and is more useful than surveys for thoroughly airing the issues. | |||
| :This is a broader subject than just the topic of surveys, but you're getting at the issue of whether our policy-formation system itself is adequate. You may be interested in reading an extended discussion I had with UninvitedCompany on my talk page about this. --] 05:33, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :: This sounds like it might have a chance of working. Thanks Michael. :) Let's stick with it for a bit and see what happens. ] 07:50, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| == Voting via templates == | |||
| (Portions of this conversation stamped before 14:40, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC) were moved here from ]) | |||
| Recently, a couple pages (] and ]) have come up for deletion which were being used as VfD votes by some users. The voters were adding these as votes using double-braces, then adding their signature. | |||
| I am unaware that there is any current policy preventing this practice, but I think we can almost all see how disruptive and inappropriate it is. In effect, a voter is voicing a comment such that anyone can make a single edit and change all the related vote pages. I'd like to propose this following: | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| "All votes and any associated comments must be presented in simple text only. Active use of a ] or any other form of ] is disallowed wherever votes are being recorded. Such votes will not be considered when evaluating the results." | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| Where is the best place to add this guideline? What sort of objections to it are there? -- ] ] 15:32, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC) | |||
| :I have no objections to it in the slightest. | |||
| :As to the best place, perhaps the Deletion policy page would be the best place for it? If it does become policy a mention at ] would probably be apropriate and worthwile. ] 16:29, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *I wouldn't mind such a policy, but be sure to determine if there's a concensus first. Every article is a case on it's own and should be assessed as such. ]|] 18:02, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Restate, please, to avoid any confusion about whether the policy attempts to ban using a subst call to a template, which could never be proven and which is not subject to the could-be-silently-changed reasoning. --]] 19:00, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC) | |||
| * I doubt anyone cares or can complain about using subst: - the point is that the text of a vote should not be modified except by editing the vote page. I added the word "Active" above. -- ] ] 19:14, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not sure that additional instruction creep is needed. See also ], which dealt with the same sort of issue. This is probably less likely to be used against users shouting at each other in a school vfd, where I'm not convinced that ''anyone'' is reading what other people are saying anymore, than it is against users who transclude their signatures. —] (]) 19:50, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : I think the personal attacks thing is very different. The issue of "vote templates" creeps in occasionally, and should be documented as a bad practice, with a realistic idea of what to expect if you try it (i.e. your vote doesn't count). | |||
| : As far as signature transclusion, that is ] on its own, but outside the intended scope of my suggestion. -- ] ] 20:08, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC) | |||
| *I concur with this idea. Good catch! — ] <sup>] | ]</sup> 21:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *It's a sound idea. VfD is large, slow, and busy enough as it is—it doesn't need to deal with transcluded comments and sigs as well. --] | ] 00:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * All that templates do is automate the existing ideological voting on VfD. I think that is a much bigger issue than the use of templates. The reason ideological voting occurs is that deletionists and others (formerly GRider), regular bring up for votes articles about whose inclusion/deletion is an ideological issue. If people would stop engaging in socratic VfD nominations then VfD would be a much nicer place.<br>As an alternate solution. All templates used in a VfD vote should be substituted in silently. This would solve the issue of the modification of a template being used to vandalize votes. Otherwise I that template insertions should be ignored and not processed.<br>That said, I dont think template voting would be anywhere near as controversial but that it has been used by some inclusionist voters, to subtly parody mindless deletionism. Think ] or ]. ] 02:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **Speaking of factionalism (see below), we'd all be better off if you wouldn't cast this as a partisan debate. The problem is not that "deletionists nominate articles whose existence is an ideological issue"--that essentially absolves all keep voters of any responsibility. The problem is that we have no consensus on school articles, and we need one. In addition, users attempting to subtly parody delete voters ala dadaism veers dangerously close to ]. Please--this is a procedural debate, not an ideological one. I think the only real solution is to come to a workable compromise regarding schools. ] ] 20:50, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *"all templates used in VfD votes should be substituted in silently" while not a bad idea, requires a software change and the implementors have more important things on their hands. The suggestion that this is controversial because inclusionists use it, however, is an example of mindless ], not to mention ].<br>Anyway. I agree with the proposal, but we should also do some consensual poll to make it official. I also oppose subst-ing the template, or copy/paste voting in general, but I can't think of a feasible way to prevent people from doing that. ]]] 11:54, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ** We only need polls when consensus is unclear. Noone has yet come through and defended this practice or to state that it is even acceptable. Korath mentioned a desire to avoid the instruction creep, but I'm unclear whether he objected to the practice or just thinks this is obvious and needn't be documented. -- ] ] 14:40, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC) | |||
| *** The latter - it's obvious and doesn't need new rules. If nothing else, it's clearly a breach of ]. —] (]) 15:32, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *The issue of changing a large number of votes is valid, while no one's demostrated an advantage to this. Boilerplate text can be included with <nowiki>{{subst:</nowiki> if desired. Otherwise, template votes shouldn't count. ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 17:36, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC) | |||
| * I don't believe this is worth its contribution to ]. I believe this is a temporary problem brought about by the current disagreement on inclusion guidelines. While it is probably unrealistic to expect complete consensus on inclusion guidelines, I would hope that the present matter of schools will be settled. ] Co., ] 22:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===Make it semi-policy=== | |||
| * I don't think this is instruction creep, it's a very clear "Don't do this" case similar to the Tally Box Pox of last month or thereabouts. Since this primarily affects VfD, the easiest way to do this would be adding a Policy Consensus topic stating the proposal that "votes containing non-substed templates are invalid" or something similar. Then wait a week, and if it gets a lot of 'agree' votes and few to none 'oppose' votes, it's consensual enough for a semi-policy. Which would mean that if/when anyone sees a templated vote, they should subst: it and inform the original voter to not do that. ]]] 15:24, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Companion page == | |||
| I'm compiling suggestions on how to choose a voting method at ]. (The name can change to match the terminology of other Misplaced Pages discussions.) | |||
| The page starts with the strong suggestion that you don't vote at all and have an informal discussion instead, and then suggests some voting methods, and how to present them to minimize confusion. The emphasis is to keep the voting as simple as you can while reaching a consensus. | |||
| I made this page because I've seen several surveys in a row where the procedure became more contentious than the actual issue, and so consensus became impossible when it might have been possible before. I'd like to prevent that by making some suggestions on what works and what doesn't. | |||
| ] 01:00, May 9, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Fix the loopholes == | |||
| As the ever-persisent disputed over Gdansk/Vote prove, our current policy is in need of a serious redesigning to fox the loopwholes. Please comment on ] and help us draft a new policy proposal. --] <sup>]</sup> 11:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : Proposal now official, now at: ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Fixing giant loopholes == | |||
| ''Note that the discussion that lead to this propsal is ].'' | |||
| ], a ] for all manners of surveys and votes on Misplaced Pages, is deeply flawed in its existing rules and fails to address several important issues. A prime example is that in ] it allows both sides of the dispute to claim they are immunie from ] rule, as well as disputing the very vote results. As there are proposals for new votes similar to the Gdansk/Vote, I feel we must fix the policy ASAP - otherwise, those votes will be nothing but a giant time loss for everybody involved, including poor participants of RfC, RfA and admins enforcing 3RR rule, who - judging on Gdansk/Vote results - will soon be asked to chose sides in various interpretations of the vote. I hate instructions creep, but I am afraid this is necessary in this case. I think the following changes have to be implemented to survey 'how to' creation and enforcement: | |||
| # This is supposedly an official guideline, but it states first: ''These guidelines provide a framework that may be followed when creating a new survey. These are not binding in any way.'' It would be funny if it wasn't sad. What's the point of official unbidning guidlines, especially when they are used to change/counteract official policies (like 3RR)? We need to make some of them obligatory for carrying all votes on Misplaced Pages, or at least those that affect official policies. I definetly think that each survey must follow points 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. | |||
