347:
emoticon (github, facebook, etc.) vote could be used. Ideally, no decision on *how* the information is used should be made until *after* a data collection period. Potential uses could include: auto-flagging articles as contentious/popular/funny, auto-flagging edits as needing moderation. Crowd-sourcing is
Knowledge (XXG)'s stock-in-trade, and votes are just another piece of information to collect.
24:
337:
good. Neither is it evil, however, as the above evidence will hopefully convince you. Voting is a tool, and like any tool there are some places where it's perfect and some places where it's useless... or disempowering. You, as a user, must decide for yourself when voting is the right thing to do. VIE
254:
A community board discussion shifts with the community members. When a community view changes, its approach will merge seamlessly into the new line of thinking. This is because a community view is intangible. Votes, on the other hand, are nailed to the wall – and, worse still, the best way to really
177:
deals with all articles of all types, but there exists a whole host of other specialized projects. For these projects, the system of choice is the vote. The winner is the article with the most cumulative votes becomes the new project of the week/fortnight/month, and will be groomed by loving editors
346:
Users with opinions, but no ability or motivation to edit, may prefer to vote for or against a whole article, or for/against a particular edit of that article. Allowing user engagement at both of these levels can be fun, and the information collected can be useful. Even a social-network styled
238:
is an epic example of two groups of people – those who favor the
American spelling (without the second "i") and those who don't – locked in an entrenched series of flareup fights over who is right. It's entirely possible that they may never decide, and in this case actually bringing up the subject
226:
is that the thing about having winners is that everyone else automatically becomes losers. This will damage, rather than unify, the community spirit that's holding the dear old WP together. If you're staging a vote just to beat the other side into submission, then you're doing the wrong thing. Try
156:
it has already been decided that a certain layout should be standardized, a vote can be taken to see which color the standard should be. Such polls generally have more than two options; as such, it is not reasonable to expect any one option to get more than 50% support. Instead, one should look at
125:
vote, and when the voting closes (a predetermined time limit is strongly advised, one week is reasonable) the side with majority votes is the "winner". The terms having now been defined, the rest of this article will be dedicated to helping you choose the right times and places to stage or
185:
The beauty of that system is that the losers don't actually lose. If a runner-up article has enough support to remain on the roster for another week (see each project for the nuances of its voting system) then it may yet be pulled from the bin and made perfect.
258:
Votes are especially unfair to those who come after. Someone walking in on a situation in which the dice have already been cast doesn't even get the chance to vote. Understand, when you vote, that what you are doing is, for all effects and purposes, permanent.
117:
consensus board, which will materialize around the catalyst issue, debate it, and, hopefully, bring it to a resolution. This is the "community" approach, and in most cases it is the best option for a mutually amicable solution.
149:
Voting on a yes/no option generally doesn't work; it is more useful to find a compromise between the extremes. However, an issue that can be resolved by voting quite well is picking a standard. For instance,
243:, either in vote or debate, is probably going to do much more damage than just trying to forget about it. Some fights simply can't be won – the point is picking the fairest set of rules to tie at.
214:, for instance) overrule any local voting. If there is a picture due to be deleted because it has the wrong licensing tags, you can vote until your face turns blue to no effect.
129:
Voting is not a good substitute for discussion; ill-advised votes have a tendency of attracting comments that they are inappropriate, and are frequently closed altogether.
110:
Each article has a built-in talk page. In the event of a dispute over how something should be done, it may be brought up, in one of two forms, on the talk page.
251:
Voting has (at least) one inherent flaw in use at the
Knowledge (XXG), and that is that votes are semi-permanent, and community board discussions are not.
121:
Voting is a vaguely more formalized process. It should be advertised, and a vote should not be sprung on a topic at any time. Each user gets
39:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more
Knowledge (XXG) contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
40:
371:
210:) that "Knowledge (XXG) is not a democracy", and you can't actually vote down the system as it stands. Knowledge (XXG) rules (those on
321:(small-medium scale), or occasional opinion polls (medium-large scale) to keep an eye on the direction consensus is moving in.
194:
Rule of thumb: if you have more detractors than supporters, you're going to lose no matter what system you're using. See also
338:
and VINE are here to help, but actually finding the fairest way to do something is a decision you'll have to make yourself.
386:
157:
which option has the most support (with, if necessary, a runoff between the top three). The easiest system for this is
234:
Just to note that the world is not a
Happily Ever After kind of place, even this doesn't always work. The fight at
366:
269:. In theory, it is even possible to simply ignore the outcome of a vote "as there is clearly no consensus".
