Misplaced Pages:Straw polls: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 13:30, 3 April 2007 editNetscott (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users22,834 edits →Points that need to be integrated: reduce anti-poll soapboxing... again this is not the page to do this← Previous edit		Revision as of 13:31, 3 April 2007 edit undoKim Bruning (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers20,995 edits →Points that need to be integrated: (small stuff) + what an opposer can doNext edit →
Line 58:		Line 58:
	* ]		* ]
	* Retroactively making a poll binding (e.g. "it's not binding but we'll do what the majority wants") is a hazard to be avoided		* Retroactively making a poll binding (e.g. "it's not binding but we'll do what the majority wants") is a hazard to be avoided
	* AFD et al are not infrequently decided in favor of a minority with better arguments		* AFD et al are not infrequently decided in favor of a minority with better arguments. (because logically worded arguments will advance consensus further. )
	* RFA/ArbElect are subject to interpretation by the closer		* RFA/ArbElect are subject to interpretation by the closer
			* Some pages (RFA, FD) use variants on polling, and also introduce the concept of Rough consensus. This means that instead of unanimous support or "I don't care", people make do with only say 80% support. This does not quite make these processes a vote, however (see above). and you can be caught by surprise if suddenly the whole poll morph into a discussion, or if you find yourself "badgered" about a valuable oppose position that you are holding. (It's an artifact: if there's an 80% cutoff, and you are currently opposing, and your opinion is reasoned and clear, your opinion can suddenly be worth as much as that of 3 or 4 other people! It's almost ] to suggest it, but this is in fact your best bet at negotiating an improvement in conditions (improved behavior by candidate on RFA, or changes to a page that you feel are essential on FD) . :-) Of course, you are not invincible, and you should beware of overplaying your hand, lest you be labeled a troll!

	== See also ==		== See also ==

Revision as of 13:31, 3 April 2007

Essay on editing Misplaced Pages

This is an essay.
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Shortcut

]

While a straw poll is not a substitute for discussion it can be a tool for quickly probing opinions especially outside of article content discussions, so that one knows who to talk with to obtain a negotiated consensus. Straw polls have been used on Misplaced Pages for such purposes almost since the beginning of the project. Straw polls typically don't have opening and closing times. Instead, they give editors a chance to chip in with an indication of their opinion, together with a short summary of the reasoning that corresponds to that opinion. It's a good idea to keep a more detailed reasoning in mind given the likelyhood that your opinon will be challenged. A call for a straw poll may trigger discussions instead—that's not a failure, it just means that the issue is not clear-cut, which is what the poll set out to determine in the first place

Sometimes it's useful to take a survey of opinions on some issue, as an aid to achieving consensus and an indication of which options have the most support. Surveys should never be thought of as binding.

Be aware that Misplaced Pages is not a democracy: A straw poll is not a binding vote, or a way to beat dissenters over the head with the will of the majority. If a large number of people support one option but some don't, this doesn't mean that that's the "outcome". It means some people are disagreeing, and those people's objections need to be addressed!

Creating a survey

These guidelines provide a framework that may be followed when creating a new survey. These are not binding in any way.

Any Wikipedian may start a survey on any topic, but attempts to reach consensus are much, much, MUCH preferred, and should perhaps be followed even when it pains us most.
Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts. Allow about a week for this process.
In general, surveys are to help gauge the degree of consensus on an issue, such as whether a particular article version appears to be POV or NPOV. Surveys should not be used for the purposes of "fact finding".
A deadline for the survey should be considered so as to resolve the issue in a timely manner.
Once started, the questions and wording in the survey should not change. However, if someone feels that the existing survey is seriously flawed, this is typically an indication Step 2 was not completed properly.
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.
Multiple Support or Oppose sections in a survey make navigation difficult, and edit summaries which read
(→ Support - this option is best)
make it difficult to observe on watchlists. Consider using unique headers, such as parenthetical headers used in the massive Admin accountability poll.

Survey etiquette

If you are posting on talk pages, asking experienced editors to give their opinion on an issue, make sure not to use language that may suggest bias.

Good: "Hey, Bob, could you tell me what you think about this discussion? I think your input could help."
Bad: "Yet another attempt to push POV-- please help!"

Sample survey

Note that this is purely a sample of one way to organise such a survey—different circumstances may call for different approaches.

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, preferably adding a brief comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.

Use BCE and CE for years
- Alice Springs
- EfferVescent
Use AD and BC for years
- FictionalName
- Fred Bloggs -- but redirect from BCE and CE (first choice)
- This is always how we did it in school. -- MadeUp
- Why go against the (main)stream? user:Zanimum
Allow both as equally acceptable alternatives
- It's the wiki way! OnTheFence
- Fred Bloggs (second choice)

Discussion

Discussion resulting from the survey would go here. If there were a significant amount, it might be moved to a talk page instead.

Points that need to be integrated

This is a sort of semi-sandbox, where points that are yet to be integrated in the main text can be kept

Polls on article content are probably a bad idea. They can lead to (accusations of) wikiality.
Polls on policy proposals are likewise a bad idea
Polls on feature requests are generally ignored by the developers
Polls are non-binding. (see under Consensus - no binding decisions)
As anywhere else, your opinion on a poll may be challenged. Be prepared to explain your opinion further, and be prepared to explain your logic.
If you think someone is holding an illogical view, feel free to engage them in good faith, and let them explain their views.
It is fair game to try to change a persons' opinion on a poll (but there are certain standards of politeness and decorum... can we describe them?)
WP:DEMO
Retroactively making a poll binding (e.g. "it's not binding but we'll do what the majority wants") is a hazard to be avoided
AFD et al are not infrequently decided in favor of a minority with better arguments. (because logically worded arguments will advance consensus further. )
RFA/ArbElect are subject to interpretation by the closer
Some pages (RFA, *FD) use variants on polling, and also introduce the concept of Rough consensus. This means that instead of unanimous support or "I don't care", people make do with only say 80% support. This does not quite make these processes a vote, however (see above). and you can be caught by surprise if suddenly the whole poll morph into a discussion, or if you find yourself "badgered" about a valuable oppose position that you are holding. (It's an artifact: if there's an 80% cutoff, and you are currently opposing, and your opinion is reasoned and clear, your opinion can suddenly be worth as much as that of 3 or 4 other people! It's almost WP:BEANS to suggest it, but this is in fact your best bet at negotiating an improvement in conditions (improved behavior by candidate on RFA, or changes to a page that you feel are essential on *FD) . :-) Of course, you are not invincible, and you should beware of overplaying your hand, lest you be labeled a troll!