| # Points 1 and 3 are 'good wishes', and should be moved to the introduction section of the guideline | |||
| # Point 9 is too general: ''Where there is a sign of activities intended to frustrate the intent of the survey, those who can opine may be restricted. A lack of restrictions is usually best, so this may be invoked after the polling has started.'' We need to specify what are the 'acitivies intended to frustrate the intent of the survey' and how 'those who can opine may be restricted'. In current form those rules allow for, for example, for a restriction of vote to 'Yes' only. | |||
| # Point 10 is even worse: ''If the majority of opinion is in one direction, but a significant minority of people oppose it, work to find a solution that can be accepted by as many people as possible.'' It can easly be used to dispute almost any vote after the voting has ended. It should either be deleted, or we need to define significant majority *gasp* with clear qunatiative percents - and make it clear to the voters (by adding the relevant requirement to step 2 of 'creating a new survey section') that they know that the vote needs more then normal majority (50%+1) to pass. Otherwise any user can claim that anything is a 'significant majority' and the vote is unbinding. I'd suggest that a Misplaced Pages vote must require at least a 75% majority to be binding, otherwise it can be only a guideline. This should be cleary stated at the beginning of the survey, so that everybody participating would know how much votes are needed for the motion to pass (or not). | |||
| # Further, we need to add to that section an obligatory information on who can vote, preferably make this a rule in survey creation instead of leaving it to arbitrary decision of not always impartial vote creators. I.e. make a rule that only users who have at least x major edits and registered y time periods before voting can vote. I'd suggest 100 edits and a week. Note that such a rule applies to current ]. | |||
| # If a vote would influence and official policy (like the 3RR) then information about the vote should be added to the relevant policy discussion/talk page. Similarly, if a vote would influence mainspace articles, note on the vote should be added to them as well (as was done in Gdansk/Vote example). | |||
| # We need to add an information what is the minimal numbers of voters that makes the vote valid (for example, a vote with 1-2 users is not very useful). While for the obscure topics that generate little interest even 1-2 votes may be sufficient, I suggest at least 30 voters for a binding vote in cases the vote would go against an official policy (like the suspention of 3RR rules against losers of the vote reverts, as is the case with Gdansk/Vote). | |||
| # We need to decide whether and if so, under what rules can a vote/survey be repeated. I think a vote can be repeated until a binding desision is reached. If a vote has passed a decision, a new vote should not bring the issue again until at least a year have passed since the last one or there is an Arb Com agreement to start a new vote. And if a vote is repeated, all past votes on the issue should be copied and included in a new vote unless the vote owner changes decision. An exception can be made for instances where it is quickly discovered that the wording has been too vague and thus the primary vote failed to solve the issue and that some sort of repeated vote is necessary to make it clearer what is intended. I'd suggest that any user can request a revote on such grounds (clarification needed), informing all past voters and asking them for agreement, and if 75% agrees that a revote on those grounds is needed, it can be carried out. However, if they don't, then a revote on those grounds cannot be repeated for a year. | |||
| # We need to make clear if the current changes apply (or can apply) to old votes. | |||
| # We need to make a rule about vote enforcement. What's the use of a vote if those who don't like the result can ignore it? If a vote is binding, that all edits contraty to the vote decision should be reverted and not count toward 3RR rule. | |||
| Well, that's all I can think of now. A final note: I don't want to formalize all votes and surveys, only those that like Gdansk/Vote infringe/break other official policies like the 3RR in case of Gdansk/Vote. Fuzzy and inbinding votes are good - but not in important matters. So, what do you think? --] <sup>]</sup> 19:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : You misunderstand the point of surveys. A survey or poll is not a binding vote. ] 19:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: Tell that to the people engaged in Gdansk/Vote and claiming it gives them immunity to 3RR. Apparently quite a lot of people (enough to force desisions on 3RR blocks or lack of them) considers this survey binding enough to be above the official policy of 3RR. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::: That's *ahehehehe* ''wrong''. Which people were it? *innocent look* *rubbing of hands behind back* ] 11:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ''Some of the above Moved from ]'' | |||
| : Since there have been no meaningful (content) objections so far, I will be changing the guideline in a few days. I will post a notice on VP(p) again, and RfC and AN this time to attract more attention. --] <sup>]</sup> 13:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: You've had one objection from Kim Bruning, and here is another from me. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. A survey cannot overturn policy. ]] 14:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Who create policies? We do. Surveys are just a formalized voting, and Misplaced Pages is build around consensus. If majority of users want something, it has to be changed - Wiki has always worked that way. I don't see a difference whether the majority choses to speak on a talk page of through a more formal survey vote. A note about a survey will be added to the policy page, so all interested parties will be informed. Perhaps, if you think it may be abused, we can add a requirement that such votes need to be notified on AN, RfC, VP(p) and should require a given number of participnats/majority support? --] <sup>]</sup> 14:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : '''Anyone''' who knowingly violates the 3RR can be banned, without exceptions. Surveys do not provide an exemption for that rule. That is the only thing that must be clarified on the page. ] | ] 14:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: Replied above. I doubt 3RR would ever be changed, it is too useful. But nothing should be above the will of the majority - if for example at some distant future, 90% of Wiki users want to change 3RR to 4RR, shouldn't they be allowed to do so? --] <sup>]</sup> 14:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I am not sure of my views on this -- I would like to see a specific draft of alternate text as part of such a proposal. But in any cas one cannot IMO simply put a proposal out and if it received no positive comments at all, implement it on the ground that there have been "no objections". I object to implementing this unless a significant number of editors specifically indicate support, wheter in a poll or in discussion. ] ] 15:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : The above proposal is a result of ] by several users. We would like to hear more opinions on this now. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fine. My opnion is that the above text is not a proposal, but a skeleton from which an actual proposal might be built, and that it is not anywhere newar a sufficnent basis on which to be "changing the guideline". I want to see a detailed text of what the revised guideline would look like, and to see multiple people specifically supporting that text. I don't object to developign such a text, adn to then seeking support for it. But commeths above suggested that you thought you were ready to change the workign guideline. i think you haven't come near that stage yet. ] ] 18:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think it is a good start. Policy making is very tough business, and I am grateful for Piotrus for getting things going. The comments above have my support (since I was also involved in the first disussion round). I am not sure if they can be implemented all at once, but a one-by one approach should be possible. I think especially the points "what is a majority", "who can vote (edit count)" and "how many votes needed for a valid vote". And, most of all, how to enforce the vote outcome if users refuse to follow the majority vote. The only way currently possible in the ] would be for disrupting wikipedia. A 3RR Excempt was also voted on in the Gdansk vote, but continues to cause problems. Yet a vote enforcement is needed, otherewise we'll open the doors to anarchy. -- ] ] 09:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Time needed to reach consensus == | |||
| ''Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts. Allow about a week for this process'' | |||
| Is it good to specify a timeline in this way? I would rather suggest something like "Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts. Let this process last until it is finished, which can often can be expected to last at least a week." / ] 11:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Polling/survey templates== | |||
| I've created AfD-style poll closure templates at ] and ]. Like the AfD-style closure templates, these are meant to be used with <nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>:}}</nowiki>. There's a demonstration of what these templates do on each ] ] (the demos are identical, as both templates are necessary to get the effect). Hopefully I haven't recreated work already done. :P If someone wants to, it might be worth adding a link to these to the survey guidelines... but only after suitable discussion, and of course, a '''survey'''. :P Comments welcome and appreciated. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 09:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==What on earth?== | |||
| Have a look through the revision history of this one. This is textbook ] and I've edited it accordingly. ] a game of ]. Or shouldn't be - ] 20:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I've merged it to ] as was suggested in the header - ] 20:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Move to delete 99% of all Lists and Categories of Jews == | |||
| Please read the sixteen point introduction at ] and related discussions at ]. Thank you. ] 11:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == What happens to old polls? == | |||