44:
329:
The reason this article is not titled Voting is Good (other than the fact that VINE makes a pretty nice
330:
54:
288:, because there is a large group of people in favor of X. At the same time, if 40% are opposed to
32:
195:
273:
223:
91:
318:
266:
207:
174:
356:
158:
300:
too! By starting a vote, it is possible to drive your adoption-process into an impasse.
179:
170:
152:
361:
95:
380:
47:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
83:
98:. This essay explains what voting on the Knowledge (XXG) entails, and how voting
235:
211:
141:
right times to stage a vote. The trick is knowing which ones and why...
87:
313:
Sit down with those groups, and hammer out an actual consensus.
18:
294:(also a large group), it may in fact be inadvisable to do
265:
No process on
Knowledge (XXG) may be considered binding:
62:
255:
be rid of a vote is to have another vote against it.
94:, a page written from scratch but loosely based upon
218:A Fistful of edits: When voting becomes a shootout
90:"Polling is not a substitute for discussion", or
272:In practice, there is some nuance to this: see
145:"Several roads diverged in a wood...:" Pick one
307:(retroactively) call your vote an opinion poll
8:
310:Identify the key parties in the opinion poll
102:be a useful tool toward harmonious editing.
165:Massing the forces: Concentrating an effort
274:Knowledge (XXG):POLL#Straw_poll_guidelines
41:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies or guidelines
190:Voting as an obstacle: The wrong times
175:Article Creation and Improvement Drive
372:Knowledge (XXG):Of course it's voting
7:
133:Voting as an asset: The right times
171:quite a few collaborative projects
45:thoroughly vetted by the community
14:
206:It should go without saying (see
247:Note: An inherent flaw of voting
202:House rules: Fighting the system
22:
16:Essay on editing Knowledge (XXG)
173:. The umbrella project – the
1:
282:, it is inadvisable to do
113:The most common form is an
403:
303:The solution for this is:
106:Voting vs. consensus board
52:
276:. If 60% are in favor of
126:participate in a vote.
86:to the Knowledge (XXG)
387:Knowledge (XXG) essays
362:MeatBall:VotingIsGood
43:, as it has not been
267:Consensus Can Change
227:holding a community
169:Knowledge (XXG) has
317:You can either use
178:into (hopefully) a
357:m:Voting is a tool
196:vexatious litigant
76:Voting Is Not Evil
342:Voting can be fun
333:) is that voting
73:
72:
394:
325:Voting is a tool
180:featured article
96:m:voting is evil
65:
26:
25:
19:
402:
401:
397:
396:
395:
393:
392:
391:
377:
376:
353:
344:
327:
249:
220:
204:
192:
167:
159:approval voting
147:
135:
108:
69:
68:
61:
57:
49:
48:
23:
17:
12:
11:
5:
400:
398:
390:
389:
379:
378:
375:
374:
369:
367:WP:Let's Vote!
364:
359:
352:
349:
343:
340:
326:
323:
315:
314:
311:
308:
248:
245:
219:
216:
203:
200:
191:
188:
166:
163:
146:
143:
134:
131:
107:
104:
71:
70:
67:
66:
58:
53:
50:
38:
37:
29:
27:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
399:
388:
385:
384:
382:
373:
370:
368:
365:
363:
360:
358:
355:
354:
350:
348:
341:
339:
336:
332:
324:
322:
320:
312:
309:
306:
305:
304:
301:
299:
298:
293:
292:
287:
286:
281:
280:
275:
270:
268:
264:
260:
256:
252:
246:
244:
242:
237:
232:
230:
225:
222:A point from
217:
215:
213:
209:
201:
199:
197:
189:
187:
183:
181:
176:
172:
164:
162:
160:
155:
154:
144:
142:
140:
132:
130:
127:
124:
119:
116:
111:
105:
103:
101:
97:
93:
89:
85:
81:
77:
64:
60:
59:
56:
51:
46:
42:
36:
34:
28:
21:
20:
345:
334:
328:
316:
302:
296:
295:
290:
289:
284:
283:
278:
277:
271:
263:Counternote:
262:
261:
257:
253:
250:
240:
233:
228:
221:
205:
193:
184:
168:
151:
148:
138:
136:
128:
122:
120:
114:
112:
109:
99:
84:counterpoint
79:
75:
74:
30:
31:This is an
229:discussion
236:aluminium
231:instead.
212:copyright
381:Category
351:See also
55:Shortcut
331:acronym
224:WP:PNSD
92:WP:PNSD
82:) is a
63:WP:VINE
319:WP:BRD
241:at all
208:WP:NOT
137:There
115:ad hoc
335:isn't
285:not-X
88:essay
33:essay
80:VINE
153:iff
139:are
123:one
100:can
383::
198:.
182:.
161:.
297:X
291:X
279:X
78:(
35:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.