| There needs to be a guideline as to what to do with old polls. When can/should they be archived? Should a summary of the poll topic and its results be given a permanent place at the top of the article's talk page? Any thoughts? -- ] 00:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It's just an issue of appearence..whats the need of another rule?--] 11:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The need is for clarity so as to minimize pointless arguments. These issues should be hashed out once and a guideline created, so stupid arguments and edit wars don't start up over these issues in the future. -- ] 01:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Contradiction == | |||
| This guideline has a contradiction: in the lead, it describes straw poll as not having "opening and closing times as votes do", while in the "Creating a survey section" step 4 is "A deadline for the survey should be considered so as to resolve the issue in a timely manner". Explicitly stating some sort of loose timeframe seems like good advice to me; what do others think? --]<sup>]</sup> 08:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Guideline status discussion == | |||
| ] has removed the following text recently added by "]" | |||
| : ''This page explains ''how'' to make a good straw poll. See ] for an explanation of why we usually ''don't'' use straw polls.'''' | |||
| The page certainly does give guidance on making straw polls, and it's a truism that we make little use of straw polls as a decision-making mechanism. I'm not really sure what ]'s objection can be, so I've taken the step of restoring the text. --] 10:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Stating that a guideline (of any sort) is usually not used is like saying that this is not a guideline. Furthermore: | |||
| {{cquote|'''This page is considered a guideline on Misplaced Pages.''' It is generally accepted among editors and is considered ''a standard that all users should follow.'' However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the ''occasional'' exception. When editing this page, ''please ensure that your revision reflects consensus.'' When in doubt, ''discuss first'' on the talk page.'''}} | |||
| :There is only an ''occasional'' exception, and guidelines are a ''standard'' to follow: '''Stating that we ''usually'' don't use straw polls is a load of you-know-what.''' | |||
| :If ], who added the text, wanted to dispute this guideline there is a ]. ''His edit was totally non-standard.'' I'm reverting his edit until he discusses this intelligently on this talk page and convinces me that straw polls are the exception rather than the rule in Misplaced Pages's decision processes. | |||
| :]. --]]] 23:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I don't understand what your grievance is here. Could you try to restate it and maybe I'll follow. Is the crux of the matter that you think we actually ''do'' make decisions by straw poll? --] 00:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::*I'm sorry, perhaps I didn't make myself clear, despite all my highlighting. Let's look at my earlier post again: | |||
| :::*Stating that a guideline is usually not used is like saying that this is not a guideline. | |||
| :::*There is only an ''occasional'' exception | |||
| :::*guidelines are a ''standard'' | |||
| :::*'''Stating that we ''usually'' don't use straw polls is a load of you-know-what.''' | |||
| :::'nuff said. | |||
| ::*In regards to your question: It doesn't matter what I think: the presence of {{tl|guideline}} should indicate to you that the the ''Misplaced Pages community'' thinks that straw polls have an important place on Misplaced Pages. If anyone wants to dispute this guideline, please do so ]. Thank you. --]]] 00:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::DavidHOzAu, Please note that we '''''don't''''' actually make decisions by straw poll, and we haven't done for years, because ]. <span class="ipa">]]</span> 00:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Funny, I could've sworn we were using approval voting at ]. | |||
| :::::Anyway, what should've been added is something to make it clear that discussion interprets surveys, instead of sounding like surveys are discouraged ''period''. Feel free to add it back in its unmodified form, but IMHO I'd edit it a bit first. --]]] 01:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The important difference is between "approval voting" to pick the most popular design for a standard, and "majority voting" on any random motion. The former works, the latter does not. ] 16:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: We use straw polls in many places on wikipedia. They help gauge consensus. This is indisputable. In no way does this mean that these straw polls are binding - they're not binding. We *do* in fact make decisions based on polls, but hopfully not on polls alone. I agree with DavidHOzAu's edit to remove the text - because it is in contradiction to the nature of this guideline. ] 07:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::To repeat, the important difference is between "approval voting" to pick the most popular design for a standard, and "majority voting" on any random motion. The former works, the latter does not. ] 08:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: Whats your point? ] 18:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| === Removed tag === | |||
| Since there is clearly some contention as to the status of this article, I've removed the "guideline" tag. Not a guideline if there isn't consensus. - ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 11:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Where? Where are these people disputing this page? Radiant is one, are you another? This has been a guideline for a year, more discussion is needed before its demoted. ] 00:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Once more, whenever you're talking about "promoting" and "demoting" pages you're clearly misunderstanding Misplaced Pages. ] 11:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Mandating reasons attached to a vote == | |||
| I think that this page should encourage users to write the reason for their vote right next to it like this: | |||
| :'''Delete''' - because the page fails verifiability, none of the sources provide information that verifies the article. ] a:dd, the datehere year (UTC) | |||
| That way people can gauge how and why the poll is turning out like it is. ] 19:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *So what you're basically saying is that people should discuss rather than voting. ] 21:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **And also that if a reason comes up which is better than all the others, it overrides all the other opinions... sounds a lot like you're saying that straw polls are non-binding and that they're an indicator only! Then why do you insist that this is a guideline? Daily usage shows that this has been rejected time and time again. <span class="ipa">]]</span> 09:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: .... uh.. straw polls... *aren't* binding. Doesn't it say that in the article? I don't understand why you're confused. Straw polls aren't binding, and are used as an indicator. Whats your point? My point is that this page attempts to explain how to make a good straw poll. Are you trying to tell me that a straw poll would be better *without* peoples reasons for their opinions? ] 01:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Oh, btw, I insist on this as a guideline because it has been one for a long time. That, and I don't see significant consensus to demote it. Do you? Please just point me to something that would convince me. ] 01:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *A how-to is not a guideline. And if you're asking people for their reasons anyway, you're actually discussing rather than voting. ] 11:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Reasons would make it BOTH a poll and a discussion. ] 01:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Page seems old, broken , and badly maintained == | |||
| It seems to advocate things going in different (random) directions. We should consider reverting. | |||
| Somehow guidelines do not appear to coincide very well with best practices, we've seen it before. We may need to consider a different procedure for maintaining them. | |||
| ] 14:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Told you so. At any rate, reverting where exactly? ] 20:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Radiant wants to make sure you want to revert to a time when this wasn't guideline - a vast minority of the history of this page. But I agree, guidelines, practice, and intention have all gone in three different directions - wikipedia needs a better framework of organization. ] 23:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Returning this page back to '''guideline''' status== | |||
| This page appears to have more merit than it's previous {{]}} tag would lead one to believe with ], ], ], ], ] other language Wikis that appear to have equivalent pages. This page merits continued development and being turned back into a guideline. ''(]])'' 05:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Even ] (and has done so for a very long time). ''(]])'' 05:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *However, analysis shows that this page not at all matches actual practice in the English Misplaced Pages. We are not responsible for other-language wikis, most of which are several orders of magnitude smaller and many of which have different "rules" than we do. Even though the header has a few lines that state otherwise, the gist of this page reads as an endorsement of polling in most situations; such an endorsement is simply not a good idea given the problems that can be caused by improper or premature polls. (]) 15:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *If there are some adjustments we could make to get back to guideline status, that would obviously be ideal. I will see if I can find the time. ] 22:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Wording change== | |||
| I would like to add the following to the page, under "What a Straw Poll is good for": | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| "''Straw polls can be useful in cases where there are many editors involved in a debate, or in cases where some editors in a discussion are posting multiple times per day, but others can only participate once a day (or less). A poll structure can help ensure that equal weight is given to all editors' opinions.''" | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| Does this look acceptable? --] 06:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 19:14, 20 August 2024
 | This page was nominated for deletion on 24 April 2007. The result of the discussion was withdrawn, keep. |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 Archives |
|
/Archive 1: 2003-2006 |
Opening and closing times
- Straw polls should not have opening and closing times as votes do.
- A deadline for the survey should be considered so as to resolve the issue in a timely manner.
This seems a bit contradictory to me. --[[User2602:306:3B45:B650:DD27:8015:F031:66B2 (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC):El
eassar|Eleassar≥→]] 13:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).2602:306:3B45:B650:DD27:8015:F031:66B2 (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
what happened here?
Why did this policy suddenly become an essay?
Upped to guideline, will switch to policy if no-one disagrees within 7 days. --Kim Bruning 09:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Policy? I thought you didn't believe in voting? The relevant parts of the guideline were moved to PNSD; the problem with having a guideline called "straw polls" is that it gives people (who tend not to read the entirety of such pages) the impression that straw polls are in most cases a good and useful idea. >Radiant< 10:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Alright. Hmm, so where do I find the guidelines to make a proper non-binding opinion poll (aka survey) now? I need them today :-). The Survey Guidelines redirect to here. :-/ --Kim Bruning 10:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- It goes roughly like this: (1) list options; (2) get people to !vote; (3) argue over results; (4) argue over what the questions were; (5) argue over quorum; (6) argue over the arguing. I am told that surveys like this typically don't provide very much useful data, and that the outcome is going to be biased towards whatever the writer wants to see. >Radiant< 11:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- True, but some kinds of survey can possibly be useful. At any rate, some people feel a burning need for polls. It would be nice to actually describe the safest (for some definition of safe) way to do them, if people must really do them. --Kim Bruning 11:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Like I said, if one would describe the safest (or arguably, least unsafe) way of doing that, people would assume it was always safe, and feel justified in their burning need, and the next thing you know is we have people vote on facts again. >Radiant< 11:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- well, that's what we have now too. Usually it helps to be able to point to something solid. :-/ *scratches head* --Kim Bruning 18:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Alright. Hmm, so where do I find the guidelines to make a proper non-binding opinion poll (aka survey) now? I need them today :-). The Survey Guidelines redirect to here. :-/ --Kim Bruning 10:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Reworking this back to guideline designation
Ok, I've decided to take it upon myself to head up getting this page back into shape as a descriptive explanation for how Misplaced Pages conducts straw polls. It is incorrect to utilize this page as a soapbox for anti-polling as has been previously done. This is not the page to do that. I encourage fellow editors to help formulate this descriptive page to be in accord with what occurs everyday on Misplaced Pages so that it can thereby become a rule of thumb for folks who may be inexperienced on forming polls. (→Netscott) 12:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'd love to write something about people challenging each other's opinions. And we've never really covered the concept of rough consensus before. Feeling up to it? --Kim Bruning 13:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- That sounds like a good idea... but first this should be returned to being a guideline... as you've previously said there needs to be something solid for people to look to when they are going to go about gauging some aspect of a discussion. (→Netscott) 13:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hm, interesting... you want a neutral guideline, but at the same time you only want to cover the side of the situation that matches your POV, calling the issues you disagree with "soapboxing" , and hiding the parts of Wikihistory that don't match with your opinion, such as Quickpolls. Needless to say that's not going to work. The best solution would probably be to redirect this page to WP:PNSD, which already covers everything you're trying to cover here. >Radiant< 13:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- No, you're wrong.. this isn't the page to talk about "anti-polling" this is the page to describe current practice on Misplaced Pages. Unfortunately it appears that editors were a bit confused about this previously and I've decided to clear the air. As the page matures it will of course be logical to include a short history of polling on Misplaced Pages but now's not the time... what needs to be done now is to make an illustrative guide on what to do when an editor wants to formulate a straw poll regarding a given issue. (→Netscott) 13:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Precisely what I said, you want to write a POV essay that covers the issue only from your angle. The most appropriate spot for POV essays is your userspace. >Radiant< 13:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- No, you're wrong.. this isn't the page to talk about "anti-polling" this is the page to describe current practice on Misplaced Pages. Unfortunately it appears that editors were a bit confused about this previously and I've decided to clear the air. As the page matures it will of course be logical to include a short history of polling on Misplaced Pages but now's not the time... what needs to be done now is to make an illustrative guide on what to do when an editor wants to formulate a straw poll regarding a given issue. (→Netscott) 13:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hm, interesting... you want a neutral guideline, but at the same time you only want to cover the side of the situation that matches your POV, calling the issues you disagree with "soapboxing" , and hiding the parts of Wikihistory that don't match with your opinion, such as Quickpolls. Needless to say that's not going to work. The best solution would probably be to redirect this page to WP:PNSD, which already covers everything you're trying to cover here. >Radiant< 13:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- That sounds like a good idea... but first this should be returned to being a guideline... as you've previously said there needs to be something solid for people to look to when they are going to go about gauging some aspect of a discussion. (→Netscott) 13:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
If there's consensus to turn this into a variation on VINE, that's your perogative. But I doubt you'll be able to get it accepted as a guideline if it's taking a pro-polling position. --Minderbinder 14:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- This isn't "pro-polling" nor is it "anti-polling" this is describing current Misplaced Pages project practices. Was that not understood? (→Netscott) 14:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- You're well aware that you are deliberatly omitting the important caveats. >Radiant< 14:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, since when is describing current practice inappropriate outside of user space? (→Netscott) 14:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- I understand that's how you describe it. I just don't agree that it's describing current practice. --Minderbinder 14:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- So you disagree that polling occurs on an hourly basis on Misplaced Pages? (→Netscott) 14:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, we get the false dichotomy now, and the fallacy of many questions. What's next? >Radiant< 14:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- No false dichotomy, just like User:Kim Bruning was pointing out above... there needs to be a solid place for editors to use as a guideline when formulating any one of numerous polls that are conducted on an hourly basis here. (→Netscott) 14:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ah yes, the proof by assertion is next. Unless you're referring to xFD/FAC/RFA, there's no way that we conduct numerous polls on an hourly basis. If you are referring to xFD/FAC/RFA, we have plenty of suggestion pages on that already. >Radiant< 14:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well getting this page back to its former guideline recognition is probably going to be a bit like pulling teeth much like WP:!VOTE has been... but that's fine, a healthy debate is good. Given the level of dissent on that page it is a safe bet that there will be plenty of support for a descriptive guideline (particular given recent developments). (→Netscott) 15:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- On a site with a million articles, I doubt there's much that doesn't happen on an hourly basis, including vandalism, misspellings, etc. Polling certainly happens, but it often is a mess and makes things worse. Polling can help in some cases, but I think a page talking about how to do polling should be clear about the potential problems so that editors can try to avoid them, or be able to make an informed decision whether polling is even worth it. --Minderbinder 15:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Of course, all that we need to bear in mind is the mantra this page is descriptive, not prescriptive. That's what makes a good guideline. Minderbinder, have you looked at current version and seen something that wasn't descriptive in the text? (→Netscott) 15:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, yes, your deliberate omission of the facts that don't support your point of view. Half a truth is a whole lie. >Radiant< 15:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I don't see description of the problems that often happen with polling. It's not really descriptive if it selectively omits part of the description. --Minderbinder 15:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Radiant: That information MUST be added sooner or later, as that is the requirement for a descriptive guideline. If you can provide such information, well, that's all the better. :-) --Kim Bruning 15:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Of course, all that we need to bear in mind is the mantra this page is descriptive, not prescriptive. That's what makes a good guideline. Minderbinder, have you looked at current version and seen something that wasn't descriptive in the text? (→Netscott) 15:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- No false dichotomy, just like User:Kim Bruning was pointing out above... there needs to be a solid place for editors to use as a guideline when formulating any one of numerous polls that are conducted on an hourly basis here. (→Netscott) 14:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- So you disagree that polling occurs on an hourly basis on Misplaced Pages? (→Netscott) 14:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Again, this isn't "pro-polling" or "anti-polling", this page isn't meant to address such issues. That unfortunately is where so much confusion here has stemmed from. Now we're moving away from such pro or con soapboxing on this page and heading into guideline territory. I know "voting is evil" and "voting is not evil" folks are going to want to express their POVs here but that sort of editing really needs to be curtailed if this page is going to move forward. (→Netscott) 15:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Note that we're just being NPOV here. And NPOV is NPOV, no matter where it's used:
I mean , if in particular situations we have found that straw polls blow up in our faces, we write "in this situation, straw polls blow up in our faces". If a straw poll miraculously worked, we say "It miraculously worked here". If it turns out that 99% of all straw polls are abused, we write that 99% of straw polls are abused, beware, you might be messing up too, expected opposition, etc....
--Kim Bruning 15:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'd agree with that. Let's see how this comes along when the notes at the bottom get integrated. --Minderbinder 15:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
NPOV/ invitation
Think of this as writing an NPOV encyclopedia article about "Polling on wikipedia". We can do NPOV, some of Reliable Sources, we can't quite cover Original Research or conflict of interest, since this is about our own practices, but we can try to get as close as possible. That's the basic idea.
If you think that this is a novel concept, think again: this is how all the old policy pages on wikipedia got written. :-)
Worst case this page doesn't make it to policy status, but we might still learn a lot. Care to give it a try?
--Kim Bruning 16:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, and descriptive... again the mantra needs to be: no soapboxing either pro or con on the idea of polling. At this point I don't see a need for this page to ever become policy but there is most certainly a need for a guideline. (→Netscott) 16:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- While I understand the position that guidelines on Misplaced Pages are supposed to be "descriptive", I see at least two issues with that in this case; first, What if there are multiple practices in use on Misplaced Pages, depending on which people are the most active in a particular article or group of articles (or policy or group of policies)? This appears to be the case in terms of polling. There are some people who like to run around telling people who start polls that "voting is evil", but they can't be everywhere, and often the people who start the polls just ignore them. How do you "describe" common practice when there are multiple, competing practices with no commonality? Second, wouldn't it be more helpful to the users and especially newer users, to have a page that says when polls should (and shouldn't) be used, and how to do them, even if formulating that advice requires some adjustments to, or clarification of, current practice? And it is clear that this will be required if my first point is correct, as the disparate practices will have to be harmonized. It seems to me that on something as basic (or in Jimbo's recent words, "constitutional") as the fundamental decision-making process on Misplaced Pages, some "prescription" is going to have to take place. 6SJ7 17:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Pointless
This page is becoming pretty pointless. We already have a page that accurately describes how and when to poll on Misplaced Pages, and that's WP:PNSD. If we fill in this page with all the situations and the caveats, that's exactly what we'll end up with. If we leave out what Netscott calls "soapboxing" and what the rest of us call "warnings about when not to use polls", we end up with a POV essay. Either way we're not writing anything here that hasn't been written before. >Radiant< 16:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- That hasn't been written before, indeed... and it was a guideline before as well. When folks are going around saying "voting is evil" there's no mistaking that for what it is, soapboxing. As I explained on your talk page... polling is not evil it is just a tool. Better to educate editors descriptively about how to use that tool beneficially than keep our heads in the sand like ostriches foolishly and see editors misuse it through ignorance. (→Netscott) 16:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- When people go around saying "wikipedia is not a democracy" is that soapboxing as well? --Minderbinder 16:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Right, you might as well add that Misplaced Pages is NOT a government when you say that. The simple fact to the matter is that it is not uncommon to find organizations that are not democracies but that do employ polling. (→Netscott) 16:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Different story, I think. At any rate, polling is... tricky... to get right, at least. Can we agree on that? --Kim Bruning 17:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- That and I haven't seen some of the "points to be integrated" elsewhere, at least not explicitly. Please provide links or diffs if you can point them out? (I'd love to have them to whack people over the head with, when they're being clueless again. ;-) ) --Kim Bruning 17:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Right, you might as well add that Misplaced Pages is NOT a government when you say that. The simple fact to the matter is that it is not uncommon to find organizations that are not democracies but that do employ polling. (→Netscott) 16:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- When people go around saying "wikipedia is not a democracy" is that soapboxing as well? --Minderbinder 16:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Polling guidelilne vs. polling pulpit
There is confusion here. This page is going to be for guidelines on how to conduct a poll, not whether polling is evil or not. Polling happens on Misplaced Pages and editors need a guideline on how to do that. The anti-polling or pro-polling viewpoints should be left to other pages (which obviously this page will reference). (→Netscott) 08:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Pro- or anti-viewpoints have nothing to do with it. Any page that explains how to do things needs also explain when (or when not) to do things. For instance, our blocking policy doesn't only explain how to block, but also when (and when not) to block. Note, by the way, that we already have a guideline that explains how to conduct a poll. >Radiant< 08:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously there is a need for a guideline. I am going to be reviewing the history of the development of this page to try to better understand how its utilization as a guideline became derailed and then see if what caused it to become derailed can be properly addressed. (→Netscott) 09:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- There is certainly need for a guideline, and that's why we have a guideline: WP:PNSD. One might argue that there is also need for a policy, and indeed we already have one: WP:DEMO. >Radiant< 09:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- No, there is reason this page was a guideline (which even you yourself tagged it as such) that is not covered by "polling is not a substitute for discussion" which lets face it PNSD is just a POV fork of its original page meta:Polling is evil. (→Netscott) 09:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- False. PNSD was expanded to cover that, which is why PNSD is a guideline and there is no need fo this page. m:polling is evil is a POV page, yes, that's why PNSD was rewritten from scratch, doesn't even remotely resemble VIE, and is a neutral guideline. >Radiant< 09:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest we move the how-to-do-a-poll parts of PNSD to this page, and leave the explicit "we do consensus" at pnsd. --Kim Bruning 11:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's an interesting suggestion, but the result would be that the people who read this page remain unaware that "we do consensus". >Radiant< 11:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- WP:PNSD is not a guideline, regardless of whether there is a tag on it that says it is. Part of the reason the tag is still there is that someone got one of their admin friends to threaten to block me if I removed the guideline tag again, and then someone protected the page (although I wasn't going to remove it again anyway, because of the threat). 6SJ7 15:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest we move the how-to-do-a-poll parts of PNSD to this page, and leave the explicit "we do consensus" at pnsd. --Kim Bruning 11:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- No, there is reason this page was a guideline (which even you yourself tagged it as such) that is not covered by "polling is not a substitute for discussion" which lets face it PNSD is just a POV fork of its original page meta:Polling is evil. (→Netscott) 09:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously there is a need for a guideline. I am going to be reviewing the history of the development of this page to try to better understand how its utilization as a guideline became derailed and then see if what caused it to become derailed can be properly addressed. (→Netscott) 09:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Confusing tag
It's kind of novel (not to mention confusing) to note that "this page's designation as policy is disputed" on a page that is not in fact designated as policy. I suspect {{controversial}} is what is meant instead? >Radiant< 09:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- It is not confusing, you are disputing this page being designated as a guideline. Also you've misused the {{controversial}} tag which is only meant for talk pages. (→Netscott) 09:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- If you are suggesting that this should be a guideline, I suggest you read up on how guidelines are created. At the moment, you are writing a POV essay here. >Radiant< 09:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- No, I am working toward reestablishing this page's previous designation as a guideline (here tagged by none other than yourself as one). (→Netscott) 10:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- But that is pointless as it has been superseded. If you're going to cite me you should also listen to what I'm actually saying, rather than misrepresenting me by ignoring the context. >Radiant< 10:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- If you're going to misrepresent this page as only ever having been some non-descript "essay" then I'm going to cite the facts particularly when they involve yourself. (→Netscott) 10:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- And where did I say that this page "only ever been some non-descript 'essay'"? For starters essays aren't non-descript. See, you're misrepresenting me. Again. Stop that. >Radiant< 10:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Let's see: "Not really, it's more like a perennial dispute between one user who wants to change long-standing redirects to a new essay he's writing, and the rest of the 'pedia". Very misrepresentative. This is not some non-descript "new essay". Such commentary makes it easy to WP:ABF regarding your involvement here. (→Netscott) 10:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- We have a guideline against WP:ABF, though. I suggest you read that (along with our WP:CIVility policy, for obvious reasons). And yes, this is a new essay you're writing, because you're basically ignoring the points made by the old guideline (which are incidentally also present in the new guideline). >Radiant< 10:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Radiant, let people write out a description here. If it sucks, it sucks, and we drop it. If it works, it works, and we keep it. But please let them work on it, and let's see what they come up with first.
- So this page is currently a safe place where folks can be bold and try stuff out. I'd like to see people working on the page itself, not sniping at each other on the talk page for no reason other than to vent their frustrations. Done venting now. Time for working.--Kim Bruning 11:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you Kim Bruning for such a sensible suggestion! :-) (→Netscott) 11:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome. At the same time, it might be a bad idea to label Radiant's quite helpful suggestions as "anti polling propganda". Much of what he's saying are things we learned the hard way, over large periods of time. These are known caveats to polling. You'll have to resolve those issues with Radiant, else the page will never be neutral. :-/ --Kim Bruning 11:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I just want things to read accurately. As I'm doing a survey of polling on the project I'm seeng how it is actually rather commonly used. I really don't appreciate when things are misrepresented. Also I think the {{disputedtag}} should go back up instead of that adhoc {{controversial}} tag created by Radiant! (→Netscott) 11:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please look up "accurately" and "common" in the dictionary. Anyone can find a couple dozen instances of polling on Misplaced Pages (aside from AFD/RFA/etc). A couple dozen instances over the course of five years is not "common". >Radiant< 12:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- 12 / ~3 000 000 * 100% = 0.0004% ...Wait, a couple dozen? Let's try 100... 0.0033% . The man might have a bit of a point there.
- Perhaps polls are mostly used on really busy pages? (I'm guessing there might be 3000 of those? (there were 1000 in jan 2006, when we had ~ 1M pages) ) In that case it'd be 3% of very busy locations. (rough estimate).
- I think perhaps more polls are being held? I know that requested moves spams them across the entire main namespace, for instance.
- How would one search a db dump for polls... via looking for ==Support== perhaps? ^^;;
- --Kim Bruning 12:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I just want things to read accurately. As I'm doing a survey of polling on the project I'm seeng how it is actually rather commonly used. I really don't appreciate when things are misrepresented. Also I think the {{disputedtag}} should go back up instead of that adhoc {{controversial}} tag created by Radiant! (→Netscott) 11:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome. At the same time, it might be a bad idea to label Radiant's quite helpful suggestions as "anti polling propganda". Much of what he's saying are things we learned the hard way, over large periods of time. These are known caveats to polling. You'll have to resolve those issues with Radiant, else the page will never be neutral. :-/ --Kim Bruning 11:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you Kim Bruning for such a sensible suggestion! :-) (→Netscott) 11:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Let's see: "Not really, it's more like a perennial dispute between one user who wants to change long-standing redirects to a new essay he's writing, and the rest of the 'pedia". Very misrepresentative. This is not some non-descript "new essay". Such commentary makes it easy to WP:ABF regarding your involvement here. (→Netscott) 10:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- If you're going to misrepresent this page as only ever having been some non-descript "essay" then I'm going to cite the facts particularly when they involve yourself. (→Netscott) 10:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- No, I am working toward reestablishing this page's previous designation as a guideline (here tagged by none other than yourself as one). (→Netscott) 10:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- If you are suggesting that this should be a guideline, I suggest you read up on how guidelines are created. At the moment, you are writing a POV essay here. >Radiant< 09:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
←Polls have been used in very notable cases on Misplaced Pages when forming guidelines and policies. What is the sense in trying to deny this? (→Netscott) 12:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, when trying to. In the few cases where the polls were defining, the process design typically doesn't work too well. (correlation!= causation, but I have my suspicions... typically it's when people spend more time designing polls and the poll process, than they spend actually designing the darn process itself, ARGH! ;-) ).
- Most really good processes are formed through consensus and through writing down a descriptive representation of current practice. (So, basically same as what we're trying to do here :-) )
- --Kim Bruning 12:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Nobody denies that polls have been used. However, you need to look past the surface and see that (1) in far more cases, polls have not been used, (2) in nearly all cases where polls were used, the "outcome" of the poll was later superseded (improved) by discussion (because as Kim says, issues designed by poll typically don't work too well), (3) in several cases where polls were used, they didn't actually help, and (4) in several notable cases, polls caused a trainwreck and we would have been far better off without them. >Radiant< 12:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well as long as we're going to be continuing to have key polls on Misplaced Pages there obviously needs to be a guideline page specifically addressing that. Kim Bruning is right this smallish section of WP:!VOTE should be here with the rest of the expanded detail about polling. (→Netscott) 13:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Based on what I just said as well as on WP:ATT, it would make far more sense to not continue to have key polls, except when a poll is explicitly requested by Jimbo. >Radiant< 13:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Uh, no. That logic is very counter to WP:JIMBOSAID. Look your anti-polling POV is well expressed here why don't you follow Kim Bruning's suggestion above and, "let people write out a description here" as well as, " I'd like to see people working on the page itself, not sniping at each other"... which I completely agree with. (→Netscott) 14:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- WP:KETTLE. If you don't want to see people sniping, stop sniping (as you did in your previous post). Also, the pro-polling POV you're pushing is very obvious, so that's another WP:KETTLE. >Radiant< 14:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Relative to, "let people write out a description here", this type of edit is not helpful. What was the POINT you were trying to illustrate? (→Netscott) 14:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Kindly just answer the question please or let us get on with the business of writing this guideline in peace. (→Netscott) 15:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- You haven't stopped sniping yet. In case you haven't realized it yet, you're trying to get people who don't share your POV to stop editing this page, through using demeaning language. There is a word for such behavior... >Radiant< 15:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- You're avoiding the question regarding your unhelpful edit. (→Netscott) 15:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Woah woah... what makes the edit unhelpful, according to you, Netscott? Radiant, why is that edit helpful, according to you? --Kim Bruning 15:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- They are unhelpful because they are irrelevant in the grand scheme of this page. They're added there to belittle the other rather serious polls that have been conducted surrounding Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. This is clouding the issue. Basically they're there for "red herring" purposes. (→Netscott) 15:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- False. They're notable polls, which was what you called the section before you decided to focus on the polls on policy. I note that you have refused several times now to stop making personal attacks. It's very unproductive that you want to chase off everyone who doesn't share your POV by attacking them, and demanding they stop editing here. >Radiant< 08:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- You guys are BOTH doing that. Stop fighting already, or we'll just delete *both* pages you like ^^;; --Kim Bruning 16:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- They are unhelpful because they are irrelevant in the grand scheme of this page. They're added there to belittle the other rather serious polls that have been conducted surrounding Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. This is clouding the issue. Basically they're there for "red herring" purposes. (→Netscott) 15:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Woah woah... what makes the edit unhelpful, according to you, Netscott? Radiant, why is that edit helpful, according to you? --Kim Bruning 15:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Kindly just answer the question please or let us get on with the business of writing this guideline in peace. (→Netscott) 15:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Uh, no. That logic is very counter to WP:JIMBOSAID. Look your anti-polling POV is well expressed here why don't you follow Kim Bruning's suggestion above and, "let people write out a description here" as well as, " I'd like to see people working on the page itself, not sniping at each other"... which I completely agree with. (→Netscott) 14:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well as long as we're going to be continuing to have key polls on Misplaced Pages there obviously needs to be a guideline page specifically addressing that. Kim Bruning is right this smallish section of WP:!VOTE should be here with the rest of the expanded detail about polling. (→Netscott) 13:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Question
Given their obviously poor track record, what makes you think we should be "continuing to have key polls" in the first place? >Radiant< 15:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Can we hold that question for a while? It might sort itself out automatically, as we edit further. ^^;; --Kim Bruning 15:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- There is a name for the type of logical fallacy engaged in by Radiant above, where one states an unproven assertion ("their obviously poor track record") as the premise for a question in an effort to avoid any discussion about whether the assertion is correct or not, but I forget what it is. I just call it a "When did you stop beating your wife" question. There also is a second rhetorical trick in there, that of putting the word "obviously" in front of an assertion to try to distract attention away from the fact that the assertion is not only not obvious, but is in fact disputed. Please note, I am not saying that polling has a good track record; what I believe is that, in highly controversial articles, discussion and polling have equally poor track records, so there is no justification for singling out polling. 6SJ7 15:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Just for my own curiosity, what other major polls of the ATT scale have there been before that didn't work out? Misplaced Pages:Attribution/Poll, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Final archive, and the 3rr polls (can't find the link now). - Denny 19:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well in order for a poll to "work out" all it has to do is establish what the state of affairs are about a given issue in terms of what views folks hold on the issue. So pretty much the only way a poll wouldn't "work out" is if it was canceled or otherwise wasn't valid in some way (ie: a poll about whether a given logically constructed statement was true or not.... obviously the statement is going to be true or not regardless of the poll). There is now an incomplete list of policy and guideline related polls in the see also section of this page that you might like to review. (→Netscott) 20:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like you have a solid grasp on what a poll is. --Kim Bruning 00:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well in order for a poll to "work out" all it has to do is establish what the state of affairs are about a given issue in terms of what views folks hold on the issue. So pretty much the only way a poll wouldn't "work out" is if it was canceled or otherwise wasn't valid in some way (ie: a poll about whether a given logically constructed statement was true or not.... obviously the statement is going to be true or not regardless of the poll). There is now an incomplete list of policy and guideline related polls in the see also section of this page that you might like to review. (→Netscott) 20:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Just no
See this thing here. It's called NPOV.
See this other thing. It's called a straw poll.
When you put them together, there's this big grinding noise.
Don't make the grinding noise. A kitten is killed by the grinder every time you have a poll. Because they're evil. And evil makes kittens suffer. Grace Note 23:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ayup. Straw Polls on article content equals wikiality. I think we covered that in points to be included. Perhaps you'd like to edit the page so that that point is in fact integrated with the main text? --Kim Bruning 00:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Dang, missed the opportunity to do a cat reference!
- Funny enough per WP:TPG I'm half-tempted to remove this talk. This talk page is for improving this project page. The "… is evil" mantra is getting tiring already. That is what is known as soapboxing. Straw polls are used daily on Misplaced Pages. It is time to stop denying this and to properly address it with guidelines on how to best go about employing them correctly. (→Netscott) 01:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Just ask folks to be constructive already. :-/ --Kim Bruning 01:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oh. I thought Grace Note was supporting polling by satirizing its opponents. No? As for wikiality, it is defined as truth by agreement. It is the so-called "consensus" process that produces wikiality, not polling. Of course, polling should be used with great caution on content pages. We shouldn't be voting on what the facts are. But it can be used for other things. 6SJ7 02:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Just ask folks to be constructive already. :-/ --Kim Bruning 01:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- "Straw polls are used daily on Misplaced Pages." unless you refer to RFA/xFD/FAC, please provide evidence of this assertion? All you have so far is evidence that we've had a couple dozen polls over the past five years. What you're doing is known as soapboxing, not to mention proof by assertion, and putting up straw men. >Radiant< 08:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- What made you think that I wasn't including those? (→Netscott) 16:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- (Why don't we all indent the same way? - colons or stars?, make a decision)
I think there are more polls over content than Radiant suggests. I've personally seen polls on BC/AD vs BCE/CE, whether to use the word "death" when defining Abortion, whether an infobox should place the Iraq War in a campaign called the "Global War on Terrorism", whether to include images in the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article, and at least one or two more. I'm only one person, so I imagine there have been quite a lot more. I do a lot of Misplaced Pages:requested moves, and at least 80% of those involve a poll, which isn't directly about article content, but it's close. When you decide which language's name to use for a river or city, or whether an event in a war is an "incident" or a "massacre" or a "tragedy" or a "battle", you're deciding content. Should we be doing it differently? -GTBacchus 20:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- (Why don't we all indent the same way? - colons or stars?, make a decision)
- Funny enough per WP:TPG I'm half-tempted to remove this talk. This talk page is for improving this project page. The "… is evil" mantra is getting tiring already. That is what is known as soapboxing. Straw polls are used daily on Misplaced Pages. It is time to stop denying this and to properly address it with guidelines on how to best go about employing them correctly. (→Netscott) 01:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- +1 for Grace Note here. Here's the thing: ad-hoc straw polls can be a great way of cutting down a number of potential and nuanced versions of a proposal, it's just a bizarre coincidence that the situations in which they are proposed are so often the places where they serve no purpose but to document the fact that there are opposite views to which, if pressed, people who actually broadly agree on something roughly in the middle, will polarise. Guy (Help!) 17:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- So then we should stamp out polls entirely. I'm not sure I want to go that far though. Sometimes they are useful at least. A well designed poll might go along lines of "Ok, I agree with mot folks" and "I still have issues I'd like to discuss" .. hmmm... --Kim Bruning 17:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- (e/c)Well by that logic Guy, what are we doing using polls so extensively on XfDs, RfA, ArbCom elections, Misplaced Pages:Attribution/Poll.. etc? This view is very simplistic... all a poll does is guage what the state of a consensus on a given issue is. Again, rather than deny this and continue to push for a blanket all "polling is evil" mantra let guidelines be formed that at least will enhance the opportunities that such a poll will have some benefit? This given the absolute certitude that polling is going to continue to play a big roll in the day in, day out functioning of the project. (→Netscott) 17:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Putting some effort towards mitigating the pain at the least, might be worth a couple of hours. :-) --Kim Bruning 18:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- (e/c)Well by that logic Guy, what are we doing using polls so extensively on XfDs, RfA, ArbCom elections, Misplaced Pages:Attribution/Poll.. etc? This view is very simplistic... all a poll does is guage what the state of a consensus on a given issue is. Again, rather than deny this and continue to push for a blanket all "polling is evil" mantra let guidelines be formed that at least will enhance the opportunities that such a poll will have some benefit? This given the absolute certitude that polling is going to continue to play a big roll in the day in, day out functioning of the project. (→Netscott) 17:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- So then we should stamp out polls entirely. I'm not sure I want to go that far though. Sometimes they are useful at least. A well designed poll might go along lines of "Ok, I agree with mot folks" and "I still have issues I'd like to discuss" .. hmmm... --Kim Bruning 17:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Redundencies
Yes I see several now, you're right, but the overlap is not 100%. This means we're going to have to do an actual refactor, sooner or later (preferably sooner). *sigh*. No time, no time ^^:; --Kim Bruning 16:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The actual issue
There is a lot of confusion about the dispute here and on WP:PNSD, so let's look at what it's about.
Now the issue isn't that polling happens; nobody is denying that.
The issue isn't whether we should give suggestions on how to poll; nobody is denying that either. Note how WP:PNSD already gives a screenful of such suggestions. Are these imperfect? Nobody is denying that either. But we can fix them.
Then why would we split them off to some other page? The answer is very simple. The people promoting this are largely the same people who object to the very idea of discouraging voting, and want PNSD deprecated. So they are trying to replace a page that discourages and explains voting, by a page that only explains voting but does not discourage anything.
But as we clearly know from article space, a disagreement over a page is not resolved by splitting the page into two "forks". First, this results in two contradictory pages, and second, this gives us two pages with disagreement on them. Rather than resolving the issue, this approach perpetuates it. So instead such issues are resolved through careful discussion on the talk page. You have suggestions for improving PNSD? Make them. That's how the wiki process works. >Radiant< 07:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Definitions section gone missing
Hey, we totally lost the definitions!? Restored.
Definately needs some editing still... --Kim Bruning 12:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Notable polls
I suggest we come up with a workable definition of 'notable poll' (judged by impact, most of these polls weren't notable; judged by WP:N, none of them are) as well as 'significant numbers' of Wikipedians (since we have over a million users, 100 doesn't seem all that significant). By the way I've edited the 'policy polls' section to remove some polls that weren't actually about policy, since adding them there is misleading.
Additionally, the section on "feature request" polls is misleading in that there are over 9000 such issues (so the two polls are not the common case but the rare exception) and that these two polls were ignored by the devs. >Radiant< 10:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well it is rather common knowledge that at any one time there are generally 1,000 or so active Wikipedians so when 10% or more of that number particpates in a poll that is notable. As far as the featured requests... correct me if I am wrong but the request to have different levels of blocking did go through, did it not? Have you reviewed the What is troll poll? That poll was concerned about policy surrounding trollish behavior. (→Netscott) 10:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Do you have a source for that common knowledge? To my knowledge there are approx 900 active admins, so one would expect an amount of active users several orders of magnitude larger. Having, say, 100 supports on an RFA is not nearly as special as it used to be.
- WRT the blocking feature request, yes, it was implemented, but the poll was not a factor in deciding whether to implement it. Note that the poll started October 2005, the implementation was done in May 2006, and the poll ended September 2006. It is generally not helpful towards the devs to suggest that things will be implemented if enough people ask for it (or that things won't be implemented unless enough people ask for it), because that simply isn't true. >Radiant< 11:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- It is silly to try and downplay whether these polls were notable. What percentage of what happens on the Wiki is determined by those 900 admins? When it comes to policy and guideline forming, etc. you can be sure that those are the folks doing most if not all of the "heavy lifting". As far as the feature request, the polling was undoubtedly a factor in that so there's really no point in trying to downplay that either. Radiant! it is difficult to understand your push to limit the significance that polling has played (and plays) on the project. The fact that polling is itself a part of the dispute resolution process speaks volumes to its standing in the community. (→Netscott) 11:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Proof by assertion isn't, and your opinion isn't fact. Please show any kind of evidence that "those do most of the heavy lifting" and that it was "undoubtedly a factor"? >Radiant< 11:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Now you're just being obtuse, you ask any Wikipedian that has been around for any length of time and you will hear the same thing regarding the "heavy lifting" commentary. As far as the poll being a factor, you don't think the developers read that poll and took what people were actually saying in their comments as they formulated that new functionality? Your inclination to discount the fact that people actually discuss and comment in polls is a bit puzzling. (→Netscott) 11:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- So you're saying that the ~900 active admins do most of the "heavy lifting", and that therefore having 100 responses to a poll is a "significant figure", even though most of those poll respondents aren't actually admins. That's comparing apples and oranges, and therefore fallacious. Also, I dispute the assertion that the admins do most of the heavy lifting, based on the fact that many RC patrollers, WSS members, and vandal fighters aren't admins. Simply put, you're assuming things, and as they say, assuming makes an ass out of U and me. >Radiant< 12:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- I am talking about folks who are the ones formulating policies and guidelines much like what's happened on WP:ATT and then particpate in related polls. Again, have you forgotten that folks comment, discuss and make suggestions during polling? (→Netscott) 12:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- No I'm not, and that's just something you assumed again because I haven't said anything like that. Your assumption that most of the "heavy lifting" is done by admins is contradicted by the fact that most of the respondents to ATT aren't admins. So like I said, 100 users out of an estimate of 90000 active users is not a significant figure. Again I note that you're really not responding to anything I say, but instead simply repeat what you've said before. That's not productive. >Radiant< 12:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually you've not proved anything yourself. There's a claim you make a counter claim neither of us have any solid "proof" and there we go. I continue to edit according to the fact that polling has been utilized (and is frequently utilized) as a tool to guage consensus for many many aspects of the project's functioning and development and you edit to counter that. Nothing new here. (→Netscott) 12:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Tu quoque fallacy. I've proven that 100 users out of 90000 active users is not a significant group, and that implementation feature request is not based upon a poll that closed several months after the request was implemented. But indeed, nothing new here, you just keep repeating the same false assumptions like a broken record. >Radiant< 12:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Now you're just being obtuse, you ask any Wikipedian that has been around for any length of time and you will hear the same thing regarding the "heavy lifting" commentary. As far as the poll being a factor, you don't think the developers read that poll and took what people were actually saying in their comments as they formulated that new functionality? Your inclination to discount the fact that people actually discuss and comment in polls is a bit puzzling. (→Netscott) 11:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- It is silly to try and downplay whether these polls were notable. What percentage of what happens on the Wiki is determined by those 900 admins? When it comes to policy and guideline forming, etc. you can be sure that those are the folks doing most if not all of the "heavy lifting". As far as the feature request, the polling was undoubtedly a factor in that so there's really no point in trying to downplay that either. Radiant! it is difficult to understand your push to limit the significance that polling has played (and plays) on the project. The fact that polling is itself a part of the dispute resolution process speaks volumes to its standing in the community. (→Netscott) 11:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
←(e/c)Your editing strikes me as odd when you yourself tagged this page as a guideline and you've played an integral role behind editing surrounding WP:100 (even in its first edits), etc. I'm not sure what happened but somewhere along the line your mentality shifted. Puzzling. (→Netscott) 12:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Your editing strikes me as odd when you yourself tagged this page as an essay. But yes, somewhere along the line I figured out that polls are pointless and/or harmful more often than not. I'm tempted to add a quote about padawans, but never mind. >Radiant< 13:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well we'll get this page to guideline designation or have it properly integrated into a singular page about polling called Misplaced Pages:Polling it just needs a bit of time and work. (→Netscott) 13:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Request removal of mfd tag
{{editprotected}} The MfD was withdrawn, so please remove the {{mfd}} tag.
(Is it time to unprotect the page yet?)
Cheers, CWC 17:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see the page unprotected please. <cross fingers> --Kim Bruning 12:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- I unprotected the page, as discussion has died down in a few places. CMummert · talk 14:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Opinion headnote
I have deleted the {{rejected}} headnote that was posted by a a now inactive editor. The headnote was added in 2007 here and removed here. --Tenmei (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Vandalism edit request
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the Definitions: Polling and Voting section of the page, there are the phrases "door gods" and "Pepsi". These phrases should be "particular points" and "time" Prodirus (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Done. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 04:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Rare experiments
", although there are very rare experiments." Did the writer mean "exceptions"? (Also, whatever the case may be, is "very rare" accurate?) --82.136.210.153 (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Categories: