Wikipedia talk:Polling is not a substitute for discussion

Alternative Version

An alternative to this proposal can be found at Wikipedia:Discuss and Vote. Comments welcome. --Blue Tie 18:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Er. It puts heavy emphasis on ratifying policy and guidelines by votes. I'm not saying that you're wrong to propose that, but I have to advise you that it hasn't got a snowball's chance of being accepted. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe so. Don't know why people would want it otherwise, but if that is how the majority want it, so be it. However, I am also still working on it. --Blue Tie 12:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Early comments

Also, has wikipedia decided to change the process? Voting on content, or positions, is kinda different than voting on whether to merge or not. Some things do come down to a yea/nay. Move or don't move. Merge or not. Disambig page, or mentions at the top of the page.
I've also used voting as a way to clarify positions, and I've (nor other people I've seen) never felt bound by the positions put out. Many times I've seen voting break down into, "Yes, but..." And some great clarifications have taken place. I'm thinking about the voting on banning US House IP addresses from editting pages about themselves.
~ender 2006-03-26 19:59:PM MST:There has been a de facto shift toward voting, which is unfortunate but may not be preventable. This page should probably be updated to reflect this trend.

I think you are right that many votes generate useful discussions and deeper understanding -- but that is only insofar as they are not really votes, or insofar as the members choose to subvert the voting process. But when we go into a discussion expecting to vote rather than talk, or when a trial-balloon proposal is greeted with a chorus of automatic "Oppose" votes, real violence is done to the wikiprocess.

Idea: Saying "X is evil" is not really a very helpful guideline. Could this page be redefined as something like Wikipedia:Subvert voting, a how-to guide on facilitating thoughtful dialogue in the face of the "let's-vote-on-it" mentality? -- Visviva 12:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Mathematics of voting: all systems are broken.

• Mathematics of voting: all systems are broken. see voting system.

I removed the above because it is false. A yes/no vote on a single question is not mathematically broken. I guess that the author of the statement was thinking of multicandidate elections and Arrow's impossibility theorem.--SmokeyJoe 04:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

When was this page authorized by consensus?

I looked at the history of the page. It seems that the page is a copy of an essay from Meta-Wiki. When was this page authorized by consensus? How can it be a guideline without any consensus? Bidabadi 19:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ballots are the devil's work?

This has got to be one of the oddest-titled policy-related pages I have seen. The title of this article, if taken seriously, is not suitable for a policy-related document (and if not to be taken seriously, is not suitable for a policy-related document). The article is also fundamentally self-contradictory, as verifying consensus requires some sort of majority vote for an option. It is a useful rule (expressed by Dale Carnegie, for one) that if you ever wish to state something in a negative way, attempt to turn it into a positive before you say it. Following this principle, I come up with the following statements: "Reasoned discussion is good" and "Consensus is good".

On reflection it might be useful to have a procedure for decision making which has two distinct phases. In the first stage, participants are prohibited from indicating their preferred option, but are allowed to state relevant facts and inferences and discuss them with each other. When discussion has died down the second phase, a vote on the alternatives, can take place. Elroch 13:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't this "Essay" violate "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" and "NPOV"?

I'm a little confused by this "essay" about polls and voting. Doesn't this very article violate some of the central tenants of Wikipedia? First, it's just a soapbox for people who don't like polls and/or voting on content. Second, it only presents one point of view--that polls/voting are satanic.

I've seen in many places that simply categorizing discussion into "yea" and "nea" camps helps editors come to a consensus... the neatness makes the discussion easy to follow instead of being a jumbled mess. I'm not saying that voting should be binding; I'm saying that it simply helps move a discussion forward and makes it easy to contribute.

I vote to remove this one-sided essay. (Just kidding). --Sixtrojans 02:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's articlespace is not a soap box, but the metapedia portions such as out userspaces, here, and the Vote for Deletion areas are under no such restriction. The concept of essays is that they are POV, but since they exist in order to provoke thought, it's all right. Essays are not encyclopedic material, they are opinions of certain users on how we should run the Wiki. (Additionally, you are quite capable of adding a dissenting opinion if you so desire.) Also, I think you misunderstand the point of the essay, which isn't that voting has no place whatsoever, it's that it is overused. The whole "evil" thing is a joke. --tjstrf 03:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Misunderstanding the word "vote"

According to my dictionary:

vote. (1)(a) A formal expression of preference for a candidate for office or for a proposed resolution of an issue. (b) A means by which such a preference is made known, such as a raised hand or a marked ballot.

Or in other words, many WP procedures (such as AfDs) are what is known as "votes", and the people who participate in them are what is known as "voters". There is an odd canard that floats around Wikipedia where people mutter the mantra "(Something) is not a vote", with an apparent ignorance of the meaning of the word "vote".

I suspect a lot of these editors have a particularly constricted experience with decision processes in the world, and were taught rather narrow civics classes (or just picked it up from poor newspaper writers). I think what they have in mind is something like the incorrect notion that "vote" means "decision by simple majority", or at least "decision by exact pre-specified super-majority (or plurality)". Obviously, not much on Wikipedia is those things. At the same time, an admin who claims not to count votes on an AfD or other procedural process is either being daft in misrepresenting what they do... or they're being something much worse than daft if they actually do not count the votes. Sure, votes should be contextualized in various ways: are they new editors? are they sockpuppets? do they make useful comments? is there a trend in the voting pattern? did outside events (such as page improvements) occur between one vote and another vote? But to claim innumeracy as some sort of inherent virtue is extremely harmful to process, to fairness, and to consensus.

In defense of this essay, however, it is not principally concerned with those procedures that need be votes. An AfD or an RfA really cannot ever be anything else. However, things like quick polls on article talk pages exist only at the discretion of the editors of those articles. A quick poll may be, and often is, a useful way to gauge sentiment about some editorial issue, but it need not occur; other mechanisms for discussion and agreement exist, notably simple threaded discussion. Inasmuch as this essay recommends that a quick poll should not the automatic, the default, nor the most definitive mechanism for reaching decisions and consensus, it is entirely right. Editors have an collection of tools to use in discussion, and polls are just one among many, and are only the right tool for some jobs. LotLE×talk 20:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to propose this for inclusion

The following statement was placed in this article to avoid NPOV and create balance. It was removed by LotLE, who feels that balanced here is not appropriate. I would appriciate commentary.

The Statement

Consensus method is seen by many as inherently unfair, as there is no proper adjudication of the issue at hand. After much (or little) discussion, one or more parties may simply declare "Now that we've discussed things, it is clear everyone agrees with me, we have consensus." Only in cases where two or more strong personalities exist within the group will this be challenged. Even if challenged, the result is usually the declarer or challenger being expunged from the group. This is Alpha Male politics at it's worst.

In it's original form, consensus method has some viablity as it requires that there is no consensus unless there are no objectors, hence the parlamentary term "Consent Agenda". If even one member of a group is opposed, consensus does not exist, and deliberations must continue. However, this version is rarely practiced.

Using voting and polls, the support among the group is clearly measured, and defined in a mathematical way. While politics, preference and bias may factor in voting, that is no less true in concensus method

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.152.161 (talk • contribs)

Oppose inclusion

1. LotLE×talk 19:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC). To my mind, this editorial statement is more-or-less diametrically opposite the sentiment advanced in the essay. Well, maybe not quite "diametric", but definitely a very different position. This type of material would be better fleshed out in another essay such as Wikipedia:Consensus is evil.
2. Oppose as it has practically no bearing on the essay at hand. It's also wrong, but that's beside the point. --tjstrf 21:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose as the reasoning is insufficiently rigorous and the writing not tight enough. The sentiment itself validly has some place in the article as a minority opinion, I think. Herostratus 08:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

JA: I need more clarification of what exactly is being proposed here. Is it the inclusion of the quoted statement on the main page WP:VIE, or something more than that? Thanks, Jon Awbrey 13:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The quick poll is on the inclusion of the quoted statement in the essay. That's it. LotLE×talk 16:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Support and Oppose sections

Wikpedia Policy sates:

Responding to RfCs

Try not to be confrontational. Be friendly and keep calm. Specifically, do not create "disendorsement" sections on RfCs. If you disagree with something someone else has said, you may add your own separate statement discussing how you disagree. Do not create a "Users who do not agree with this summary" section, or the equivalent. This tends be a confrontational act and usually creates more heat than light. Mediate where possible - identify common ground, attempt to draw editors together rather than push them apart. If necessary, educate users by referring to the appropriate Wikipedia policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.152.161 (talk • contribs)

Guideline

This was common practice back when it was a page on META rather than EnWiki. It describes the common outcome of a common process, which by definition equates to consensus. Therefore it is a guideline. --Radiant! 16:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether we want to say that consensus is determined by discussion or by voting of established users, it is clear that consensus is not determined unilaterally. A claim by one editor that something is an accepted or common practice does not constitute consensus. In fact, there is precedent for the use of voting of established users to adopt policies. For instance, the arbitration policy was enacted as a result of the arbitration policy ratification vote. Since this is a contentious issue, it might be advisable to discuss the conversion of WP:VIE into a guideline before decreeing it to be so. John254 16:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• You are, I hope, aware that that vote was two and a half years ago? Also, this guideline does not forbid voting, it strongly argues against it. This is accepted and common practice; for reference, you can watch the categories for proposals and guidelines. It seems to me that your argument boils down to "we have voted at some point in the past and therefore we may not recommend against it". --Radiant! 17:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we have voted on two major policies in the past -- see Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement as well. In any case, my argument is not "we have voted at some point in the past and therefore we may not recommend against it". My argument is that, given the fact that two major policies have been created as a result of votes, if we want to recommend against voting now, we should have a discussion about adopting WP:VIE as a guideline, rather than simply stating that WP:VIE has long been a common practice. Furthermore, a discussion to determine consensus to adopt a guideline would require participation by many editors, not merely two. John254 17:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• You are being overly bureaucratic over the issue. A statement that describes common practice is a de facto guideline; see WP:3P for how the process works, or as Kim Bruning. We have voted on some policies in the past, and more recently not voted on a larger number of policies. And WhatLinksHere for this guideline shows that it is heavily in use. So yes, it is consensual. --Radiant! 17:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Radiant that the non-bureaucratic nature of Wikipedia is at the heart of this. To say that something is a guideline is merely to describe its function on Wikipedia. Sticking the tag on it is merely a recognition of a de facto state of affairs. We don't need to hold a big discussion prior to sticking the tag on, we just say "this is what we do on Wikipedia so it's a guideline." There has to be a compelling reason not to put the tag on in such circumstances. --Tony Sidaway 17:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony at least has heard my opinion on de facto rules already: they shouldn't exist. By attempting to unilateraly declare something policy, you undercut the support in the process by the lack of openness. The "non-bureacratic nature" of Wikipedia is found in the openness of the processes it uses. Dictatorship is of course also non-bureacratic, but I don't believe that's what you meant by the nature of Wikipedia.

However, since this essay definitely does approach guideline status in its use, I support a consensus of this officially being made a guideline. --tjstrf 18:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose conversion of this essay into a guideline. A complete avoidance of votes to illustrate consensus leaves us without any clear evidence of what the consensus actually is. We are thus left with edit wars in which each opposing side claims -- and legitimately believes -- that their version of a page is the consensus version. The avoidance of votes on policy matters creates problems such as those exhibited on Wikipedia:Deny recognition, where there is an edit war over whether the page is actually a guideline or a proposal, whether there is a consensus for enacting the proposal as a guideline, etc. Due to this dispute, the page is now protected. There is even a dispute as to whether the status of the page is disputed! A vote of established users would be an excellent way to resolve the deadlock as to whether Wikipedia:Deny recognition is really a guideline. A classic objection to polls is the possibility of sockpuppetry -- however, by limiting voting to established users, almost all sockpuppetry can be prevented. If we declare that "voting is evil" as an official guideline, we will cause many edit wars and other disputes simply because nobody will really know what the consensus actually is. John254 18:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• See the definition of guidelines: Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Nobody here suggests a "complete avoidance of votes", soyour argument is a straw man. A vote would be an awful way to resolve WP:DENY, for the very reasons discussed on this page. >Radiant< 19:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Indeed, enacting WP:VIE as a guideline wouldn't really produce "a complete avoidence of votes", it would produce an almost complete avoidence of votes. Which would create all of the problems that I previously described -- most issues that were deadlocked due to an inability to discern consensus still wouldn't be resolved by voting. John254 19:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

A vote doesn't solve that. It is quite valid that a majority vote is not be binding, regardless of whether it was ensured to be purely a vote of established users. It would still be claimed, validly, that a bad policy is still a bad policy; a vote wouldn't solve an edit war over that, only an agreement, which can only be produced by discussion. Your theory of sockpuppets is likewise novel, but the fact remains that while it is trivially simple to discount obvious sockpuppets, there are numerous supposedly established users that are in fact sockpuppets; similarly, any host of tendentious article editors or others with an agenda on this openly accessible and quite popular encyclopedia can easily game the vote. Even if you were to somehow magically ensure that all voters had the fundamental principles of Wikipedia at heart, you cannot ensure that they know an issue well enough or have read the discussion about it to make an informed vote. I won't continue now with the several other problems with voting. The only way to make valid decisions is through reasons with reference to the principles of Wikipedia. Voting is a romantic but increasingly unworkable notion. —Centrx→talk • 20:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

We cannot always act on the basis of "an agreement, which can only be produced by discussion" because there are some issues upon which there will never be any agreement. Of course we attempt to "make valid decisions... through reasons with reference to the principles of Wikipedia", but this does not constitute a method of making decisions because there will disagreements how the principles of Wikipedia should be upheld in particular cases. If there were really "numerous supposedly established users that are in fact sockpuppets", then it would seem that the use of voting in requests for adminship would produce a dysfunctional process -- supposedly, RFA is not a vote, of course, but very rarely does the candidate become an administrator after receiving the support of less than 75% of the established editors commenting on their candidacy. Similarly, pages are rarely deleted if a majority of established editors endorse keeping them. We have employed vote-like mechanisms in these situations because there is really no other way to produce an outcome that will be widely regarded as correct. Of course, where Jimbo Wales has shown leadership on certain questions, his judgment must be respected. What I take issue with, however, is the "anti-voting thesis" that ordinary editors are somehow empowered to act against the wishes of most editors, to create policy that most editors do not want, and to delete pages that most editors want to keep, based on the claim that the principles of Wikipedia are somehow being advanced. Since we disagree on how to apply the principles, the "anti-voting thesis" inevitably leads to anarchy, with every editor edit warring for the version of the page that they favor, and every administrator wheel warring over page deletions based on their personal views of these pages' merits. Editors or administrators who wish to do something that most editors won't like have three avenues of appeal: to Jimbo Wales, to Danny, and to the arbitration committee. Wikipedia has, and needs, leaders, who are free to act against the majority if necessary. However, we cannot endure a situation where all editors proclaim themselves to be leaders in their own right. John254 21:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Appeal to Danny? Dude, where did that come from? Kelly Martin (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• What you have written here is a clear essay against the Ignore All Rules. The point of VIE is the exact opposite: if you vote, whatever the threshold is, one party loses. Discussion, on the other hand, makes people draw up a meaningful compromise, which means that everybody wins. And that's why one should not vote. >Radiant< 21:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Or, even worse, because both parties were too busy pushing and rallying votes, they didn't discuss different possibilities and the reasons for them, so everyone loses. —Centrx→talk • 21:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• I do not see Wikipedia:Ignore all rules as a means by which ordinary editors may act against the will of the majority. Instead, WP:IAR simply accounts for the fact that the rules are necessarily written in broad and sweeping language, and cannot possibly anticipate every situation. Thus, there are some occasions upon which it is a good idea to ignore the text of the rules in order to act in the best interests of Wikipedia -- when it is apparent that ignoring the rules in question would be widely regarded as the correct action to take under the circumstances (no actual voting is necessary, but what is known about the opinions of most Wikipedia editors must be respected). The claim that

  Discussion, on the other hand, makes people draw up a meaningful compromise, which means that everybody wins.

  is an attractive theory; however, many practical applications of Wikipedia:Voting is evil, such as the speedy deletion of the Counter-Vandalism Unit even though most established editors in the second MFD nomination supported keeping it, mean that most people lose. John254 22:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• If you are under the impression that MFD is a vote, you are sorely mistaken. >Radiant< 22:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• I also Oppose per John254 Hello32020 22:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • If you are under the impression that this is a vote, you are also sorely mistaken. >Radiant< 23:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I was hoping that was witty irony. Dmcdevit·t 23:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
      • If you are under the impression that that was irony, er, well, yes, you may have a point there. >Radiant< 14:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

I think we have some misconceptions to address here. First, no amount of arguing here will make this page not a guideline (or policy or whatever): it is already generally agreed upon and in practice, and, most importantly, very sensible. The second misconception seems to be that voting and process are the same; this is very wrong. None of the various XfD processes, or RfA, RfM, etc., or even policy creation, while they are processes, are voting processes. In fact, none of our valuable processes are voting at all, for some very good, agreed-upon reasons, which can be conveniently found at WP:VIE, and none of them are intended to be by the community. WP:DENY and CVU are red herrings; if we accept that they were out-of-process, that is a far cry from accepting that VIE is flawed or without support. The speedy deletion of any page cannot reasonably be an application of VIE. The concept applies only to the decision-making process. It goes like this: "How shall we decide?" "Well, not by voting on it, that's for sure." It doesn't suggest against the commuity's will but rather, that voting is not a valid way of determining such. (What you are referring to is a disputed application of ignore all rules.) This page should be marked as a guideline. Dmcdevit·t 23:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The CVU deletion is an application of Wikipedia:Voting is evil. The closing administrator in the second MFD nomination stated that "This is not a vote. Arguments do count" -- in other words, arguments for the deletion of the CVU, advanced by an indefinitely banned vandal, were more important than the opinions of most legitimate users. This is "voting is evil" at its worst. John254 23:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a vote. The arguments did count. That's a fact, and anyone who disputes that clearly has no idea how decision making processes on Wikipedia work.--SB | T 23:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be glossing over the fact that there were numerous legitimate users arguing with reason for its deletion. Also, if it had been deleted by a straight majority vote versus strong reasons to keep it, that would not be a reason why voting is bad, just as its application to delete the CVU page, among other reasons, is not a reason why voting is good. —Centrx→talk • 03:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether "voting is evil" is a guideline or a policy, but it's clearly one or the other. I'm perfectly happy with it being labeled as a guideline. Or a policy. Or whatever. Doesn't really matter, since, well, voting is evil, no matter what template tag you stick on this page. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Clearly if one is vote-stacking and vote-canvassing (such as the gentleman above), voting is essential in order to win by numbers. How charming. Please stop. Mackensen (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is an accepted and common practice to post information about ongoing discussions on project pages in boldface type -- for example, see [1], as well as the many other postings about ongoing AFD discussions accessible from the page history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion. It does not appear that administrators have removed these postings, or that members of WikiProject Inclusion have been warned to refrain from such postings -- despite the fact that WikiProject Inclusion is explicitly partisan as to the preferred outcome of AFD discussions. Why, then, is information about ongoing discussions posted on Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit removed, and why am I warned that I must not continue to post it? John254 00:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right, except that they're supposed to be related. The Counter-Vandalism Unit and Voting Is Evil have about as much to do with each other as a streetcar and a herd of cows. Look, you got caught vote canvassing fair and square because you thought, wrongly, that what was happening here had something to do with the CVU. It doesn't. It has plenty to with *fD, but the CVU isn't a deletion process. Mackensen (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:SPAM,

Canvassing (also known as "internal spamming" and "cross-posting") is overtly soliciting the opinions of other Wikipedians on their talk pages, and it is controversial.

Since I didn't post this to many different users' talk pages, it doesn't constitute canvassing. My understanding of WP:SPAM is that whether the project page appears to be related to the matter in question is irrelevant -- the only thing that would be prohibited by the guideline is posting to a large number of project pages -- which I didn't do. I only posted this to one project's pages. However, WP:VIE is related to the CVU, since the principle was used to speedily delete the CVU on the basis of arguments posted by a prominent vandal. In any event, I would think that posting information on discussions to explicitly partisan projects, such as WikiProject Inclusion, would actually raise greater "canvassing" concerns, since it would appear to be an attempt to contact editors who are already known to have a particular viewpoint. John254 00:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Nice try, but no. A single precedent does not equate to accepted and common practice. Given the way Wikipedia works, you can claim precedent on just about anything up to and including causing a database lock by deleting the deletion system. That doesn't mean it's common practice, or even a good idea (and boldfaced campaigning for "votes" on something you misunderstood is not a good idea). Anyway, Wikipedia does not work by the letter of rules, but by the spirit. >Radiant< 14:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Have we got rid of any guidelines in the last week? In no then standard opistiontion to adding more guidelines applies.Geni 23:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• (quick interjection to Geni) -> Yes, we did. >Radiant< 14:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Errm, if I understand you right, that's a non sequitur.

Anyway, calling this a guideline will encourage people to jump ahead of the process to set any consensus we reach in stone when it is applicable. Generally we have discussions first, decide what to do then, and finally reach a point where we can be satisfied that most people would support it in a formal poll based on the understanding reached in previous discussions. The danger in making this a guideline is that it would remove the verification process. We need to know that when someone says "the final decision is X" that they aren't trying to pull the wool over our eyes. What we need to do is make a page about the recommended way to make decisions on proposals, (including content about WP:VIE and its counterpoint WP:VINE,) and then make that page a guideline.

Cover all the bases. Do it the Right Way. --DavidHOzAu 00:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

DavidH may have the best idea of all here. --tjstrf 00:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You can verify that by actually reading the discussion. Also note that vote-counting must discount sockpuppets, which for you to verify would require checking it all as well. I don't know what you mean about jumping ahead of process; if, in six months it so happens that this page is not widely considered a guideline, then it could be changed in the same way. I do find it amusing, however, that if a vote were to be called on this matter, there would be an overwhelming majority to make this a guideline. —Centrx→talk • 00:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussions are far more subjective and open to interpetation than votes or even "votes", which is one of the few good arguments for using votes in place of the preferable consensus methods on exceptionally messy issues. After having to read 300 kb of discussion, no one can make an unbiased judgment on exactly what happened. (I too would vote for this being a guideline, though only weakly.) --tjstrf 00:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not a reason to replace a judgement that could in some cases be biased with one that is based on how many people showed up that day without regard for the validity of their arguments for Wikipedia, or if they have any arguments or care about Wikipedia at all. The fact is, decisions will still not be made by voting but by reference to policies and principles and reasons, regardless of whether this page is labelled a policy or guideline; it will merely be confusing for new users. —Centrx→talk • 00:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's always the method where only "votes" with accompanying arguments "count", like AfD theoretically operates under. The basic point is that no single individual is really capable of neutral judgment of an argument, but they are of a vote. Basically, we need to have a guideline that is feasibly followable. --tjstrf 00:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Votes like "Keep. This is my favorite restaurant." are regularly discounted. It doesn't matter if someone is capable of neutrally judging a vote, the fact is that the vote is not neutral in the first place; a judgement of a vote is someone neutrally judging how many fans gave an utterly biased vote, or someone neutrally judging how many people never even read the nomination. —Centrx→talk • 00:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

And in a discussion, you actually have to judge the opinions of people, not just as to whether their opinion is entitled to inclusion in the total, but as to what their opinion is. Under a vote/discussion hybrid, you don't have to exegesize people's opinions for them, so the risk of the final decision being one person's eisegesis is much lower. --tjstrf 01:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

A person can quite clearly indicate their opinion in a discussion. That does not mean that it counts if their opinion is "Wikipedia is a 19th-century bicycle" or "cool" or even "..." nothing at all. —Centrx→talk • 03:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose as well. There are certain essays that carry a significant bit of weight on their own merits (WP:SNOW comes to mind). After having edited on the project for some time I've never gotten the impression that this essay has garnered a general consensus about it's potential to have "guideline" status. (→Netscott) 00:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it has. If you disagree, hold a vote on something, and see how many people complain about it (-: As well, m:Polls are evil has been edited by a large number of people, while the content of Wikipedia:Voting is not evil has been edited almost exclusively by User:Litefantastic, so it would seem to me that the former is far more likely to "have general acceptance amongst editors". BTW, this is not a vote. JYolkowski // talk 01:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The general consensus, or at least the general reality that I've seen is "voting is discouraged, but not evil". Which reminds me, if we are going to make this a guideline we should really change to name to something that doesn't make moral judgments. I recognize it's intended as a joke, but it's still a rather odd name. --tjstrf 01:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

How about Voting is pernicious. —Centrx→talk • 01:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

How about just Wikipedia:Voting? Short & sweet, and if there's anything good to be said about voting the title could accomodate that too. JYolkowski // talk 01:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, if I had hit "Show preview" I would have noticed that that's a bluelink before saving (-: Actually, a merge into what that redirects to might not be a bad idea. And if that page is a guideline, this sure should be. JYolkowski // talk 01:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, Wikipedia:Voting is a guideline already, and in fact appears to be quite stable with only 15 edits in the last 6 months. I'd be more in favor of creating an article to complement that instead of making WP:VIE or WP:VINE a contradicting guideline. Perhaps Wikipedia:Vote after discussion would be better? That's sort of what we are doing right now, isn't it? --DavidHOzAu 07:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a guideline on how a proper straw poll is formed, not that straw polling is good. —Centrx→talk • 17:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

How about "Don't ever vote, no really we mean don't vote. And by the way did we say, we really mean it: don't vote." Sheesh! How difficult it is to get the message through. --Tony Sidaway 08:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply to our little discussion about finding a place to document the current process of confirming discussed consensus. The problem with the article title you suggested is that it bears little resemblance to the style of article we were just discussing, namely, an expanded version of Wikipedia:Voting that also documents Wikipedia:Consensus, both of which have been rather stable guidelines/policies. (If you want to suggest that as the new title for WP:VIE, you are welcome to try.) However, since you sound quite passionate about changing current practice, I suggest you dispute Wikipedia:Voting instead. --DavidHOzAu 11:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Can I put my vote in here for oppose? or is that already moot? hehe, either way i spose it ey? Fresheneesz 09:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• I would have no objection to renaming the page, "Voting is evil" does sound a bit silly, the name "No voting" is probably better (and yes, as a guideline, it may have exceptions). This should not be merged with Wikipedia:Voting, which are instructions on how to make a meaningful vote. There is not really a contradiction - we do not vote over acceptance of things, but for instance if we are agreed that all country-related templates should have the same color, we can put up a vote to see if that color should be red, green, or purple. That's a different matter entirely. >Radiant< 14:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You've cited precisely the sort of situation that I had in mind when I typed the rather lengthy reply on your talk page.

I agree that "Voting is evil" is too silly and informal to serve as the title of a guideline, but "No voting" isn't appropriate either (because it isn't true). Saying that there are "exceptions" is an understatement. (That's like saying that all people are female, with some exceptions.) I realize that you want to discourage inappropriate voting (as do I), but our goal should be to convey an accurate statement in the first place. (Polling can sometimes be helpful, but it also can be harmful and doesn't replace discussion or generate binding outcomes).

For reasons already noted, "polling" (already used throughout most of the page) is a more accurate term than "voting." I would suggest Wikipedia:Polling, but all of the good shortcuts are taken. So how about Wikipedia:Polling guideline (with Wikipedia:Polling and WP:PG as redirects)? —David Levy 17:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this page is not fit to be a guideline - and changing it into one would destroy its style as an essay. But making a guideline against voting would be either redundant or contradictory to WP:STRAW. This subject is already covered by guideline, it doesn't need more. Fresheneesz 20:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Will Wikipedia:Voting is evil become a guideline?

The conversion of Wikipedia:Voting is evil from an essay to a guideline is presently being discussed here. Note that a disregard for what most editors want, the principle underlying Wikipedia:Voting is evil, was used to justify the out-of-process speedy deletion of the Counter-Vandalism Unit against the wishes of most established editors commenting on the issue. John254 21:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What does this have to do with vandalism? —Centrx→talk • 22:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It was used once to the detriment of the CVU, I believe. Otherwise, nothing. --tjstrf 23:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This has a great deal to do with vandalism -- first, altering my signed comments, so that they appear to state something that I never said [2] is considered to be talk page vandalism. Secondly, WP:VIE was used as a rationale for the speedy deletion of the Counter-Vandalism Unit in the second MFD nomination -- arguments offered by a banned vandal held more weight than the opinions of a majority of established users. John254 23:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to restore your original talk page comment (why it was changed is beyond me) if you please, though not to restore the one on this project page. And that argument, though a valid argument for use in a discussion on WP:VIE, does not make this a relavent issue for posting on this page. --tjstrf 23:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No it wasn't. Not valuing voting has nothing whatsoever to do with doing anything speedily or anything at all related to IAR. If perhaps you meant that there being a delete or keep based on arguments rather than voting would be reason to post this here, that same argument would entail that anyone could post this notice on any article they were a fan of that had been at risk of being deleted. Please explain why this is not just campaigning on your part to get what you want—through the numbers analogous to a vote, by the way, there already was an empty vote by someone who was summoned from this page (the user's edit immediately after was to change his CVU box). —Centrx→talk • 00:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is quite clear that the speedy deletion of the Counter-Vandalism Unit on the basis of arguments advanced by an indefinitely banned vandal was heavily influenced by Wikipedia:Voting is evil -- the closing administrator in the second MFD nomination stated that "This is not a vote. Arguments do count". Perhaps WP:VIE needs Wikipedia:Not voting encourages trolling by indefinitely banned vandals as a counterpoint. John254 03:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No, the speed of it had nothing to do with voting. You also didn't address whether—well apparently you didn't even read my first comment so I won't continue. —Centrx→talk • 03:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

May I please and politely request and suggest that utilizing the CVU for policy lobbying is a poor idea? Phil Sandifer 01:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It is an accepted and common practice to post information about ongoing discussions on project pages in boldface type -- for example, see [3], as well as the many other postings about ongoing AFD discussions accessible from the page history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion. It does not appear that administrators have removed these postings, or that members of WikiProject Inclusion have been warned to refrain from such postings -- despite the fact that WikiProject Inclusion is explicitly partisan as to the preferred outcome of AFD discussions. John254 03:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Nice try, but no. A single precedent does not equate to accepted and common practice. Given the way Wikipedia works, you can claim precedent on just about anything up to and including causing a database lock by deleting the deletion system. That doesn't mean it's common practice, or even a good idea (and boldfaced campaigning for "votes" on something you misunderstood is not a good idea). Anyway, Wikipedia does not work by the letter of rules, but by the spirit. >Radiant< 14:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm considerably less concerned about WikiProject Inclusion, specifically because it is quite honest about what it is and what its interests are. CVU acts in a manner that is, if not official, at least set up so as to be in the penumbra of the official. Phil Sandifer 14:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Phil stop it. You are just wasteing people's time. Go and do something useful like clearing CAT:CSD.Geni 15:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Now can we talk about the matter at hand? Phil Sandifer 15:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, just head over there and talk. As has been pointed out, this page has nothing to do with WP:VIE, so talking about it here really won't help. --tjstrf 15:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe the matter he is referring to is the use of this page as a sort of political constituency of friends for matters that have nothing to do with fighting vandalism, the ostensible purpose of this page. —Centrx→talk • 22:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be an editor-specific issue. Again, talking here won't help. --tjstrf 22:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Once more about this page

Looking over the discussion above, I notice a lot of long-term editors that confirm that this is already a guideline (which is backed by the fact that this is heavily in use and has been so for several years). Setting aside an unfortunate misunderstanding, I notice the following objections: (1) that this must go through some official process before becoming a guideline - however, the reality is that such an official process does not exist on Wikipedia (but feel free to propose one if you want to); (2) objections to the name (which is admittedly tongue-in-cheek and I wouldn't object to renaming this page); (3) objections to the style (well, it's a wiki, you can edit the page to improve the style); and (4) that there are or should be exceptions to what this page says (which is okay since all guidelines tend to have exceptions, and {{guideline}} even says so).

In other words, there aren't really any objections to what this page says, only a few formal objections against changing the status tag on this page. As such, I'm going to to tag this page as {{guideline}} once more, in a hope that this will make it clearer to novice users that it's not such a good idea to e.g. vote on "merge" tags. And yes, Kim's tag is nice, but the very users that tend to vote on merging are the kind of user that tends to think pages are unimportant unless they're policy or guideline (can of worms, I know). My changing this tag won't change anything of how the wiki works, but it should make the way the wiki works clearer to new users. >Radiant< 23:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The claim that "a lot of long-term editors... confirm that this is already a guideline" seems suspiciously like, dare I say it, vote counting, which cannot possibly support the proposition that "voting is evil." For "voting is evil" to become a guideline, we must have some measure of consensus that does not in any way relate to the number of people who support it, since it would be self-contradictory to vote for "voting is evil" (although we might be able to vote against it). I claim that no such "non-quantitative" consensus exists for making "voting is evil" a guideline since substantive objections to this essay have not been adequately responded to. For instance, I argued extensively in the above discussion that an avoidance of votes on contentious issues leads to edit wars since we are left without an objective means of determining what the consensus actually is. Each party can simply interpret the discussion in a manner that favors their own version of the page, and act accordingly. DavidHOzAu objected to "voting is evil" on the grounds that polls are an essential element in confirming the existence of consensus:

Calling this a guideline will encourage people to jump ahead of the process to set any consensus we reach in stone when it is applicable. Generally we have discussions first, decide what to do then, and finally reach a point where we can be satisfied that most people would support it in a formal poll based on the understanding reached in previous discussions. The danger in making this a guideline is that it would remove the verification process. We need to know that when someone says "the final decision is X" that they aren't trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

Quite simply, the claim that "there aren't really any objections to what this page says" is not supported by the available evidence. With serious, substantial disputes as to the merits of making "voting is evil" a guideline, I claim that there is no consensus for this action -- or at least no consensus which may be elucidated by employing non-quantitative measures. If it seems tempting to employ a poll to resolve the deadlock, then perhaps voting isn't so evil after all. John254 23:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This essay itself states that

Establishing consensus requires expressing that opinion in terms other than a choice between discrete option and expanding the reasoning behind it, addressing the points that others have left, until all come to a mutually agreeable solution.

Since the above objections haven't been responded to, and there is no mutual agreement to make this essay a guideline, by this essay's own definition of consensus, there is no consensus to describe it as a guideline. Furthermore, despite the claim that

it is a guideline - 'guideline' decribes how it is actually being applied - if you want to change that, good luck

the guideline template itself clearly states that guidelines are prescriptive as well as descriptive:

This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It has general acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow.

Such a template should not be placed on an essay where there is no consensus to adopt it as a guideline. John254 14:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Consensus does not equate to unanimousness. If you want Wikipedia to change its ways and adopt a process for voting on proposals, by all means draft a propopsal for that and ask feedback. >Radiant< 16:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no consensus. There probably is consensus for the basic principles, but the page itself is written in the informal style of an essay. —David Levy 16:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Many guidelines are written in the "informal style of an essay". Feel free to reword, but as you yourself admit, there is consensus for the basic principles. >Radiant< 16:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It is written in the informal style of an essay because it is an essay. (Yes, I know, I am always good at coming in with the obvious.) It is an essay that expands upon a guideline, and one that has existed in the culture since before it became such an issue to make a practical distinction between things that were simply kept in mind, guidelines, and "official policy". In my interpretation Wikipedia:Consensus is the primary force here, which is indeed tagged as a guideline; this is simply an expansion upon one particular aspect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I realize most "long-term editors" or whatever seem to love "voting is evil", but I am one who doesn't. I think we should vote on many things. Voting scales. Discussion doesn't (witness the trainwreck of RfA every time something outside a routine vote is used to decide the outcome). You really only have consensus if the most politically powerful person around at the time says you have consensus... that's what this whole discussion thing boils down to for me. Voting is much more fair.

But that's just me. Anyway, if this is policy, it seriously needs to be renamed... this has always seemed to be to be saying "Voting is evil, and people who like voting are evil too!" And that's the way it's invoked... when I say something about voting, the first thing people say is "But that's evil!". --W.marsh 17:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the new name is an improvement. Though I'd prefer the sentiment be expressed as "Discuss, don't just vote." --tjstrf 19:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a better name in some ways. However, a note of caution: discussion is also sometimes misused, and we probably don't want to further encourage the trend against boldness by seeing this bit of policy used as an excuse for foot-dragging, pettyfogging or filibustering. We've had many policy discussions that have devolved into metadiscussions about whether there is consensus, not for the policy, but for whether to place a certain tag on the policy. This really is a silly situation and we ought to be thinking ahead and working out how to thwart such obstacles to policy formation where de facto consensus obviously exists. --Tony Sidaway 19:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, discussion is what makes "de facto" policy gain the consensus it requires to become policy. It's not filibustering, and it's that continued attitude about discussion that makes people lean toward the straw poll model. You don't want to vote, but you don't want to discuss, either. There's something bizarre with that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Er, thanks for the move, but I think you meant Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote, heh. We should probably decide on a good permanent/semi-permanent name before moving it around all evening though, so I'm posting here in lieu of making another move. --W.marsh 19:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Doh! Fixed now. >Radiant< 19:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

W.marsh nailed it precisely; we need a better name. I will however go a step further and say that a move like this should really have been more thoroughly discussed beforehand. I think the title should not have a contraction in it. Although the old title should not have come across as denouncing votes as evil, the move has not improved the situation because it can still gives newcomers the wrong idea. Perhaps renaming the page to Wikipedia:Calling for an early vote is evil would be more profitable because that is the only situation when a vote is evil. (Rationale: Surveys that result in no consensus simply are not discussed enough beforehand, no matter how big of an issue it is. For example, if Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance had been discussed a little bit more, Jimbo's statement about verifiability over fame would been part of the discussion and thus short-circuited the need for a vote; the proposal would have been rejected earlier. Nobody wins when due process is rushed.)

In regards to a comment made by Tony Sidaway, I must warn everyone here that advocating the use of "obvious de facto consensus" is inherently dangerous, especially on policy and guideline pages. That practice may have a limited place in article space, but never in Wikipedia space where any change affects every editor. I advise everyone here to be careful what you wish for because if voting can be misused, so can discussion. It doesn't matter how many people are on a talk page if some semblance of intelligence is encouraged among editors; a mindless discussion only occurs when the concerns of other editors are ignored and overlooked instead of being addressed. (Note that if discussion becomes mindless then nobody is giving it the due attention it deserves, including yours truly.) In that regard, it is easier for someone with an agenda to "muddy the waters" with pointless arguments in a discussion compared to a survey; the nature of a survey prevents minor points from being continually addressed and hindering the decision process. Voting is evil, but not discussing anything for the sake a few outliers is far more evil; do not give the kids ideas.

Discussions and Surveys are not mutually exclusive; they are like a good knife and fork, and they work best together. Knives and forks are not evil per se, but both can be used to kill.

--DavidHOzAu 02:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• The problem with the name "early voting is evil" is that it implies that discussions should end with a vote. That is not the case. Indeed, while you can probably find an exception or two (most of the exceptions are quite old, and the wiki does evolve), voting on guidelines is highly discouraged to the point where people routinely delete such votes; and making the assumption that AFD etc are votes will quickly get you some comments to indicate otherwise.
• I believe the point Tony is trying to make is that when we write down current practice as a guideline (which of course should see discussion, as you indicate), we sometimes get opposition that state they know it's current practice, but they do not like the practice. A constructive approach for such people would not be to quarrel over the tag on a page, but instead to draw up a {{Proposal}} and try to change current practice. Radiant! 17:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well put. Obviously current practice doesn't get to be current practice unless a lot of people have had the opportunity to discuss it, see it in action, and agree with it. --Tony Sidaway 18:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

lol. In that case, we should take WP:VINE as a guideline. That's the current practice to my knowledge. --DavidHOzAu 03:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

A belief that Voting is not evil accords with current practice can only arise from unfamiliarity with current practice. --Tony Sidaway 10:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I wish you two good luck in getting this as an accepted guideline. If you eventually announce the proposed change at {{Announcements}} and obtain acceptance by other Wikipedians, go ahead, but you might want to know that this page already qualifies for {{rejected}} due to its contradiction with the long-standing Wikipedia:Straw polls guideline, which was quite stable as of the beginning of this month. Unless, of course, you've edited that too? --DavidHOzAu 04:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• The problem here is that you want to do things "by the book" but you are apparently unaware that there is no such book (aka WP:NOT a bureaucracy). Most guidelines spring from documenting existing outcomes. This page is old and heavily in use and has matched the way things work for years. WP:STRAW documents how to hold a poll; this page documents when not to hold a poll. There is no contradiction. >Radiant< 12:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• • In that case, can you move it to Wikipedia:When voting is a bad idea or something similar? Discuss, don't vote sounds like it is trying to rule out voting completely, and it is the only reason left why I'm objecting to this being used as a guideline. It's important to give the correct impression from the start, more so for the Wikipedia namespace. --DavidHOzAu 06:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • We have many guidelines named "don't do this" or "don't do that" - e.g. we don't have Wikipedia:When revert warring is bad. The important point about Wikipedia rules is that they aren't to be invoked blindly at all times (indeed, {{guideline}} specifically says so). >Radiant< 09:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
      • That is my point. If rules aren't to be invoked blindly than the title of said guidelines shouldn't sound so insistent about its goal; the title should be a subject instead of what Wikipedians should do. For example, we have Wikipedia:Verifiability instead of Wikipedia:Provide verifying information. "Discuss, don't vote" sounds like an order to me; please fix it. --DavidHOzAu 11:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
        • We have lots of guidelines with titles in the imperative clause, including but not limited to Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages, Wikipedia:Check your facts, Wikipedia:Discuss and draft graphical layout overhauls, Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates and Wikipedia:No legal threats. >Radiant< 11:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Okay, I see your point. But can we at least get rid of the contraction? Please? --DavidHOzAu 01:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Working on it :) >Radiant< 15:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Look at any votes page

Whether AFD or anything like it and the close is always based on number of votes and not arguments. Anomo 21:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It's based on both. --tjstrf 21:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• AFD was specifically renamed away from "votes for deletion" to make clear that it is not a vote. The term "AFD is not a vote" is regularly heard on DRV whenever someone falsely believes that the votes are what matter. The persistence of such misconceptions is precisely why this page is so important. >Radiant< 21:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• I dunno. I've definently closed an AfD or three based on the quality of arguments, not just the number of votes. Often those closings go to DRV, where some people (often the same people who say WP is not a democracy) argue that I should have just gone with the votes (of course they call it "consensus"). But sometimes the majority of people in an AfD just get it wrong, and don't understand an important policy like WP:V or WP:NOT. But the small sample size of the average AfD is very important to consider here... it's a lot easier to take into account the quality of arguments when 5 people are involved... if it's a close vote with 150 people involved, it's pretty much just your own personal opinion when you are saying what "consensus" supposedly is. --W.marsh 21:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I see them closed based on votes. I think it's sort of a cautious thing for the closers to do, rather than trying to be subjective by weighing the argument, and potentially making an unpopular decision or a mistake. Anomo 22:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason that most AfDs are closed in line with the "votes" is because the people who are "voting" all agree on an obvious outcome good for Wikipedia. In many cases you wouldn't even need to have an AfD; the admin, a prototypical Wikipedian, could often look at the article and their decision would most always be the same as the consensus reached on the AfD. For most of the common classes of deleted articles, the major reason for having an AfD is to discover more information about the subject, or to generate ideas about alternate options like merging. That is, not enough is known about it to make a decision, but if the information is known and the possible options are laid out, the decision is pretty obvious and the people commenting on the AfD are going to almost unanimously come to the same conclusion. The people who keep adding meaningless votes are just wasting their time. —Centrx→talk • 05:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't scale.

Back in January or so, some well-meaning folks launched a crusade to de-link all dates, years, months, days, and so on, that they deemed "unimportant". I started a discussion about it on the Village Pump. I phrased my comments along an anti-unwikilinking-dates vein. (That is, I said "This mass de-linking of dates is silly and we ought not allow it." Only more verbose, and with subtle layers of sarcasm.)

The ensuing discussion reached no consensus. Many people agreed with me. Many people disagreed with me.

After a few days, it occurred to me that if I had but had the presence of mind to phrase my comments in favor of the thing I was wanting to see stopped, the same thing would have occurred. There would have been no consensus. Many people would have agreed with me. Many people would have disagreed with me.

After which I would have been free (FSVO "free") to use that no-consensus result to stump for the result I actually wanted, e.g. "Well, I tried to drum up some consensus to support the de-linking of wikified dates and years and so on, but there was no consensus to do so. So obviously the idea doesn't have support. So obviously you need to stop with the delinking."

This is something of a stretched example, but the point holds: Consensus will be more and more difficult to come by as the number of Wikipedia contributors grows. It's nearly impossible to achieve in many areas of Wikipedia right now. Wikipedia now has more admins than it had total contributors back in the early days when real, actual "consensus" was an achievable goal. I agree that the solution is not a simple stand-up vote, but I'm also convinced that longing for some sort of nebulously-defined "consensus" like Wikipedia had in the Good Old Days(tm) isn't the solution, either.

All the best,
Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak}
23:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The reasonable thing to do is to have dates linked according to whether they are appropriate to context, which is what the manual of style on links currently says. If someone is making changes that the editors on individual articles oppose, then that needs to be discussed with those editors on the particular article. You don't need mass consensus for individual articles. You don't need a mass consensus discussion or vote if something follows from the essential properties of the encyclopedia. The opposition to these changes is to making mass, sometimes disruptive, changes across the wiki—that is, imposing things based on some vague "consensus" or idea of propriety. I don't think many people actually think that all years on every article should be linked, it just should be done in the way most other things are done on the wiki, not through a top-down imposition. —Centrx→talk • 05:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

So, just because there is a blurry area on one issue doesn't mean the system doesn't work. The fact remains that as long as you make sure that the people interested in writing a neutral, free encyclopedia are the ones who reign, there isn't any problem; we have a common goal and minor quibbles along the way aren't a big deal. It just doesn't work to go around telling people to start or stop doing something because "there was no consensus" without explaining the reasons why something should be done or not done and why the consensus-makers disagreed with each other. Anyway, there really is no other way except to have a group, however large, of persons with good faith in a common goal reason out what is appropriate to achieve that goal. —Centrx→talk • 05:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Last I knew, wikilinking dates was what made it possible for the user's date preferences (Month, Day, Year or Day, Month, Year or whatever) work, and was supposed to be done. --tjstrf 06:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This is for dates which aren't affected by the date preferences, mainly plain years like 2004, etc. —Centrx→talk • 18:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Consensus doesn't scale... that's an interesting point, and it depends on what process you refer to. Individual FAC or AFD discussions have a small enough participation that consensus works. Consensual discussion has worked fine for refining policy/guideline proposals. I think the two problematic areas are RFA (which is under heavy discussion elsewhere) and Wikiwide standardization proposals, such as the date issue you mention. The latter problem isn't new; Wikipedia is notorious for being unable to make decisions on e.g. AD vs CE. I fully agree that we need to find some way to resolve these issues - but on the issue you mention, voting wouldn't have worked either since I'm sure people would have insisted on a 65%-70% majority to pass, and it wouldn't have achieved that. >Radiant< 17:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with this, and am beginning to strongly suspect that Wikipedia will need to move in the direction of parliamentarianism in the future. We already made one large step in this direction with the creation of the Arbitration Committee. Maybe should start to do this in the area of policy creation as well. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

How do you suggest Wikipedia be divided into counties and districts? --tjstrf 17:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't necessarily need to divide up the entire wiki by geography. For some things, it would be sufficient if a small group could break off, work on a specific policy, possibly claim a small set of articles/users/etc, and do a trial run of their ideas. Other people could provide input, but complaints that fall short of "this obviously contradicts our core principles" wouldn't be enough to stop the trial run before the stated end date. Afterwards, the results could be summarized and compared to similar test runs. You'd still need wide acceptance after that to make things policy, but at least it discussions would be based on actual rather than imagined benefits/downsides.

I really think it should be policy that limited-scale limited-term trial runs would be explicitely allowed for things like stable versions, etc. Otherwise, I see dewiki and others becoming the major source of these test runs, rather than enwiki. This sort of thing would let us use our numbers to an advantage rather than a disadvantage (it would let us innovate faster than dewiki rather than slower, since we could potentially have a larger number of small groups brainstorming policy improvements). --Interiot 19:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that concensus does not scale and wikipedia is heading toward some sort of on-going series of civil wars or a dictatorship by committee if it does not change this approach to things in some concrete ways. I believe both things are already starting to happen. The voting is evil essay has done great damage to wikipedia along this line.--Blue Tie 01:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus polling

People arguing here might find this interesting: Wikipedia:Consensus polling. It's a method for adducing consensus for a given proposal. It uses a poll, but it is not a vote: one can either support the proposal or not yet support the proposal, which is editable so that concerns can be addressed.

The idea originated elsewhere, at the Omidyar Network, and the details of the method are fairly well ironed out through experience there. Anyone who finds it interesting might like to try it out, if they can think of a suitable proposal to test it on. --bainer (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Split out

Based on the above, it should be clear that the established practice on Wikipedia is not to vote if we can avoid it. Note that this page dates from 2004 and has been heavily used since. That doesn't mean voting is prohibited period (nor does this page say so), but it remains discouraged since discussion has been proven to work better. As pointed out before, AFD is sometimes confused for a vote, but it really isn't. The main place where voting seems effective is when a guideline has already been accepted to standardize something, and votes are held on e.g. the color to standardize to.

However, some people make the interesting comment that perhaps we should change our practices since discussing doesn't seem to scale as well with the sheer size of Wikipedia. I think that is a very good point, in particular related to creating new guidelines; housekeeping tasks like FAC seem to have a low enough participation that discussion still works. It is left as an exercise to the reader what to do about RFA. I think it would be a good idea to create a page to discuss how best to deal with that, and possibly change established practice. >Radiant< 17:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Polls are evil?

Although it was done tongue-in-cheek, I think this poll about the question is very telling particularly as the question about the status of this page is discussed now. (→Netscott) 18:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not merely tongue-in-cheek, the poll is quite obviously entirely a joke. It is very similar to Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Jimbo Wales for admin. —Centrx→talk • 03:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

{{descriptive}}

This page describes the experiences, observations, and findings on best practices of wikipedians in the field. As with all wiki-pages, be cautious when using any information or advice contained herein, as it may yet be incomplete. If people haven't already done so, please keep this page up to date to reflect your most current experience on this matter.

In other words: Some Wikipedians really like the opinions presented on this page. Others may not, however.

I don't mean to be harsh, nor to unduly disparage what is obviously a well-intentioned change by an admin I personally have much respect for. But "Some folks like the stuff on this page" seems to be essentially a content-free observation. It provides us with no information that isn't already obvious to the casual observer. {{essay}}, on the other hand, helps to separate the realm of policy from the realm of personal opinion (whether individual opinion or a collective, but minority, opinion). This is especially useful given the fact that many pages marked {{essay}} can often take on the superficial appearance of a policy page to the inexperienced newbie.

WP:VIE is not policy, but neither can it be considered the "best practices of wikipedians in the field" unless you're willing to stipuluate which Wikipedians you're talking about. Because clearly there are many Wikipedians "in the field" who disagree that "Voting is Evil" is a best practice.

All the best,
Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak}
06:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• I fully agree that this is not policy (and nor should it be), and that the current tag is not really meaningful. But you are incorrect that essays "take on the superficial appearance of a policy page" - to most novice users, the "essay" tag implies "this page is some random person's opinion and can safely be ignored". Witness how often people on e.g. AFD say "do this per WP:THATPAGE" and novice responds with "you can't do that, WP:THATAGE is not policy!". >Radiant< 08:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • However, what we should look for is not "best practice", but "current practice". As discussed above, DDV does explain the common outcome of a common process - that AFD should not be seen as a vote, and that proposals should be discussed rather than voted upon. There are always some exceptions (as is propoer) but as a whole Wikipedia favors discussion over voting; this page has been heavily in use since its creation in 2004. Hence, the appropriate tag is {{guideline}} - anything else is confusing to new users. Remember that guidelines aren't set in stone.
  • I realize that some people would prefer if Wikipedia took the voting approach more often, and that is a good point that should be discussed. However, guidelines are descriptive not prescriptive. Guidelines describe the status quo. If and when the status quo changes, we change the guidelines to reflect that.
  • As a side point for the "has this been properly discussed" people - this page has been in CAT:G for awhile already; a page in that category should have the proper tag. >Radiant< 08:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. As I mention earlier on the talk page, I'm in agreement that turning things into a pure stand-up vote is not a road we wish to travel down. As an admin who occasionally dips his hand into the AFD well, I like the fact that I am not bound by sheer numbers when deciding the outcome of a particularly thorny discussion.

All the best,

Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak}

12:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a guideline

This has never been a proposal, and isn't a guideline. If you want to change it, find consensus. Fresheneesz 08:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• See above. This documents the status quo; if you don't like the status quo, feel free to propose a change. >Radiant< 08:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Why are you the one dictating what the status quo is? Where the hell is consensus for this? Where can I see the status quo? The above is *ONE* editor in addition to yourself - that means absoulately nothing. Fresheneesz 18:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You have to either explain how his description of the status quo is wrong or explain why voting would be good. —Centrx→talk • 19:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even *saying* the description of the status quo is wrong. There needs to be offered up some proof that its *correct*. We can't just make every and any possible guideline until someone proves each of them to be "not the status quo". Fresheneesz 07:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• You know it's status quo or you wouldn't be involved in a proposal to change the status quo. >Radiant< 07:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about WP:STRAW ?? That has been a guideline for a looong time. *that* is the status quo. Fresheneesz 02:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that this has never been a proposal because it has been an accepted part of Wikipedia for so long... long before these various bureaucratic categories of "guideline," "essay," etc. came into general use. I don't think the other core principles of Wikipedia have ever been formal proposals either. I would have to agree with Radiant! (and believe me, that doesn't happen often) that it was purely an oversight that this was not tagged as a guideline earlier. Both this and WP:STRAW are very much part of the status quo. That status quo is somewhat messy and contradictory, at least on the surface, but Wikipedia is itself a contradictory and messy place (at least on the surface). That's not a bad thing. -- Visviva 02:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Disputed Tag

As described extensively this page, there are reasonable and legitimate objections to making this essay a guideline by a large number of editors. Furthermore, there is a serious dispute as to whether this essay actually has the requisite consensus to establish it as a guideline. To avoid continuing to have the tag of this essay/guideline reverted back and forth, I am adding a disputed tag template to the guideline version. John254 00:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• This is circular reasoning - you say it is a dispute because it is a dispute. Also, you seem to be unaware of how Wikipedia guidelines actually work or are generated. We've been debating this for awhile and as you can read above this matches common practice. It's as simple as that. If you don't like common practice, try and change it; and if you do, this page will follow suit. >Radiant< 07:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It is disputed whether this essay matches common practice -- the 3RR enforcement vote, and the arbitration policy ratification vote present ample examples of policy making by votes as I have described above. Furthermore, almost all requests for adminship, except Carnildo's, have been decided essentially on the basis of votes by established users. The arbitration committee itself uses votes as an internal decision making procedure. XFD's are almost always decided in a manner consistent with numerical consensus, although the closing administrators occasionally assert that "this is not a vote", and close the XFD against the wishes of most established users who have commented. Furthermore, reviewing this talk page in its entirety, it is quite obvious that far more than two users have raised cogent objections to characterizing this essay as a guideline. If nothing else, the existence of an edit war over whether this essay should be a guideline, with multiple users on both sides, should indicate that their is a dispute over the "guideline" status of this page. I am therefore restoring the disputed tag template. John254 11:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • 3RR and arb ratification are several years old; 3RR is indeed an exception (you are aware, I trust, that guidelines have exceptions); the arb ratification poll is an open-ended mechanism that has entirely failed to work the way it says it does. That is certainly not "ample examples". Requests for adminship is supposed to be a discussion and is under heavy debate at the moment; however, XFD is most certainly a discussion, and is most definitely not a vote even though novice users sometimes think it is. Any attempt to e.g. votestack XFD is thus denied because it misses the point.
    • More importantly, you misunderstand how Wikipedia guidelines are formed: something that has been accepted practice for several years now is a guideline. Some people think that removing its tag will somehow make it less accepted practice or make it not a guideline; that is false. Some other people think that something is not a guideline unless it is voted upon; that is also false. Some other people argue that since they don't like it, it shouldn't be a guideline; that, too, is false. The argument that this isn't accepted practice is based on misunderstandings and straw men. >Radiant< 11:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • XFDs are protected against votestacking; however, all this means is that if a number of new or unregistered users show up for the discussion, their opinions won't be counted. The fact that closing XFDs against the wishes of most established users is atypical and raises significant controversy when it does happen indicates that the XFDs are really votes most of the time. That some users want the requests for adminship process to be less of a vote doesn't make it less of a vote today. We don't vote on everything, and voting isn't always the best way to resolve disputes. However, as we do vote more than occasionally, even today, this essay shouldn't be a guideline. John254 11:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • That's a non sequitur. That AFDs aren't closed against consensus does not imply that said consensus is arrived at by voting. AFD used to be called "votes for deletion" and was renamed precisely becease it was often misunderstood as a vote. As for RFA, go ask any bureaucrat and they'll tell you it's not a vote. That you want it to be more of a vote doesn't make it more of a vote today. You seem to be implying that this guideline forbids voting and that thus any single instance of voting would "prove" its invalidity. That is a straw man. >Radiant< 12:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • No, good reasons given by newly registered users to keep the AfD'ed page are perfectly valid and both sway later discussion and are considered in themselves by the closing admin. Conversely, in general me-too votes by established users are heavily discounted if considered at all. (Also, in the vast majority of cases, admins are not going to browse the contributions of all the users to determine who is new, they are going to read the comments.) —Centrx→talk • 15:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What john is saying is that most afds are closed based roughly on the number of supporters vs dissenters. It would be ridiculous to delete an article that has 3 admins that want to delete it, and 50 new (non-sock puppet) people that want to keep it. Thus one can conseptualize that as a vote. Perhaps long time users, and people who explain their vote, get more weight - but that doesn't change the fact that majority means something. Fresheneesz 07:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• That is fallacious. Majority means something in consensus. The fact that a majority is often right does not at all imply that a vote is taking place. >Radiant< 07:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

My comments weren't fallacious, you're just misunderstanding me. I'm not saying a vote is taking place, but I'm saying that the very *idea* of consensus is the *same* very idea behind binding votes. Although we don't use binding votes on wikipedia, we *do* use non-binding votes - ie polls. Fresheneesz 00:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• That statement is self-contradictory. >Radiant< 11:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Discuss, don't vote is the logical consequence of the english wikipedia being run by wikipedia:consensus arrived at by negotiation and compromise. You can't have both at once. Kim Bruning 08:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You can have both. Polling can fuel discussion, and help gauge consensus. Why do you think they are mutually exclusive? Fresheneesz 00:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

So far, 3 out of the 4 times I have seen substantial disputes on wikipedia, I have not seen any real regard for concensus. I am new here, and I believed the stories and lines about discuss and concensus and so on. I no longer believe those things to be accurate portrayals of the way wikipedia works. In my observation it works as an odd combination of oligarchy and ochlocracy with a degree of bullying to go along with those aspects. --Blue Tie 09:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• You are welcome to propose a more formal system of rule creation (e.g. the one used on the French wikipedia). I would be interested in seeing how that could work. At the moment, Wikipedia is a cluocracy. >Radiant< 11:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

On wikipedia, with (straw-)polling, we mean a specific method of gauging consensus. I think maybe this is uniquely an en.wikipedia use of the word though :-/ Kim Bruning 12:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Voting but not deciding?

Don't we technically vote in AfD discussions and ect.? We do vote, but our votes don't decide. They just pursuade the people that make the final decision, like with the Electoral College. Right?--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 15:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No, we try to figure out what to do, and then someone comes along to see if we've (roughly) come to an agreement. Kim Bruning 19:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

We do technically vote, just like the US technically votes for president (of course the electoral college trumps popular vote if they are gracious enough, as we saw in 2000). Koji is right, and many people use polling as a consensus gathering technique. Fresheneesz 20:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope, though I admit that an unperturbed discussion can often look like a vote. Have you ever tried shifting consensus while it's forming? It's great fun! :-) Kim Bruning 21:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The word "vote" can refer to "the formal expression of a proposed resolution of an issue." _fD discussions are not majority/plurality votes, but they do involve voting. —David Levy 21:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It has been pointed out before that you are one of the few who use that particular non-standard definition. Besides, the key word is "formal". AFD is an informal expression of a proposed resolution. >Radiant< 22:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Please explain why a definition similar to those listed first in several major dictionaries should be regarded as "non-standard."

2. Please explain why AfD (with its officially designated status, location and procedure) should be regarded as "informal." —David Levy 22:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Most people see voting as giving a group of people identical forms, having them put check marks in the boxes as desired, and then counting how often each box is checked. That is nothing like AFD (or indeed, any content-related process on WP). On Wikipedia, just about everything is informal, which follows from WP:IAR and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. >Radiant< 22:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, so voting's definition is "When you give two people a piece of paper and they write a check in one of the boxes."?--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 22:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

That is indeed an example of voting. There are several others in an analogous way, and note that I never said 'paper'. >Radiant< 23:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

That would just be one example though, not the definition. --tjstrf 23:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Giving a group of people a pragraph on why you think something is un-encyclopedic and having them say Support or Oppose is the same as voting.--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 23:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but AFD explicitly asks people for their reasonings, and (unlike voting) does not have a cutoff point for decision making (e.g. 60% support required to pass), and (unlike voting) can be decided in favor of the majority. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but a cluocracy. >Radiant< 23:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

RfA's are considerd votes, then, scince they need 75% support to pass, right?--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 23:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Tricky question. Wikipedia does sometimes vote on people - the Board Vote is definitely a vote; the yearly ArbCom vote is mostly a vote except that Jimbo reserves the right to ignore the results. RFA is presently under heavy debate. Many users believed it to be a vote (and indeed, it looks like one) and it appeared to be accepted that 75% support was required to pass. But last month an editor passed with 59% support, which caused quite a stir. So it is presently unclear whether or not it is, ever was, or should be a vote. For details, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano. >Radiant< 23:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

1. An ArbCom election is a vote. Votes needn't have binding outcomes.

2. It always has been clear (to me, at least) that 75% support is merely a rough guideline, not an exact requirement or guarantee of success. This, of course, has no bearing on whether RfAs are voted on. They absolutely are. —David Levy 23:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No, there is no such rule. Bureaucrats must weigh the arguments presented. An RfA can pass with less than 75% support or fail with more than 75% support.

Nonetheless, RfA is a type of voting. —David Levy 23:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You're applying the definition of "majority/plurality voting" to the word "voting." The terms are not synonymous. —David Levy 23:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You described majority/plurality polling, which is one variety of voting. Indeed, AfD is nothing like that, but it is formal, and it is a type of voting. —David Levy 23:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Er, no. AFD is emphatically not a vote. I'm sure you can find some definition of "vote" under which it, by some technicality, could be construed a vote. However, using the common definition of voting on Wikipedia, AFD is not a vote. See also Wikipedia:Requests for adminship is not a vote. >Radiant< 23:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Radiant, but your definition of the word "vote"—no matter how common it may be—is incorrect. Again, you're referring to one specific type of voting (majority/plurality voting) as "voting." I'm referring to the most basic dictionary definition of the word. No "technicality" or obscure loophole is involved.

I don't know why you cited a proposal as evidence, but I thank you for bringing it to my attention. I've corrected the title. —David Levy 00:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't citing evidence; if you are under the impression that only a guideline or policy may be cited to support an argument, you are mistaken. The point is that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. It follows that we use the common meaning of a word, instead of the technical definition. What you've been saying would have been a good argument in a courtroom or other place that works by the letter of things - which Wikipedia does not. What you say is technically true but misleading in practice, since insisting on that technicality gives people who are less knowledgeable than you about technical definitions (e.g. most of us) the wrong idea of how Wikipedia works. >Radiant< 00:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a little side note: citing another page is citing evidence to support your claims. It's the same as showing the murder weapon in a trial.--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 00:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Voting is a word in the english language - and like most other words in there, it has tons of different variations on the meaning. Radiant, you have obviously decided that there is only one definition to this term, and you are incorrect. No matter how hard you push on this, AfDs use voting, Arbitration uses voting, other people propose polls and have people vote on their opinions, its a tool, and its not against wikipedia policy to use it. You can't force consensus - and polling can play a large roll in determining that consensus. Fresheneesz 01:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm not under the impression that only a guideline or policy may be cited to support an argument. In this instance, however, I don't see how citing the proposal bolstered your argument in any way. It didn't convey any new information or provide any indication of community consensus.

Secondly, I'm well aware of the fact that some people interpret "vote" as "majority/plurality vote." I'm not suggesting that we actively encourage users to "vote," but there's absolutely no reason why we must misuse the word. It's easy enough to use unambiguous terminology in all contexts. Simply by referring to "majority voting" (bad) and "straw polling" (sometimes okay, sometimes not), we can be entirely correct and perfectly clear. —David Levy 02:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand this idealism but I am ultimately a pragmatist. I don't believe it's viable to convince most people on the wiki to use the "entirely correct" wording, and neither is it necessary, as long as we generally understand one another. We discourage the thing that most people commonly refer to as voting. We encourage discussion without regard to the apparent fact that a discussion can also be considered a vote. Wikipedia is not a formal bureaucracy, it's an encyclopedia. >Radiant< 09:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, the unqualified claim that "we don't vote" (et cetera) is extremely confusing for the people who correctly observe voting throughout the site, and I've seen this cause problems on numerous occasions. We need to explain which types of voting are inappropriate.

This is the English Wikipedia, so I don't think that it's asking so much to use correct English whenever possible. You're insisting that your preferred colloquialism override other common (and correct) uses of a word, and that is unreasonable. I truly am not being pedantic.

Furthermore, while the style needn't be the same, I don't believe that we should hold our project pages to a linguistic standard that's lower than that to which we hold our articles. Plenty of very common misconceptions exist within the English language, but that doesn't mean that we should actively endorse them. Most people probably wouldn't object to the use of "which" instead of "that" in a restrictive relative clause, but this usually is unacceptable (and should be corrected) in an English encyclopedia (excepting direct quotations). A majority of English speakers seem to believe that people who receive their deserved punishments or rewards "get their just desserts," but watch what happens when you click on that Wiktionary link. —David Levy 12:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No, we don't vote on wikipedia itself. This is a very old argument, we've thought about it quite often. Very early on people even thought it might be a good idea... until people actually started voting on article content, which is definately not a good idea. Since those old days, the introduction of voting to wikipeida has been a bit of a perennial proposal. Kim Bruning 14:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, you're using the word "vote" to mean "majority/plurality vote." It's very important for users to realize that we don't cast ballots and calculate numerical results. That, however, is not what "voting" means. —David Levy 15:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

If you look carefully, you'll see that requests for adminship and articles for deletion are in fact structured discussions. On wikipedia we technically call them "straw polls". As you can see, we have a procedure for creating them. Since both RFA and AFD have been around for a while, they've evolved away from the basic guidelines a bit. This is not nescesarily an improvement. :-P Kim Bruning 14:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

RfA and AfD are structured discussions that incorporate voting (but not majority/plurality voting). A straw poll is yet another type of vote (with no binding outcome). —David Levy 15:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That said, sometimes things are pretty straightforward, and polls do resemble a vote then! This is when a large majority agrees on something. Easy! We then say we have consensus, and we can proceed. Kim Bruning 14:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Not every poll is a vote, but the type in question always is. Again, a vote needn't lead to a numerical tally. —David Levy 15:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

But sometimes things are not so straightforward, and you will see RFAs and AFDs begin to resemble threaded discussions. This is not a problem, it's supposed to happen.

These days it's very rare to see discussions on requests for adminship to operate in wiki:DocumentMode, though I suppose that's still quite possible. There's several proposals to encourage documentmode. (Documentmode is a very powerful tool to find consensus)

The danger is when you start actually calling things a vote, because then people start thinking about quorums, vote-counting, pass percentage etc, which are all explicitly not part of the straw-polling procedure. Kim Bruning 14:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

As I stated to Radiant above, I recognize the danger of (and don't advocate) using the unqualified term "vote" to document Wikipedia processes. I merely object to the false claim that we don't vote. By simply sticking to such terms as "straw poll" and "majority vote," we can accurately and unambiguously describe what should and shouldn't be done. —David Levy 15:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Conversely, some people are surprised when you tell them they should really make a statement, and they're also surprised when you call them out on their opinion "What? You mean I have to watch the page and actually defend my statements?". Errr, yes you do :-), and if you're wrong, be prepared to admit it, and let the other person continue (the challenger also needs to accept when they're wrong, of course). That's all part of consensus on wikipedia. Kim Bruning 14:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, agreed. So this page should be renamed "Discuss, don't hold a majority vote?" , or simply "No binding descisions" perhaps? :-) Kim Bruning 21:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I've given this some thought over the past couple of days. The page's advice is not restricted to the inappropriateness of majority voting; it also stresses the harm of relying too heavily on straw polls or using them to circumvent discussion. Therefore, I was leaning toward "Polling is not a substitute for discussion" or "Polling does not replace discussion" as possible titles. They aren't exactly concise, but accuracy and clarity are more important than brevity. —David Levy 21:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What the..? This isn't a guideline

Regardless of whether any one editor thinks this accurately describes the status quo, as far as I can tell this has never gone through a proposal, never been advertised as being under debate at the Village Pump, and is obviously not the subject of wide consensus. Nobody has yet proposed that it be given the official status of a guideline (and I'm not counting self-endowed fiat).

The general idea of "voting is evil" has pretty wide acceptance, but turning an essay (from meta, no less) into a guideline requires a structured process that ensures that not only do editors from all over Wikipedia have the chance to weigh in, but also that the content of the proposed guideline be hammered into the most acceptable shape. This simply hasn't happened.

If I sound a bit incredulous, it's because I am. I know that Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, but it's also not an anarchy. Elevating an essay to guideline status by fiat just isn't done. That it has wide acceptance does not justify eliminating all best practices. This is very well-meaning, but misguided. If there's such wide acceptance, then we must verify that consensus rather than relying on one fallible editor's appraisal of the consensus.

If I haven't made it clear, I don't actually oppose this becoming a guideline. I do oppose in the strongest possible way this becoming a guideline without a high-profile process and without the scrutiny of the text of the essay that would come with a high-profile discussion. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Please familiarize yourself with how guidelines are made, because the process you just described does not exist as such on Wikipedia. There is no such thing as "official status" or a "structured process" to "turn pages into a guideline". A good place to start would be WP:PPP. >Radiant< 20:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Wether or not this is a gudieline seems like POV to me. It should be an essay, just like Wikipedia:Voting is not evil.--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 20:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • BTW: Several years?--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 20:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Please read WP:POL to find out the difference between a guideline and an essay. As a side point, this page was started June 28th 2004 by Fennec, so yes, it is several years old. >Radiant< 20:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Essay: Essays tend to be opinionated. Essays need not be proposed or advertised, you can simply write them, as long as you understands that you do not generally speak for the entire community.
      • Guidline: (1) actionable and (2) authorized by consensus.
      • Your exact words: There is no such thing as "official status" or a "structured process" to "turn pages into a guideline".
      • Hmmm...... Oh, and by the way, the way you said it you made it seem like it has been a guidline for several years.--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 20:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Well, yes. See, when the Wiki was small, there simply wasn't this kind of problems because everybody knew whether pages were consensual or not. About a year ago, we found it useful to tag certain pages to indicate whether they were. It took a bit of a hassle to get down to the current setup (we had 'semipolicy' and 'notpolicy' for a while, for instance). Now Wikispace is pretty darn huge (even though I did once walk through all of it) and inevitably, we have mistagged some pages, or omitted some tags, even though those pages were accepted practice. This page is one of those. The problem now is that some people have assumed that voting was common practice (e.g. because it is in some other communities, or because they thought AFD was a vote, or because they didn't see a guideline tag here). And that notion is leading to strife (because e.g. people who think AFD is a vote will become angry if it is closed against the majority, which happens at times; or because people will think that the majority is right on articles because they can outvote the minority). It is our fault that these people have been misinformed, and we strive to avoid that in the future, by making the tags right. >Radiant< 21:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You're not making any sense here. Wikipedia:Voting is not evil has the same "wide acceptence" that this article has, yet it is an essay because it is opinionated. This article is a guidline for what reason? You want it to be? You also claimed earlier that guidlines are chosen by no specific means at all, yet the link you provided (WP:PPP) says otherwise. If I'm missing something here, please let me know.--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 21:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, two things. First, this page reflects actual practice (that we do not, in general, vote on Wikipedia) whereas WP:VINE does not. And second, guidelines are not chosen through a specific formal process, but are generally common practice written down. >Radiant< 21:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
      • First, we do, technically, vote on Wikipedia (as established in an above convorsation). Second, WP:PPP says consenseus is needed.--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 21:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
        • We do vote on a few things (the board and arguably the arbcom) but that's ok as guidelines can have exceptions. We generally do not vote. If not voting has been an accepted practice for several years now, then it should follow that it has consensual support. >Radiant< 22:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
          • See my other reply.--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 22:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• You wrote WP:PPP. Saying "you're wrong" and citing WP:PPP is the equivalent of saying "you're wrong, see my other comment saying you're wrong".

  I am not saying that a pre-defined structured process hasn't been used, I'm saying no process, and no structure has been used. You're fallible. Claiming you know consensus, especially when several editors are disagreeing with you, smacks of MPOV. If there is consensus, seek it in a high-profile way. Doing this by fiat is unwiki.

  Here's an analogy: both No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man and Beware of the tigers enjoy wide acceptance. There is no consensus to make these guidelines, and I would be out of line putting {{guideline}} on them on the basis of their wide acceptance. To ground the analogy, the principle espressed in Voting Is Evil enjoys a wide and enduring acceptance, but as a principle. There is no evidence of wide consensus for flipping that essay, as-is, over into a guideline, or even that the encyclopedia would best be served by canonising it as an actionable guideline as oppose to leaving it as an essay that expresses an idea. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, no. WP:PPP describes pretty well how Wikipedia works, regardless of who wrote it. I'm afraid that your dichotomy between "principles" and "guidelines" is rather arbitrary. If a principle has wide acceptance (e.g. consensus), it is by definition a guideline. WP:SPIDER is not marked as a guideline because it's intended as humorous; WP:TIGER is not a guideline because it's not actionable. If a page is (1) actionable and (2) consensual (from the definition in WP:POL) you are not out of line by marking it 'guideline', and indeed doing so would be doing users a favor. >Radiant< 21:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • My comment about WP:PPP is further comment along the lines of "you're fallible" and "it's an essay, not policy". You seem to be misunderstanding the contents of an actual policy, which is WP:POL. On essays: "An essay is any page that is not actionable or instructive, regardless of whether it's authorized by consensus." (That sounds a lot like a "principle" to me, aside, but I'm not here to argue the English language.) "Voting Is Evil/Don't vote, discuss" is neither actionable nor instructive, and if it were rewritten to be, the actionable instructions thus written would require authorisation by consensus. This page is nowhere near to being a guideline as it is written, or as the community's relationship to it stands. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
      • DDV is actionable: it calls for discussion, rather than voting. And indeed, in Wikipedia processes we use discussion rather than voting. If you believe the opposite, that Wikipedia generally uses voting rather than discussion, please tell me why you think that. >Radiant< 21:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Unless straw polls are banned, it's not actionable. It's strong advice, i.e., an essay. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Almost. A ban on straw polls would be policy; strong advice would be a guideline. Guidelines are not set in stone and can have exceptions. >Radiant< 21:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
            • We do vote on Wikipedia. Straw polls are used so editors can vote on something, and discuss each other's opinions on what the right decision is. The voting also helps the editor who started the poll to see if the comunity is supportive of his ideas or not. Wether you like it or not, we vote on Wikipedia. A ban on straw polls would lead to anarchy.--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 21:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
              • But nobody is proposing a ban on straw polls. I am saying that, as a rule of thumb, we should discuss rather than voting. If discussion doesn't work out, we sometimes but not always use a straw poll, and there's nothing wrong with that in principle. >Radiant< 22:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
                • But that's just your POV. You literally just said: " We vote, but I think discussing is better, so this should be a guidline."---KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 22:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
                  • Almost. I said we sometimes vote, but the community thinks discussing is better. >Radiant< 22:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Okay, let me try a different tack. Do you oppose seeking consensus for making this a guideline? — Saxifrage ✎ 22:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Not at all, but that's precisely what we've been doing for the past couple of weeks. It has been advertised on several high-profile pages and a lot of editors have chimed in (see above) and it has been established that this is an accurate description of how Wikipedia works, that it is referred to all over the Wiki, that it has been in use as such for several years, and that like all guidelines it is allowed to have exceptions. And of course, people are still allowed to modify the text on the page if they think it's wrong. So what do you propose we do in addition to that? For better or worse, Wikipedia does not have a system of making guidelines more formal than what I just said. There exists no high profile process for scrutinizing proposals. We might need one at some point in the future, though. >Radiant< 22:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • If what you said is true, then why would administrators let Wikipedia:Voting is not evil exsist? That's literally having Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote and Wikipedia:Vote, don't discuss at the same time. So why do you get to decide one is better than the other? It's obviousley a matter of opinion, which is what WP:PPP says an essay is.--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 22:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
      • VINE may exist because there is no rule against writing an essay that runs counter to anything - we even have essays against NPOV, and that is a foundation principle; an essay can contain just about anything. That this page is a guideline is not a matter of my opinion but of community opinion. Actual practice on Wikipedia is (in most cases, yes, but we can have exceptions since we're not a bureaucracy) to discuss rather than vote. That makes this page actionable and consensual. >Radiant< 22:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • On the principle that The World Will Not End Tomorrow, then, would you mind leaving the {{proposed}} tag on longer? If the consensus is clear, then certainly there's no harm in letting the tag lag the development on the consensus. Having the proposed tag on (given patience on the part of those who want to see it a guideline sooner rather than later) can't do any harm, but putting {{guideline}} on it prematurely (even if it doesn't seem premature to some) is quite likely to cause consternation and strife when people disagree about whether it's "premature" and so on. Best to err on the side of waiting a little bit longer, don't you think? — Saxifrage ✎ 22:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
      • If I understand correctly, you have no objection to the content of this page, but you believe that "process wasn't followed". I believe so far you are the only one to claim so. Please tell me what kind of process you refer to, or what you would like it to be. Does this include advertising the page? It has been advertised. Discussing with a substantial group of people? It has been discussed. Waiting for several weeks? It has been several weeks, this was not an instantaneous change. What do you want to wait for? And for how long? And why do you think that would change anything, considering you're the only person to recommend waiting as a solution? Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; I rather fail to see the point of the exercise of waiting for something hypothetical. And that does not even begin to address the issue that this page predates {{guideline}} and the categorization of pages in Wikispace. >Radiant< 23:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I only read halfway through your comment and you've already said something proposterus. "I believe so far you are the only one to claim so." Has your memory of the past couple weeks slipped away? Look at this talk page. He's far from being the only one who thinks so.--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 23:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Please read the entire comment before responding. He is the only one that objects for purely reasons of process (e.g. that waiting will help); other dissent is based on perceived reasons of content. >Radiant< 23:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
        • My objection is not only a matter of process. I don't feel that one editor should be the "gatekeeper" of consensus, especially when that one is the champion of the issue at hand in the first place, so I am not so much asking your permission as trying to convince you that this would be in the best interest. It's much easier to raise points when people aren't continually trying to declare "Mission Accomplished".

          On the note of "best interest", I actually do have issues with the content of the page that I think (given your continued reasonable tone) you'll probably welcome as constructive. I'll present these in a new section. I'd like to change the tag back to {{proposed}} now. Will you relinquish ownership on that point for a while? Regardless, see below shortly for my concerns about the page. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

          • I am not the champion of this cause nor am I the sole one to "gatekeep" consensus. I am, however, frequently deeply involved in policy/guideline matters. I'll respond to your thoughts below. >Radiant< 11:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
            • The appearance from this Talk page and the edit history of the project page is that you're exerting a degree of ownership of DDV. Remember that at Wikipedia, if something ought to be done, it will likely be done by another if one doesn't do it oneself. You don't need to respond personally to every challenge, nor personally revert every attempt to hold off tagging the project page with {{guideline}}. In a new editor I would say it was clear violation of WP:OWN, and I hold administrators to a higher, not lower, standard. Again, The World Will Not End Tomorrow: slow reverts, mulling things for a day before answering, letting things run loose for a while before trying to fix things, are all best practices at Wikipedia. It's not as if keeping a looser grip on this page and discussion for a while would cause any damage, would it? In the end, the consensus is the consensus and the rational arguments are the ones that hold sway. That's the wiki way, isn't it? I'm concerned about the stifling atmosphere in here and you seem to be sitting at the centre of the discussion. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This is still an essay – let's fix that

This page appears to be m:Polls are Evil with only minor cosmetic changes. Essays can't be converted to guidelines effectively by simply changing the tag at the top from {{essay}} to {{guideline}}. For those who agree, skip to the bottom. For those unconvinced by that, keep with me a little.

An essay is argumentative in tone and purpose: it tries to lay out a point of view (I'm not invoking NPOV, don't worry) and it argues for the reader to adopt a particular perspective on an issue. A good example is Wikipedia:No angry mastodons: it provides words of wisdom and a rationale for seeing the world in the way it recommends. By contrast, a guideline lays out, literally, guidelines with only enough rationale to give the guideline context. It doesn't argue for the reader adopting the perspective, but rather explains why it's done this way. A good example of this is Wikipedia:External links: it makes very minimal reference to why it is telling the reader what to do and is primarily a set of instructions.

Right now Discuss, don't vote is more akin to No angry mastodons than it is to the External links guideline. It has a single instruction: don't vote on everything and try not to vote at all. This is placed in such a way that it is not the subject of the page, but rather the preamble that introduces the meat: why voting is a bad idea. This is fine for an essay, and is in fact a valuable thing. My argument is that it is ineffectual for a guideline.

The focus of the discussion above seems to be entirely on whether the community's views on and treatment of voting should be made into a guideline. Making a guideline is more than deciding whether a community practice or process should be distilled into a guideline, though, it is also about making that guideline useful beyond philosophical edification. So I have a two-part proposal.

(Skip to here for the proposal.) firstly, this page ought to be rewritten with an eye to concrete (though necessarily loose) instructions that can be implemented by anyone. Rules like (off the top of my head):

• Use polls to discover the current consensus, not to establish it
• Polls are non-binding
• Use polls sparingly as they can be divisive

...and so on should appear on this page. Essentially, it should say what it currenlty does but in the appropriate form, with a different tone, and in an unambiguous way.

Secondly, Wikipedia:Voting is evil should be a separate page that contains the essay. They should refer to each other (VIE should have DDV prominently linked at the top for all those citing it rather than the new guideline; DDV should have VIE in the See also section, and probably mention it somewhere else as its inspiration), but they should be distinct. One expresses a principle that is important and widely accepted, the other should be a clear presentation of the established best practices that can be easily cited, understood, and implemented.

Wikipedia:No angry mastodons is again a good example of the difference. It contains many instructions, but none of which are actionable: it has instructions for the reader about their own behaviour and thoughts, but none that can be applied outside the reader. It is instructive, but its instructions are not "law-like" in that they are mearly a how-to guide for the philosophy it expresses. DDV must have instructions that are actionable within the encyclopedia: what may and may not be done here, as opposed to within oneself.

Some discussion about how best to translate the spirit of Polls are Evil and the established practices around polls into a guides is called for. I think this will make DDV a stronger and more useful page. Essentially, marking this essay as a guideline will not increase its utility at all to the project and be merely a symbolic act. However, we don't need such verbose symbols. Let's make it useful, shall we? — Saxifrage ✎ 02:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• I've added a tag on the page to indicate heavy-duty editing. I think you have some good ideas here (except that personally I'd prefer to keep it on one page instead of two) and would encourage you to modify this page accordingly. I'd say the best way to change the style of a page is to do it and seek feedback on what you just did for further refinement. >Radiant< 11:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course I'm welcome to do that. It would be wholly ineffectual to initiate a wholesale rewrite of the page by myself though. Really, this is an entire half of the task of making this a proper guideline and can't be done by my making piecemeal edits. My purpose is to prompt discussion about what instructions and other content the page should have, and I'd really rather see you participate in such a discussion rather than dismiss the possibility.

    Besides that, my talents don't lie in the direct of original copy-writing and I'd do a bad job of any first draft, and that wouldn't help anything. The whole purpose of this being a collaborative project is to leverage the various talents of Wikipedia editors. Since piecemeal editing is (I believe) inappropriate here at least to start, the obvious direction to go in is a goal-and-idea discussion. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

    • I'm not dismissing anything. I'm simply pointed out that writing a page by committee, as you seem to suggest, is probably not the best way to go. I'd be happy to make changes if you give an indication of what you don't like. >Radiant< 12:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
      • That's a fascinating misunderstanding of what I've written. In any case, I tire of tilting at a windmill, so I will leave this be until someone else is interested in discussion, or until you decide to step outside of comfortable certainty and engage. Hopefully people will notice this open issue rather than assume that the page is a fait accomplit from the uninformative top tag. — Saxifrage ✎ 15:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a huge mistake

I can accept an "essay" declaring that "voting is evil". An essay can be ignored or tolerated exactly because it is not given any weight of authority but is simply an opinion. An editorial, so to speak.

But to now put this out as a guideline is a very bad idea. I object to it. I do not even think it is salvageable by judicious editing of the text, because fundamentally, the essay it is based upon (“Voting is Evil”) is deeply flawed, and is contrary to what wikipedia actually does.

I encourage people who are interested in a serious, real-world study of discussion, dialog, resolving disputes and consensus building to review in detail the process by which the US Constitution was developed. This document was created by a diverse group of people who disagreed on almost every point – minor or major. They even threatened to come to blows. However, by voting and then discussing and then voting again, over and over, they achieved consensus. They voted on the document one word or phrase at a time. Polling or voting combined with discussion is the real way to consensus. It gives a sense of unity and closure to decisions and also helps people feel that they had their “fair chance”.

But it’s not just one historical example that I take as evidence. Voting or Polling is an extremely well-proven technique for arriving at consensus and it has been shown to be effective in goal-seeking, decision making and conflict resolutions processes such as Delphi method, Nominal Group Technique, Saaty’s Analytic Hierarchy Process (with Paired Decisions in Groups), Group Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis and the Consensus Card Method. Indeed, other than Brainstorming (which technically is not meant to resolve issues but rather to create various alternatives), there is no widely recognized and validated process for building consensus that rejects polling. On the contrary they use Polling aggressively and researchers have studied and validated this as an efficient and effective process over the years. I am not talking out of my hat here. I have substantial professional experience in this area. I challenge everyone who believes that polling or voting are bad ways to obtain consensus to produce any well researched, peer reviewed studies that support that view, contrary to the substantial research that supports polling or voting. This proposed guideline and the wikipedia essay behind it are utterly and hopelessly out of step with the best research on this subject (though I accept that they are well intentioned).

So, to make something an actual guideline on wikipedia when it violates over 50 years of political, professional and scientific research on such matters is a weird arrogance. I am astonished at the credulity. I surmise that some editors simply are not aware of the GIGANTIC BODY of validated, peer-reviewed evidence on this matter. Watching this being discussed feels like having wikipedia support a “flat earth” or “demons as the cause of disease”, or “the moon is a hole in the floor of heaven where the light shines through” position. It is so contrary to well-researched and strong historical evidence that it makes no sense and I do not understand how reasonable people can buy into such arguments. That we are even discussing this, makes me shake my head and I feel sympathy with users who want to leave the project because people with little to no experience in such matters can take matters into their own hands and push it forward. This is really bad.

Even Wikipedia recognizes the value of polling because when it really needs to have a sure consensus... such as in RfA... it resorts to polling (the actual policy describes it as a “vote”!) --- unashamedly. So even on wikipedia, avoiding votes is NOT the universally agreed upon system that proponents here suggest and thus the support for this as “descriptive” guideline is undermined. Furthermore, since that essay was written, wikipedia has instituted even more voting, so the wikipedia entity has, in essence, rejected the essay.

In summary, the promotion of this essay to a functional guideline on wikipedia should be rejected because:

• It is contrary to demonstrated historical experience
• It is contrary to accepted, peer-reviewed, scientific research
• It is contrary to what actually happens on wikipedia
• It is contrary to the long-term trends in wikipedia.
• It is contrary to wikipedia’s long-term interests.

This essay is already abused by those who quote it. It should absolutely not be promoted to a guideline and instead, the alternative views that support polling, should be given fair and balanced acceptance on wikipedia in the interest of NPOV. --Blue Tie 08:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• That was a very nice argument in favor of using polling and/or voting as used by bodies of government. However, it suffers from the fatal flaw of comparing apples and oranges. Wikipedia is not a country, it has no body of government, it has no real legislation to speak of and in general does not believe in formal rules (witness WP:IAR which was recently underlined as policy by our founder Jimbo Wales). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the main reason why it rejects voting is that encyclopedic truth is not subject to majority opinion. I appreciate your sentiment that Wikipedia needs more structure, and I encourage you to draw up a formal proposal for such. >Radiant< 09:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually it was not an argument for use of polling and/or voting as used by bodies of government. I used the creation of the constitution as ONE example. But it was an example of individual people with strong opinions coming to consensus. It was NOT an example of governance. There is a distinct difference. Furthermore that one example was only about 1/4 of the total text I presented. While I agree that majority opinion may not always be right, I have not argued about the standards for concensus. I have not suggested that it be majority rules and if you read that into what I wrote, you misread it. --Blue Tie 15:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming each of these studies is based on real world consensus finding? In the case of real world issues, certain forms of majority vote may well be optimal. We typically use approval voting for offwiki real world issues. Approval voting has a good balance between being easy to understand and being likely to find the optimal winner.

However, on wikis, the wiki itself allows for new and different methods of finding consensus.

Foremost of these (in almost all situations, bar a fraction of a percent) is the wiki-editing method. This system has been spectacularly successful. Like they say, "it's impossible in theory, it only works in practice".

This is why several people are currently doing research on wiki-systems at this point in time. They would like to figure out the theory behind our success, so that it can be replicated.

We estimate that Roughly 1M pages are editable by the wiki-editing method. Approximately 1K pages are likely very hard to edit by use of the wiki method and are probably pathological cases (strong existing controversies in the real world, misdesigned processes, etc...).

Research is ongoing.

On-wiki, we typically attempt to use polling as a last resort to solve already pathological situations, with very mixed results. Generally, if you have to use a poll, you can assume that something is already amiss.

Kim Bruning 10:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree that the wiki has produced new and different methods for finding concensus. I believe this is a myth on wikipedia... something people imagine is true but it is not. I do not see anything amazing or shocking about the wiki editing system being successful. Non-computer based systems that use similar processes have been in place in governments and corporate organizations for decades. I know this -- I have participted in them Indeed I have led them. My first experience with this fundamentally changed my views of work and collaboration: No matter how good my work is, it can always be improved by the judicious efforts of others. On the other hand, these others tend to have valid credentials. You claim that wikipedia is successful in its editing. I do not know that this is always true. What is true is that it is a growing part of the internet. But serious criticisms of the article content by qualified people do exist and these are troubling.

I realize that on wiki many people typically use polling as a last resort. But is this really true for everyone? Maybe it is true for you. However, I do not believe it is a good system. I believe that polling, used wisely, can produce concensus faster, more effectively and better than any other system. There may be related processes that support concensus as well, but rejection of polling is a BAD idea. --Blue Tie 15:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well, you just said it yourself - many people use polling as a last resort. That's exactly what the guideline implies. Of course that's not true for anyone, that's why it doesn't say "by policy, voting is forbidden" (which indeed would be silly). I think your ideas for reforming Wikipedia have merit, and it would be good to write new guidelines based on that, but we don't throw out our present ones unless we have an accepted replacement. >Radiant< 12:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, I strongly disagree that consensus exists to describe this page as a guideline, that the page describes common practice accurately, or that the page describes best practices. TheronJ 16:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the concern is that voting becomes predominant

I think the idea that is desired by proponents of this essay/guideline is the sense that voting leads to a lack of discussion. That is a valid concern. But I would suggest that the issue is badly framed. By making voting an enemy of consensus, the essay/guideline is horribly wrong. However, if the issue were framed differently I think people would be in more agreement. Here is the issue as I see it:

How is consensus established, evaluated and determined?

I do not think voting or polling should be ruled out, however, it should not be considered a matter of "automatic dominance". The key to concensus building has been determined to be an "advised" and "repetitive" voting process whereby opinions and ideas are shared along the way and people seek to persuade others to their perspective. Ultimately, yes, some sort of majority or plurality or supermajority is determined to "win", but not without a discussion process. But it is not "Discuss. Don't Vote". It is "Discuss, seek agreement, vote and repeat until consensus is achieved" This formula is at the heart of all the established methods for developing consensus. It does not have to be applied when the differences can be resolved by simple discussion, but when the differences are sharp, discussion does not answer the mail.

Note also that in the issue raised above there is also the concern about "What constitutes consensus?" I have raised this question before and no one has even started to answer it. Basically it is this: For consensus, does everyone have to agree? Everyone but one person? Everyone but two? How many is a reasonable exception for consensus? Or is it a percentage? what is the percentage? Or, what are the percentages under different criteria? If it is not a percentage then what is the criteria for consensus? I have yet to see ANYONE even attempt to substantively answer this question. And it is a problem. Because one person declares consensus has been achieved behind their point of view. Someone else disagrees and the results are an edit war with the following results: the majority rules by virtue of the 3rr rule or a person gets discouraged and leaves the discussion. I have seen both occur and I am sure everyone else has too. --Blue Tie 16:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You're looking in the wrong place. The key to forming consensus on a wiki is wikiediting, this is what 99.9% of our pages use. We have extensive documentation on how to edit wikis. Also see wiki: and meatball:. As an example, here's a negotiation tactic based on wiki editing: WP:BRD.

All the items you are referring to are diverse electric fences and emergency solutions for when plain vanilla consensus formation has somehow come off the tracks.

They're related to consensus in the same way that speed limits are related to motor cars. No matter how much you study speed limits, you won't learn how to build an automobile. (though hopefully you might get some clues on how to drive one ;-) ) Kim Bruning 20:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's see. You make a few points and I would like to address each one:

First, you say that "I am looking in the wrong place". But, I'm not really looking. I was making a declaration that something important is missing from wikipedia. Here it is again:

How is consensus established, evaluated and determined?

I was pointing out that voting is a standard method in processes for achieving consensus, and that this is recognized world-wide in a variety of contexts. I pointed out that though I have mentioned this problem quite a few times now, no one has yet provided a cogent, descriptive, usable response. And I notice that once more, I have asked and no such response is provided.

Second, you claim that the "Key to forming consensus on a wiki is wikiediting" and you cite several sources one of which is really a good reference: WP:BRD. I happen to agree with this model. I have participated in it and when it works it is like a wonderful miracle. But... it does not work a great deal of the time. Sadly. I have seen its failure far far more often than its success. I have tried, with sincere and good intent to follow that policy and when I do, I am almost ALWAYS trumped by someone more aggressive who would not play by that rulebook. This has been my experience now more than 4 times out of 5. Your response that consensus comes as a "result" of wiki-editing has been my experience but rarely. Sometimes that may be true. Other times it is not. To declare that it is universally true is a mistake and misses the whole point of this discussion, BUT ESPECIALLY when it comes to policies.

Thirdly you say that "All the items you are referring to are diverse electric fences and emergency solutions for when plain vanilla consensus formation has somehow come off the tracks". That is a strange way of putting it. Among other things, the methods I have mentioned are themselves "Plain vanilla" methods of achieving consensus. Just denying them as valid does not make them invalid. Getting to your idea that these are for emergency situations, I just disagree. I do not think you are familiar with these processes and I do not think you have characterized them fairly. BUT... supposing that you were right, that they are only for emergency situations... there are enough edit wars and problems that having tools other than WP:BRD (which is not working so often), is a good idea. However, this proposed guideline seeks to ELIMINATE a key tool for reaching consensus, particularly in "emergency situations" as you describe them. What on earth is up with that? Why would anyone want fewer tools to resolve issues, particularly the difficult ones? And especially tools that users could use for themselves?

Finally, your analogy between motor car building and speed limits as applied to this situation is invalid. It would be more valid to use an analogy of "Deciding what the speed limit should be - 25 or 50?" or "What should the rules of the road be -- No Passing on the left but no speed limit or Pass on either side but slow speed limits" or "What car should we build -- a coupe or an SUV?". But it is not analogous to the comparison you made. Dismissing arguments that way is not appreciated. --Blue Tie 00:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

All you people are saying is that this page has comunity consenseus as a guidline, when it doesn't. We use votes and polls often on Wikipedia, and saying they're evil is POV. Nothing you say can change that. Sure, Wikipedia isn't a government or whatever, but people still have straw polls and whatnot, and the ArbCom thing is a vote. Saying voting isn't accepted on Wikipedia or that it's not allowed or discussing is better, or whatever the hell you wanna say, is POV. What makes it bad? The fact that you don't like it? Well, tough luck, because you don't get to decide. This isn't a guidline, and it's nowhere near being one.--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 20:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I am confused by your references to "POV". There is no requirement whatsoever that anything within Wikipedia Project space be NPOV. Including policy and guidelines. In fact, one could easily argue that our polices and guidelines are inherently POV by their very nature. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 20:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No, really, it's a guideline. Trust me. The Land 20:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's indended as irony or not. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The intent would not change the irony, but it would change the way that the statement is read.--Blue Tie 00:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

True. I meant to indicate that I was wondering what they really meant to say, but it seems I fell into the very same trap myself. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that you shouldn't have a guidline that so many people protest and that contradicts the way Wikipedia works.--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 02:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No no no, I understand that! I meant what The Land was trying to say. My, this has become a confused tangent. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• There appears to be some misunderstanding over this page. It is not a prohibition on voting, nor does it say so. It is not prohibited from having exceptions, and it does, and it clearly says so. It does not call people evil (note that many of WP's earlier guidelines were written in a tongue-in-cheek way and we've been moving away from that because not everyone appreciates it). It does not have to conform to writing standards for articles, because it's not an article. And most importantly (and again), it does not forbid voting. >Radiant< 12:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

From the edit hist

Also, the primary reason behind renaming VfD was to clarify that it strictly handled articles (with other processes handling non-articles). - David Levy

See Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion/Oct_2005. - Radiant

The confusion cited certainly was *a* reason, but it was not *the* reason. Consensus was spurred by the creation of MfD, et cetera.) - David Levy

Well, no. MFD was created after the rename of VFD to AFD, and that rename was done to clarify the fact that AFD is not a vote. Early in Wikipedia, VFD was a vote because it used a special kind of voting software, that has since been deprecated. The name hung around for ages, confusing novice users whenever a VFD was closed in favor of interpretation rather than vote count. "VFD is not a vote" sounds like an oxymoron, so we finally got together a lot of people and bots to clarify the name to AFD (which, obviously, is still not a vote). The first proposed name was "Pages for deletion"; this was then split into AFD and NMNFD (later MD, later MFD) because arguments used are (and should be) different in both. Before the split, Wikispace pages and userpages went via VFD but often got comments like "keep - doesn't belong in this process". >Radiant< 13:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I said, "et cetera." (I was referring to the *fD pages in general, not specifically to MfD.) The creation of MfD was proposed to resolve the confusion created by the proposed adoption of the name "Articles for deletion." Some people preferred the name "Pages for deletion" because it didn't exclude userpages and project pages, so MfD was conceived to eliminate the issue. (See the first revision, which was created before the AfD name was in use.)

The VfD–AfD rename achieved consensus only because it helped to clarify that the proposed deletion of non-articles (such as templates and categories) shouldn't be debated there. Certainly, there also was a strong sentiment regarding the confusion caused by the word "votes," but that has no bearing on the word's actual meaning.

• (that is incorrect, see David's talk page for details, or read Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion/Oct_2005). >Radiant< 14:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Please see Radiant's talk page for my reply. —David Levy 15:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

AfD is a type of voting, and your continued insistence that "vote" = "majority/plurality vote" "counting votes without regard for the comments' strength and determining the outcome based solely upon numbers" has become increasingly tiresome and indefensible. —David Levy 14:05/15:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not insisting that voting implies majority voting. I am simply restating the fact that AFD is not a vote, which is an oft-cited fact that all AFD closers and DRV regulars are expected to be familiar with. It's not a majority vote, but it's also not a condorcet vote, or a rated vote, or a bloc vote. >Radiant< 14:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

AfD is a vote. It simply isn't the type of vote that some people erroneously equate with the word. —David Levy 15:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a vote at all. If the nomination says 'not verifiable - delete' and 100 people say 'OK, it isn't verifiable, but it is interesting, so keep', then we still delete it. Arithmetic doesn't come into it. How is that a vote? Or, if 25 people say 'delete unverifiable' and then one person provides verification, we keep. How is that a vote? Statistics of 99-1 are irrelevant, if the one argument is unanswerable and the 99 just preferences. How is that a vote?--Doc 15:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Although in most cases it goes by a supermajority, it is perfectly possible for a hundred keeps and one "delete, violates policy x, and cannot be fixed for credible reason y" to end in deletion; equally, a hundred "delete non-notables" could be overcome by a single well-argued Keep with references to reliable sources. Of course in the real world this rarely happens, but that doesn't actually alter the facts. AfD is explicitly not a vote, however it might be interpreted by any particular editor or admin. Guy 15:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Doc & Guy:

Again, despite a common misconception to the contrary, the word "voting" does not imply "counting votes without regard for the comments' strength and determining the outcome based solely upon numbers." In this context, it simply refers to "the formal expression of a proposed resolution of an issue." This debate pertains not to the nature of AfD (on which we're in complete agreement), but to the definition of the word "vote." —David Levy 15:36/15:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Come into the light

When people declare that things which look like a duck, walk like a duck and squawk like a duck, mate with other ducks and produce duck eggs are not ducks, it makes me stare. To declare that things which meet the prominent definitions of "Vote" is not a vote, is no different. Here, from dictionary.com is the definition of vote. I have highlighted every definition that applies to the votes here on wikipedia such as arbitration, adminship, deletion and so on:

1. a formal expression of opinion or choice, either positive or negative, made by an individual or body of individuals.
2. the means by which such expression is made, as a ballot, ticket, etc.
3. the right to such expression: to give women the vote.
4. the decision reached by voting, as by a majority of ballots cast: The vote was for the resolution.
5. a collective expression of will as inferred from a number of votes: the labor vote.
6. an expression, as of some judgment: a vote of confidence.

–verb (used without object)

1. to express or signify will or choice in a matter, as by casting a ballot: to vote for president.

–verb (used with object)

1. to enact, establish, or determine by vote: to vote a proposed bill into law.
2. to support by one's vote: to vote the Republican ticket.
3. to advocate by or as by one's vote: to vote that the report be accepted.
4. to declare or decide by general consent: They voted the trip a success.
5. to encourage or cause to vote, esp. in a particular way.

Some of the definitions I did not highlight may also apply but some do not. That there are some definitions of vote which do NOT apply here on wikipedia does not delete or eliminate those defitions of vote that DO apply. When people flatly say "we do not vote", "voting is evil", "AfD is not a vote", etc. they are factually wrong based upon objective, third party definitions of the term vote and the recorded, historical actions taken here. I realize some people will disagree but those disagreements will not be logical. They will be "faith" based. They are like the arguments for the earth being 6000 years old. People do argue that point, but not logically or consistently.

An argument that "Obviously a cow is not a mammal" or "Obviously the moon is not made of rock" or "Obviously water is not wet" is pretty much impossible to debate. Not that the statements are anywhere NEAR to being correct but that the person making these postulates is so many degrees out of normal that the discussion will never rest upon objective evidence. When I see the statement "It is a fact that AfD is not a vote", it looks to me to be as reasonable a statement as "Obviously a cow is not a mammal".

Just as a cow is a mammal and the moon is made of rocks and water is wet, a vote is a vote is a vote. If such basic terminology can be "seriously" debated I do not see how there can ever be a meeting of the minds on this matter.

BUT, I suspect that the proponents of "Voting is Evil" are not really so unreasonable. (Good grief I hope so anyway!) I believe that there is a fundamental -- and sound -- policy issue that they are advocating. But the good aspects of their argument are lost in the haze of over-generalized and patently nonsensical statements like "We do not vote on wikipedia". I think, for example, that the intent is that "things should not be completely decided by vote alone". Which if that were the position, I would not only agree that it is a guideline but is an actual policy and should be recorded as such.

The essay "Voting is evil" advocates the abuse of throwing the baby away with the bathwater. Yet, people adhere to it like a new religion and ignoring evidence to the contrary, make self-contradictory statements like "We do not vote" and then show how there was a vote to change the name of Vfd to AfD. Such statements in the face of the obvious evidence is, to me, not unlike the people who make other religion based claims like "the earth is 6000 years old". Ok, they believe that. And probably there is no arguing with them. But we do not write our history or conduct our science on such fluffy nonsense. Wikipedia guidelines and policies should not be based upon such spurious concepts either.

I encourage people who want to establish a formal policy that supports discussion and rejects the concept of voting as the sole mechanism for establishing consensus -- I encourage them to leave the false religion of "Voting is Evil" and move to the science of true consensus building. When they do, they will have a new creed of faith:

• Yes we vote, but voting is primarily a tool to achieve and measure concensus not to dismiss or win arguments.
• This is not a democracy. Voting by itself does not settle anything.
• However this is also not an anarchy or mobocracy. A minority position must show more than incidental support to effectively block something. Votes show the degree of support for a position.
• The best use of voting is to facilitate discussions.
• The second best use of voting is to record the results of the discussion and the arrival at concensus.

--Blue Tie 15:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I now note that saxifrage has left the discussion because he considers the other party "unwilling to engage". This is exactly what happens when scientists face people who declare that the earth is 6000 years old, contrary to evidence. The scientists simply stop wasting their time. It should not be construed as an admission that the science is wrong.

Again, I encourage people to leave behind the false beliefs and accept the truth. Votes happen. When that is settled, the notions of what votes actually mean can be discussed. --Blue Tie 16:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Can I respectfully suggest that, as an editor of some 4 months standing, you have not been around long enough to get the hang of Wikipedia policies and principles. They are not the same as those of any other organisation. The processes are already quite well established and arguing aobut whether they are votes or not essentially only weakens them. Regards, The Land 16:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure. Can you really do that "respectfully"? Is it "respectful" to address deficiencies with the person and not with the argument? Maybe not. (You may not be correct in your assumptions about me -- but that is irrelevant) For example, I suggest that you are engaging in argumentum ad hominum rather than dealing with the issue. I would also suggest you examine the statistics regarding wikipedia useage and membership growth and notice that new users are more common than users of your "longevity". Finally, I would also suggest that you review the policy Concensus can change and consider your words in the light of that policy and the demographic issues facing wikipedia. Then, let me know if you still think your response was really either respectful or adequate against my more considered position. I look forward to your respectful response. --Blue Tie 17:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Various processes have similarities to votes, but they are not. Exactly what they are requires experience and subtle reflection. Well-intentioned but ill-advised attempts to 'clarify' the 'rules' are unhelpful, because the spirit of Wikipedia policy is the important bit and you cannot write that down. That is what I'm saying. The Land 17:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahh. so you disagree with what I said. But I note, again, that you do not deal directly with the issues I raised. That, of course, is your perogative but please note: my points have not been addressed.

You mention that "Well intentioned but ill advised attempts to "clarify the rules are unhelpful" and mention that it is "the spirit" of wikipedia that is important. Could I get the cite for that or is it a matter of revelation from a spiritual source?

I think that you have presented a nebulous and vague argument but I will accept it for the time. Given that the spirit is important, is it really critical then that this highly disputed essay now be converted to a more firm guideline -- without Consensus -- or do you think that the "Spirit" of things is better served by not adding to the wikipedia rule and guideline structure? I look forward to your interesting reply.

And... I would GREATLY value a substantive answer to this question:

How is consensus established, evaluated, measured and determined?

This is an important issue because everything is decided by concensus not by vote. So how is concensus exactly defined?

Thanks again. --Blue Tie 17:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is established by the views of people who contribute in good faith and have a knowledge of existing practice and policy. It is evaluated, measured and determined by experienced editors - administrators, bureaucrats or arbitrators - who examine the debate. Happy to help. The Land 17:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You have answered a question I did not ask: WHO does these things. You have not answered the question about HOW it is done, which is what I asked. Except in the sense that your response is so vague that it gives rise to some additional questions:

What group of people decides what group of people consitute the group that "contribute in good faith"?

Who appointed them to this responsibilty?

What group of people decides what constitutes "knowledge of existing practice and policy"?

Who appointed them to this responsibility?

What group of people decides what constitutes "experience" for the purposes of your definition above

Who appointed this group to this responsibility?

Are there degrees of "good faith", "knowledge" and "experience" that create "levels" of users on wikipedia so that a person like you is superior to a person like me?

Who decides this and who appointed them to that position?

and

Is this response your personal opinion or if not, where is it codified in wikipedia policy?

As a new user of only 4 months experience (as you are aware), I need your guidance and I hope your response will be sincere and detailed so that I might learn. Please do not bite the newbies. As an admin with superior wiki skills I would expect you to help guide newbies like me. And.. I have searched the policies and guidelines as hard as I can and have not found the answers to these questions nor to the question: How is consensus established, evaluated, measured and determined? I try to ask this question with the following details that you missed: "Is consensus unanimity? Is it that everyone agrees except one person? two people? How many? If not a number of people, is it a percentage? If it is a percentage, what is the percentage? If it is not a hard number, is it a discriminating range of numbers? What constitutes consensus?" And no one, including you, have answered that question in any degree of clarity. The responses tend to be on the order of "We just do it". No definition of who "we" are or the definition of what concensus reallly is. (Incidentally, trivial responses that are on the level of "Because" to a question such as "Why?" are not particularly helpful. They seem insincere to me. Maybe I am overly sensitive. But if you know that in advance you can gauge your answer appropriately.) --Blue Tie 19:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If you're under the impression that only administrators, bureaucrats and arbitrators are capable of gauging consensus on Wikipedia, you're mistaken. —David Levy 17:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

David, are you an admin, bureaucrat or arbitrator? If not, maybe you are wrong. It may well be that only certain classes of users have this privilege. But if so, I think it is a secret policy. I have not found it on any policy page. Maybe someone will show it to me. --Blue Tie 18:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm an admin. There are certain circumstances in which only an admin, bureaucrat or arbitrator can close a discussion and render a decision. This, however, is not what was written above. In the vast majority of situations, any user in good standing with sufficient familiarity with our practices and the matter at hand is qualified to gauge consensus and proceed accordingly. —David Levy 18:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, agreed; a 'for instnace' would have been better. However, they certainly don't do it through voting. The Land 19:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Claiming that the processes in question aren't votes is like claiming that a tomato isn't a fruit. It might conform to a popular perception, but that doesn't change the fact that it's incorrect. —David Levy 17:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If you look more closely you'll see you're holding a plastic tomato. The Land 18:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Meaning what? —David Levy 18:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It was a throw-away comment with the intent to belittle your example. --Blue Tie 19:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• David, how about this... "The structure of AFD (and other processes) does not correspond to the popular perception of a 'vote', in particular because said structure attaches strong importance to the reasons people give, and can be 'decided' in favor of the minority. Many novice users have been seen to get the wrong impression from such statements referring to our processes as voting, leading them to think that they need not think of a possible compromise, need only sign their name in the appropriate place, and sometimes that a process can and should be influenced by encouraging others to countersign". The point is that since many people go by a popular definition rather than a correct one, we must use careful phrasing to avoid unintentionally misdirecting people unaware of the difference between the two. >Radiant< 18:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

As previously stated, I strongly agree that it's a bad idea to refer to these processes as "votes" within documentation (or without qualification in any context); while linguistically correct, this definitely would give many users the wrong idea. I only object to claims that these processes aren't votes. It's very important to convey the fact that we don't count ballots and arrive at numerical outcomes, but this can be clearly and unambiguously expressed without any inaccuracy. —David Levy 18:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a separate issue. I think that voting is a very USEFUL (indeed necessary in some cases) procedure to help arrive at consensus. I believe that the philosophy espoused in this document substantially removes a valuable tool. I also do not think it helps anyone to dissemble and describe the process of giving an up or down opinion, with a count that is measured in percentages as not being a vote. Doing that simply makes wikipedia a system resting on lies. Be straight up.. tell it like it is. There is no harm in this. But just be sure that users recognize that you cannot just "put things to a vote" and settle it like that either. Consensus is a process that does not generally begin and end with polls. At the same time, it is not afraid of polls either. Don't thow out the baby with the bathwater.

I think Radiants wording above is pretty good. The problem is... that it is a footnote in an essay that I view as destructive to consensus building. The whole thing needs to reflect a better balance. --Blue Tie 19:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Ditto everything Radiant said. And the first of the Dictionary.Com's definition ( a formal expression of opinion or choice, either positive or negative, made by an individual or body of individuals.) doesn't apply to AfD, since the opinion expressed may be neither positive nor negative but a decision to do something completely different. This goes to the heart of how XfD is a discussion, not a counting exercise. That duck - are you sure it's not a duck-billed platypus? JackyR | Talk 20:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to be persuaded that one definition does not fit in some contexts, but I was thinking about rfA. Do you believe that rfA is not a vote? The policy says that it is a vote. (oops, now people will edit that out of the policy cause they do not like it!).

I also would suggest that another definition of vote, perhaps #6 or #2 (noun) or #2/#3 (verb), pertains to aFD even when it is not a binary process. However, I think that you raise an interesting point. Many people consider voting to be a binary process. I should mention that when I use the term "vote" I never consider it a binary yes or no decision on a single issue. That is even true in political decisions about people running for office, but it is especially true for group consensus matter.--Blue Tie 20:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

My perspective, which I've held to quite stubbornly through almost three years on WP, is that we do use votes and we must use votes. Voting is the only way to achieve results that are both effective and fair. The alternative to voting is just letting an elite class of people decide things (yes, that is what happens—voting empowers larger numbers, lack of voting empowers smaller numbers), an awful, anti-community outcome in my view—and because the members of the elite often agree no better than the general community, this leads to breakdown and collapse in the absence of a formalized and systematic approach to resolving disputes. You can't just have people deciding things based on their own will; decisions must be made collectively, and collective decision-making must be based on voting on some level in order to be effective. Everyking 05:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The same thing easily happens with votes. All you need to do is summon a bunch of like-minded people on- or off-wiki. The only difference is the swarm may have little interest in the goals of Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 05:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by the "same thing"? In any case, "interest" may be gauged by their presence as Wikipedia editors with some significant record of participation, and I am all in favor of "swarms": your insect imagery obscures the fact that all the voters are individuals and members of the community with opinions. Broader participation produces a more representative result. Everyking 06:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

So, what does this mean?

I'm not really interested in debating semantics of what a vote is, if making a vote is different from voting, yadda yadda yadda. To me it seems like this is a page that was written as an essay, a guideline tag has been slapped on it, and what that all means is totally unclear. 98% of RfAs are closed based just on the numbers, do we need to close down RfA because it's clearly in violation of this guideline? Do we need to block users who claim to be voting, since voting is against policy? Although it will probably be a painful process, if this page is going to mean anything, it needs to be rewritten into an actual actionable guideline, not an essay on concepts important to Wikipedia, so it's clear what we're actually supposed to do with it.

My suggest for the spirit of this page: The numbers in any poll are important as they closely reflect what raw consensus is, but they can just be wrong sometimes, due to anything from small a sample size to mob mentality to outright manipulation. The spirit of Wikipedia has always been to do what is best, not what a given mob wants, so administrators and b'crats have traditionally been given leeway in making decisions that they feel benefit the project, otherwise RfA and XfDs would just be closed by bot. To see any process as purely a vote in the conventional sense of the word, where if you get enough voters on one side you automatically get your way, that's simply false and not helpful to Wikipedia. Policies, polls and processes should be written, if at all possible, to avoid situations where a decision-makers hands would be effectively tied to the result of a vote. It should be understood that a simple up/down count is often performed, but unlike in a conventional vote, stating the reason you opposed or support a motion is important, and might even be required.

Anyway, that's where I stand on all of this. The "guideline" needs to be rewritten before it can mean much. Am I totally on another planet here? --W.marsh 13:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. I also think you said it well. --Blue Tie 14:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well stated. I said pretty much the same thing in a section above, but much less concisely than you have. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I hate to sound a blowhard, but it's a bit frustrating that in 3 days no one can give a useful explanation of what this supposed guideline means. This is reinforcing my belief that it's a mislabelled essay at this point. I'm not opposed to a guideline that clarifies what voting is, why we avoid certain aspects of voting on Wikipedia, but more importantly how processes should be structured to emphasize discussion over voting. Right now, this page just explains why voting/polling sucks (without really defining them usefully), and then doesn't give anything actionable or useful that we can do about voting on Wikipedia... it's just blatently an essay, not a guideline. --W.marsh 13:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• What this means (or at least, is supposed to mean) is that on Wikipedia it is preferred to discuss things rather than voting on them. Corollaries are, among others, that AFDs can be closed in favor of the minority depending on reasons given by either side, and that one cannot legislate Wikipedia by creating a motion and calling a vote on it, and that it is in most cases unhelpful to create several versions of an article and having a poll majority decide which one to use (since it is generally better to compromise). That is not to say that we never formally vote on things, because we do, but that in general discussion is preferable. WP:RFA is really the 'odd man out' since there is ongoing discussion on how it works or how it is supposed to work - see here for discussion, and ongoing edits here. >Radiant< 14:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that this guideline doesn't mention any of that, actually it sort of did but it was removed. Right now all you could infer from it is that we don't vote at all, or do anything resembling voting, which is untrue. --W.marsh 14:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• I did a copy/paste of some of the apparently accepted clauses on this talk page. Please copyed. >Radiant< 14:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of doing something like that, and at a glance your edit looks good. I think we're moving in the right direction. I think it probably should mention that the dramatic majority of AfDs and RfAs are closed in a way that correlates directly to the numbers. For me and others, it seems like it's hard to swallow these kind of arguments when processes are so blatently vote-like, and the argument seems to say that the numbers don't matter, when they obviously do. But ultimately I understand (and act on) the concept that the raw count doesn't always determine what must be done, it's just a useful indication of consensus, which is usually right, but not a suicide pact by any means. --W.marsh 15:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• But I'm stumped as to how to actually word that. Again, the new organization looks pretty good, I think we're stepping away from the essay roots somewhat, which had been dominant until just now. --W.marsh 15:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that most AFDs (et al) are (and should be) closed according to the "obvious majority"; indeed, any closer is supposed to follow consensus. However, an important goal of this page is to counter the frequent belief among novice users that it's only about counting numbers - some people go "support ~~~~" to spread quick votes, without realizing that that's not really helpful; or complain when something is not strictly done by the percentages (common on WP:DRV); or say "I move that we do so-and-so, all in favor say aye?" Education of novice users is always useful. >Radiant< 15:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure it needs to be a guideline if the purpose is just education. But anyway, my point is that many people just are naturally frustrated when so many people say "RfA/AfD is not even vote-like" when it blatently is. Maybe we need to educate more than just the newbies :-) --W.marsh 15:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid it does, because given the overdose of pages in Wikispace, novice users are disinclined to believe (or sometimes, read) any page that's not a guideline or policy. Personally I consider RFA a vote, and I believe AFD should have been setup to appear less like a structured yes/no vote, although it's too late to change it now. >Radiant< 16:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    • There was an AfD a while back where we had a really fine, interesting debate going where several people changed their minds, then someone uninvolved came along and decided the discussion was distracting and moved it all to the talk page... leaving just the "votes" with no explanation of how we'd gotten there. I wish I remembered which AfD exactly (some tiny German island), but it was an interesting look at the vote mentality... more specifically that the arguments are nice but they're really just window dressing, which is totally wrong. If someone could distill our understanding of "We look like we're voting but we aren't really, there's correlation but not causation at AfD in RfA, and if you think you're actually voting, you still have a lot to learn, kid" into a coherent paragraph, well, that person would win. This is just general rambling, sorry... I'm not expecting you to magically write the perfect paragraph or anything. --W.marsh 16:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that we are indeed voting. And that there is a definite correlation of cause and effect. However, the problem you mention in one word "Mentality" is something to avoid. There should not be a "rush to resolve by vote" but rather a patience to resolve with votes used as part of the process which relies upon communication and persuasive discussion. A vote, by itself does not show consensus simply because there has been no discussion and consideration of the issue. However, a discussion also does not show consensus by itself either.--Blue Tie 16:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right in your looking for a rational explanation for this policy text and finding that there is none. The text of this WP:DDV is an outright denial of reality. Let us take first the quirky hypothesis: "Polling discourages consensus." If you will, please let me give you a counterexample that proves that quirky hypothesis wrong. In the data under this link, you can see the day-by-day detailed historical data in which pollings were crucial tools for 1) measuring consensus and 2) determining the issues that had to be resolved to reach the next level of consensus among editors. Not even once in that empirical data from a hot and tough work session extended over a period of three months did a polling discourage consensus. And in that statement I have given you a falsifiable hypothesis on that empirical data. So how do we rewrite the text of the WP:DDV page to remove the serious and blatant denials of reality throughout this page? --Rednblu 18:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no less than 3 huge projects to wrap up today. So I may not get to this right away. Not only that but my thoughts in this area are evolving. I am gathering ideas and information. I already have some ideas. I don't really like my ideas 100% but if I toss them out there they may be improvable. --Blue Tie 20:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that if nothing else, it should be noted that opinions on WP:AFD, WP:RFA, etc. are sometimes colloquially referred to as "votes" even though the process itself may not actually be a majority-rule vote. Andrew Levine 19:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this recently. Being on-and-off active at AfD, I have a hard time saying things like "changing my ??? to neutral per So-and-so" there without using the word vote for the ???. There just isn't another word that works that I've found. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

How about "position"? Or "stance"? -- Visviva 00:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

How about "vote"?  ;) —David Levy 02:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. As a student of semantics, syntax, etc., "opinion", "stance", and "position" are unsatisfying—they don't actually fill that slot grammatically. None of those things have the right relation to me, either. I can say "I retract my keep vote" but I can't say "I retract my keep stance". It just doesn't substitute. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The opinions in questions are correctly referred to as "votes." Only in a particular colloquial (and incorrect) connotation does the word "vote" refer strictly to majority voting. —David Levy 02:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Its been 22 years since 1984. Time to get on board with Newspeak. --Blue Tie 03:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Call for actionable instructions - proposals and descriptions

As succinctly pointed out by W.marsh above, and myself further above, this won't be a guideline except in name until it has actionable instructions. I myself am failing to come up with any actionable instructions that are "an accurate description of existing practice", which is Radiant's rationale for this being a guideline. In an effort to resolve this lack one way or the other, please comment below with either (A) descriptions of existing practices that should be included as actionable instructions in any guideline-incarnation of this essay, or (B) proposals for actionable instructions that are not existing practice but maybe should be. Collecting these should give us a good idea of how to proceed. Of course, well-explained objections to describing or proposing either one would also be fruitful data. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's one of each to kick this discussion off:

• Description: Straw polls and other vote-like things can safely be ignored without risk of being left out of the consensus-building process. Votes of any kind cannot replace discussion, only contribute to a larger discussion.
• Proposal: Straw polls can be removed from discussion pages.

(Note that I don't necessarily support these, especially the second, but we've got to start somewhere.) — Saxifrage ✎ 21:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Your examples are indicators of the reasons that I disagree with this as a guideline. (I even disagree with it as an essay, but it is innocuous as an essay). There should be no removal of straw polls. There should be no "ignoring" of them. They should be part of the process for achieving consensus if necessary. (They should not typically be necessary, but they will sometimes be invaluable). --Blue Tie 00:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Well yeah, like I said parenthetically, I wouldn't support that one. It's just the only proposal I could even think of to kick off discussion that comes near to being actionable. This is part of my problem with it being a guideline now: nothing in it is enforceable (which is just a synonym of part of the meaning of "actionable"). The fact that I can't think of any way to make the contents of this page actionable leads me to believe it can't be a guideline without changing "existing practices". I want to fully explore the possible actionable instructions before coming to that conclusion though. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• How is the phrase "Discuss, don't vote" not actionable? It calls for people to discuss, rather than voting. We have several other guidelines that tell people not to do certain things. >Radiant< 08:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

  It is not actionable because it is not enforceable. "Discuss, don't vote" is a call for individual editors to follow it, not something that can be put into practice by a third party. Consider one of the very actionable guidelines in Wikipedia:External links: "Sites that are inaccessible to a significant proportion of the community, such as sites that only work with a specific browser [are normally to be avoided when linking]". This can be actioned by anyone coming across such a link. No social interaction is necessary, nobody needs to have the interior of their head adjusted for a third party to apply the guideline. By contrast the instruction "discuss, don't vote" is not actionable by a third party. In order for a third party to acction it they would either have to magically change the contents of the person's head or do something creative and not contained in the instruction. By itself, it is not actionable, because it cannot be made to happen by a third party (which is the same thing as saying it can't be enforced). Something like "delete all straw polls" or even "delete tendentious straw polls" would be enforceable, but these are not in the guideline and do not follow directly from "discuss, don't vote". Thus, the reason for creating this section. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as these essays go, they're needless forks of the ones on meta, created in an attempt to make them a guideline. If we decide to not make them guidelines then they should be deleted. If Radiant wants to make a proper proposal, he can do so with a copy in his userspace. -- Ned Scott 05:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• The "proper" process for making proposals that you refer to does not in fact exist. >Radiant< 08:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

When I say proper, I mean, in a way where you don't act like a total dick about it. What gives man, you've seemed to me to be a much more rational editor than this in the past. You didn't do anything wrong by marking it a guideline the first time, but you did do something wrong when you refused to accept that it wasn't a non-controversial or widely agreed upon decision. You lack evidence of consensus. Your word alone is not good enough. -- Ned Scott 09:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• My word alone may not be good enough, but if you read through the talk page you'll notice about a dozen high-profile users (most of them admins) who agree with me. This page has been in use for several years and reflects common practice; those are good arguments for calling it guideline, as is educating new users. Most objections to this page are straw men (such as asserting that this page forbids voting), based on false assumptions (such as that AFD is a majority vote) or backwards (e.g. resisting codifying current practice because one wishes to change that practice). This page was stable as a 'disputed guideline' for ten days with its wording being discussed, until you stepped in to decide that there was no dispute and no guideline either. >Radiant< 09:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

"high-profile users" You did seriously just say that? We're equal here, got it? Get off your high horse. You are not better than everyone else. I'm sorry that some people made some weak arguments, but there's enough rational ones to show that this is not a non-controversial or easily agreed upon guideline, and that discussion should occur BEFORE tagging it as a guideline. The disputed tag is for things that have already become guidelines and then get disputed. -- Ned Scott 09:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Some people have more experience with how Wikipedia works than others, and indeed most of the opposition is made from arguments that do not match how Wikipedia works. You just asserted I was the only one who supported this page, and that assertion is incorrect. This has been a guideline for years, only because of an oversight it didn't have the tag on it. And now people claim that "process wasn't followed" or that since they personally like voting we may not discourage it, or that Wikipedia regularly works by majority vote. Those arguments may be rational as you call them but they are not based upon fact. >Radiant< 09:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

If you had said "a number of editors in good standing" that would be one thing, but you said "high profile users". We know what you mean, we know that there's a lot of noobs here making a lot of flawed arguments, but defeating those arguments doesn't get past the legitimate concerns. Don't try to twist my words so it sounds like I'm agreeing with those who were making flawed arguments. -- Ned Scott 10:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

When you say "most of the opposition is made from arguments that do not match how Wikipedia works", you're ignoring the unflawed ones. What, are you counting opposed "votes" numerically? It doesn't matter what percentage of opposition is using flawed arguments, there are outstanding issues that are unaddressed or unresolved that aren't flawed. Besides, the flawed "we do vote" arguments have receded into the past. The current spate of editors all seem to be saying "this isn't actionable", which is a valid and correct concern. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Objection

It is a description of many existing practices, but so is saying hello to someone when you meet them. WP:CREEP comes to mind here. I'm deeply disturbed by some of the editors here, such as Ratiant and Centrx, who have been down right rude and degrading to their fellow editors. Saying that something is the norm and them going ahead and tagging it is ok in many situations. However, when right after you do, a good deal of editors come up and say "wait a second, I disagree with what you are doing", and even have to fight tooth and nail just to get the disputed tag up, then you know something is wrong. Even when I am in favor of a guideline I believe it's the best thing to do to let a good discussion occur on it, ESPECIALLY when people have raised multiple concerns. It's like deleting a page as a speedy delete and calling it housekeeping, even others have strong and rational objections to the delete. I really don't understand the motives of Ratiant and company that would drive them to be this aggressive.

We have a serious problem here with a group of editors going around on their high horses, deeming what they think is or isn't a guideline by force. I am very disappointed in these editors. I noticed there's an ArbCom case on this, but unfortunately the one who made the case is another editor who's trying to push their own proposals. The right thing for the wrong reasons, and it will fall apart because of that. ArbCom or not, whether this page should be a guideline or not, the behavior of this group of editors is concerning. I don't think they're doing it as a conspiracy, and I think they think they're doing the right thing, but they need to chill out and take a step back. We are not enemies here. -- Ned Scott 20:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

(Since this wasn't a proposal, description, or a problem with giving a proposal or description, it was off-topic and I moved it to a new section. I know there are larger issues, but I don't want possibly useful work derailed by the larger discussions.)

I do think the way this has been handled is problematic. I at once understand the frustration of the "old timers" that this obviously-entrenched practice is being opposed as a guideline, and I understand the frustration of everyone who is taking exception to this being a guideline. I fall on the side of "this isn't a guideline" for a number of reasons though, not least of which because it doesn't look like and can't be used as a guideline in any practical sense. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well, if it's an obviously-entrenched practice, then by definition it is a guideline. A problem here is that several people don't understand what a guideline is. Whenever people say that it was made a guideline "out of process", they are referring to a process that does not in fact exist. Whenever people say that this guideline forbids voting, they are misreading it. >Radiant< 08:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I oppose it as a guideline because I consider it to be intrinsically a bad idea to further codify the rejection of an important and widely acknowledged means to help achieve consensus. It is completely wrong for that reason alone. --Blue Tie 00:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• So what you're saying is that it is common practice but you do not like that practice. Sorry, but that is not a reason against writing down the practice. Instead, as has been pointed out before, you are welcome to make a proposal for a more formal system and we'll consider using that in the future. >Radiant< 08:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Common practice does not always make for a guideline. Like I said, it's common practice to say hello to someone when you meet them, but you don't make a guideline that says you have to say hello when you greet someone. You're going to have to use some better rational. -- Ned Scott 09:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• So you're saying that since civility is common practice, we don't make a guideline on civility. Except that we do. Common practice is a good basis for guidelines; that does not imply that we must make guidelines for all common practice. >Radiant< 09:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Common practice alone is not a good basis for guidelines. It might be a place to get ideas for guidelines, but you can't base it on that alone. Didn't you just complain about people making straw-man arguments? Isn't that what you just did with me? -- Ned Scott 09:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It's common practice and it's a good idea. That strikes me as a good basis for making it a guideline. The Land 12:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This shouldn't be a gudeline. It's completley biased and false information. People vote all the time on Wikipedia. I mean, jesus man, look at all the people complaining about how it became a guidline! I suppose that we should warn/block anyone participating in straw polls/Board of Trustees votes/AfDs/Arb Com votes? And I know your respone - "Guidelines can have exceptions" Obviousley, it shouldn't be a guidline if it has that many exceptions and this many people protesting.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 00:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Voting mentality does happen, and it should be strongly discouraged, but I question how we are going about that. The fact that many people consider things a vote is not a good thing. -- Ned Scott 05:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That is, voting in the traditional sense. Sign your name as "oppose" or "support" kind of thing. I am not opposed to people who say such things to summarize their view, as long as they also explain their position. Which is what usually happens anyways. -- Ned Scott 05:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point. The word "vote" is so loaded for so many people, I'd suggest replacing it with BOWSTPAC - Bolded One Word Summary Traditionally Prepending A Comment. It's perfectly pronounceable (Bowst/pac) and comes with no baggage. We don't vote - voting is evil. We make BOWSTPACs - BOWSTPACs are good. See the difference? Herostratus 08:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• I fully agree with Nedscott. If you know of a better way to discourage voting mentality, please tell us. >Radiant< 08:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I point them to the meta essay page, and the vast majority of the time that takes care of things. For example. You want more power to be able to force something, but the need is not there. It's instructions creep. -- Ned Scott 09:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• When pointed to an essay, people tend to respond "you can't base decisions on that, it's only an essay". This is an actual problem on Wikipedia. >Radiant< 09:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Since when is this a problem? Oh wait, maybe it's because of that dispute you had with the nobility thing? I understand that stuff like that can be frustrating, and that some users are frustrating, but in most cases those are situations where the dispute is the true cause of the conflict, not polls or votes. It's instructions creep, it's not needed, and you are the one who needs to convince us otherwise, since it's your proposal. -- Ned Scott 09:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• This is a problem whenever people dispute an AFD closure because it wasn't done by the numbers. This is a problem whenever people call a majority vote on a proposal instead of trying to compromise. This is a problem whenever people try to vote on facts in an article. You may not have seen those things but it happens a lot. Wikipedia is not a democracy. This isn't my proposal, this has been existing practice for years. >Radiant< 10:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

To discourage voting as a replacement for discussion has been something we all agree upon, but that is not the same thing as saying that this page has been in practice for years. I highly doubt that making this a guideline will help the troubles you've cited, because the real issue in those cases is that someone didn't agree with someone else. Some users are difficult, and a lot of times they'll try to even use how something is worded to their advantage. It happens, and if it doesn't happen with this it will happen with that. This does not fix the problems you cite. Again, it's on you to convince us that it is, and that hasn't happened yet. -- Ned Scott 10:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, so we are agreed that we should discourage voting as a replacement for discussion. Please tell me how you would want to accomplish discouraging voting as a replacement for discussion. >Radiant< 10:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, sorry to jump in at a late state, but a good essay is the perfect way to encourage a practice that you could never legislate. Trying to ram a guideline down people's throats ("You can't vote! It's against the rules!"), is, as we see clearly here, just going to greatly annoy people. But the whole thing we're trying to do here is tell people that the vote mentality is bad. You can't legislate people into believing that, but you can convince them of it, which is what an essay is for. --W.marsh 13:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Straw man. Nobody is trying to make legislation to forbid voting. Also, legislation would be a policy, not guideline. Nobody is proposing a policy here either. >Radiant< 13:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Above you seem to be saying that if this is a guideline it will be easier to use it when people propose various anti-voting things, which to me does seem like the goal of making this a guideline is to make it easier to forbid voting, or more accurately, to deny that we are voting (since that's what most changes like changing the word "vote" to "discuss" ammount to). Am I totally misunderstanding the situation here? If we can do something to genuinely reduce the vote mentality, great. But I am opposed to just increasing the doublespeak and confusion so we can pretend Wikipedia isn't vote-like at times. --W.marsh 14:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines are intended to describe how we already do things, not prescribe new behaviour. Discussion instead of voting is how we already do things and isn't something new. If you don't believe me, set up a poll for something and see how many people complain that "polls are evil" or deny that the results are meaningful (-: JYolkowski // talk 16:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:GUIDELINE says that guidelines are actionable (which basically means enforceable). This isn't enforceable. People vote all the time. I'll say it again; I suppose that we should warn/block anyone participating in straw polls/Board of Trustees votes/AfDs/Arb Com votes? And I know your respone - "Guidelines can have exceptions" Obviousley, it shouldn't be a guidline if it has that many exceptions and this many people protesting. This is entirley POV and goes against the practicies of Wikipedia users.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 16:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Generally I think it would be much easier to get behind this as a guideline if it was rewritten. Right now it's half an essay from Meta, and half some stuff Radiant pasted over from this talk page (which was actually and improvement and I'm glad he did it). Still, this comes off as trying to slap a guideline tag on the general concept of "Discuss, don't vote", with some random text we may or may not agree on attached to it. By extension, people feel like they can make any kind of wild anti-voting proposal and that this page automatically backs them up... and as the page is written, they're apparently right. As I've said earlier, I think there's support for a guideline that clearly articulates what many people already believe about voting and how it should be trumped by discussion, I am still thinking this page as written is far too vague. Guidelines should actually guide, not just endorse a vague catch phrase to be used in debates for various purposes. --W.marsh 16:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clearly articulating the current problem. I am in the strange position of endorsing the "we don't vote/Wikipedia is not a democracy" concept (it's fundamental anyway), but thoroughly opposed to making the current page a guideline. (I also object to the autocratic nature of Radiant's treatment of this issue, but that is irrelevant to the text.)

To further the point, WP:IAR correctly and accurately describes current practice at Wikipedia, but it cannot be a guideline. Someone might answer that last sentence by saying that, of course it can't be a guideline by its very nature, but that's not what I mean. Supposing that it wouldn't be self-defeating to be a guideline, it still couldn't be because it's not actionable: it contains no instructions that can be enforced. Any proposed actionable instruction would be absurd: "Never follow rules"? "Delete policy when you find it"? "Learn the rules but don't be straightjacketed by them" (which is a good interpretation, but not actionable and so not codifiable)? — Saxifrage ✎ 20:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disruptive editing

The Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline says:

"Disruptive editors may seek to disguise their behavior as productive editing, yet distinctive traits separate them from productive editors. When discussion fails to resolve the problem and when an impartial consensus of editors from outside a disputed page agree (through requests for comment or similar means), further disruption should be liable to blocking at the administrators' noticeboard and may lead to more serious disciplinary action through the dispute resolution process. In extreme cases this could include a site ban, either though the arbitration committee or by administrator consensus." WAS 4.250 15:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Well, now you guys have gone and done it. Thanks to the revert warring, the page has been protected. Frankly, I would have done so myself if not for my involvement (my participation in discussions on this talk page and attempt to clean up the absurd mess that was made with the status tags).

As indicated previously, I believe that the basic concept that Radiant advocates reflects consensus and should be a guideline. I also agree, however, that the page's overall style is that of an informal essay. Radiant's recent rewrites have helped, but additional work is needed (and I'm too busy with non-wiki matters to pitch in).

I suggest that someone fork a draft page for everyone to edit into shape. Despite the fact that the project page is protected as the right version for some, I sincerely hope that the dispute's participants will work together in good faith. —David Levy 18:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

"Despite the fact that the project page is protected as the right version" How biased can you get?--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 18:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason why you omitted the words "for some" from that quote? Have you read the page to which I linked? The statement in question was directed toward those who might be tempted to stop discussing this matter because the page happens to have been protected as the version that they believe to be "right." —David Levy 18:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I did read it. And I think it was pretty biased of you to just assume that everyone who thinks it should be an essay would just stop discussing it for that reason. I also thought it was biased that you linked that page, seeing as how there is no consenseus at this point as to what is right and wrong.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 18:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

"I did read it. And I think it was pretty biased of you to just assume that everyone who thinks it should be an essay would just stop discussing it for that reason."

I did not "assume that everyone who thinks it should be an essay would just stop discussing it for that reason." There is, however, the possibility that some editors might be inclined to respond in this manner (which I've witnessed on numerous occasions). It's easier to allow one's preferred text to remain than it is to work toward compromise, and I've expressed my sincere hope that this temptation will be overcome (not an assumption that it won't be). Had the page been protected with the "guideline" tag intact, I would have typed exactly the same remark.

In case you didn't notice, I plainly stated above that I see merit in both arguments; I believe that we should be working toward guideline status, but I also believe that the page (as currently written) comes across as an essay.

"I also thought it was biased that you linked that page, seeing as how there is no consenseus at this point as to what is right and wrong."

That's the point! (Everyone believes that his/or version is "right" and that his/her opponents' version is "wrong.") How did you interpret m:The Wrong Version? —David Levy 18:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That page says that any version that a page is protected under is the wrong version, because there's obviously an unresolved dispute, so there is no right version. Granted, there's a lot of tongue-in-cheek humor there (David Levy mentioning "right version for some" while linking to a page titled "Wrong Version", and the page itself being largely satirical), but I think you're largely agreeing with him. --Interiot 19:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, "the right version for some" simply means "the version that some people believe to be right." It didn't occur to me that anyone would interpret this phrase as a declaration that either version actually was right or wrong, especially given my moderate stance on this matter. —David Levy 19:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the page protected is the wrong version for some. I have no problem saying and recognizing that. I believe that for some it is also the right version. This should not be a matter of dispute.

I do not believe that any version of this page can be created as a guideline that does not explicitly recognize that voting is a KEY TOOL for sometimes arriving at consensus and is also probably the only way to validate it. (I am open to some other validation scheme but I am not creative enough to think of one).

On the other hand, voting cannot simply substitute for discussion. This is not just a matter of not "squelching" the chatter but more importantly, it is through discussion that even better versions of an article are created. Thus, discussion and voting is important. So the article should not be "Discuss, don't vote" but rather "Discuss, vote when helpful or necessary and discuss some more". This latter title would actually reflect current practice better than "Discuss, don't vote" does.

Because I do not think that the current page reflects actual or desired practice, I happen to believe that as it currently exists, it is appropriately ONLY an essay. As also is the Voting is not Evil essay. --Blue Tie 19:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Validating consensus

Query for David: How will you validate that a particular version has or reflects consensus? I note that you believe that the effort by Radiant! "reflects consensus". I believe otherwise and suggest that the many contra-edits and tags stand as evidence of this. How do we determine correctly what the consensus is on the matter? Note, for example, that I do not believe ANY version that rejects voting in any way is right. I feel strongly about this. Others feel just as strongly that voting violates the spirit and intent of arriving at a solution by discussion. (I agree that improperly handled it might do that but disagree that it must have that effect -- however that is a separate discussion). Assume for a moment that two opposite views exist and that they are irreconcilable. How do you detect and validate consensus? What are the standards? --Blue Tie 19:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, the core message that Radiant is attempting to convey is that polling is not a substitute for discussion. It's this principle that I believe is widely accepted by the community. I do not believe that the project page itself (as currently worded) accurately conveys this sentiment or reflects consensus.

As I've stated in previous discussions, I strongly disagree that polling is "evil" or that instances of valid use are exceptions to the rule. While polling certainly can be abused, it's an invaluable and essential tool. This principle also appears to have widespread acceptance. (The opposite certainly doesn't.) I base these assessments upon common practices.

Therefore, I see the need for this project page to become a guideline (to discourage improper polling), but I also see the need for it to be significantly revised before that occurs. I endorse Radiant's basic goal (as I perceive it), but I don't endorse the current implementation.

Regarding the title, I suggested above that it be changed to "Polling is not a substitute for discussion" or "Polling does not replace discussion," but no one responded. —David Levy 20:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for missing your recent contribution on thost titles. Without reflection upon them I have no problems with those titles, but I note that they make the contents of the guideline even more important because there is a balance to be grasped. I think a nutshell might be:

I add (and this is not a criticism of you, David) that again, when I ask: "How is consensus validated?" no answer is forthcoming. We validate content, but we do not validate consensus. No problem.... until there is a "vigorous" debate. --Blue Tie 20:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

As stated above, consensus often can be validated simply by analyzing the actions of the community. If a principle or method appears to be widely accepted/utilized, it probably is backed by consensus.

Pre-existing consensus (either longstanding or arising through recent discussion) also can be validated or clarified via straw polling. New consensus, however, cannot be generated in this manner. Unless an opinion is based upon current practice or backed by a well-articulated argument, it's of very little value to the community (because we have no means of grasping the reasoning behind it) —David Levy 21:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me suggest an example. I suggest that an analysis of the actions of the community is that "we vote". Others say that the exact same analysis says "We do not vote". What then, is the consensus? Do we vote? Do we not vote? This gets to the heart of the matter at hand, right here on this page: What is, in fact, the nature of the community decision? How do we know? How do we validate the answer? And if ONE person disagrees, has consensus been achieved? What if it has indeed been achieved if "only one" disagrees, but TWO disagree? Has it been achieved? If not, what number of people is the right number before we say it has not been achieved? If there is no integer number, what faction of participants is necessary for consensus? If no number at all is involved, how is it validated? What are the conditions of agreement or disagreement? --Blue Tie 21:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

1. It's important to realize that in some cases, there is no consensus. It also should be noted that this discussion pertains primarily to matters of opinion, not to matters of fact. Consensus regarding matters of fact can be entirely incorrect. ("The Earth is flat.")

2. "Consensus" ≠ "unanimity," nor is there an exact numerical formula that be applied. Common sense and logic must be utilized, with strong arguments outweighing weak ones. (The same common sense and logic determine which arguments are strong and which are weak.) —David Levy 22:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

And...Why, exactly can't new policy be generated by using polls as part of the process? I do not follow your answer, unless you are suggesting that ONLY polls be used which I think has never even been suggested by anyone. --Blue Tie 21:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Because polls polarize the issue and preclude compromise; see below for a lengthier post on the topic. >Radiant< 21:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That's hardly reason to condemn their use. Hammers can be used to smash fingers, but that doesn't mean they are not useful tools. A poorly-used tool is always a bad thing. The condemnation is rightly for the tool-user, not the tool. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That's an excellent analogy. —David Levy 22:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a overly broad response, I'm afraid. There certainly are situations in which polls can polarize an issue and preclude compromise, but this is not always the case —David Levy 22:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Polling absolutely can be a part of the process. Again, polls can be used to help gauge consensus. They cannot, however, replace discussion as a means of creating consensus. You might not realize how often users attempt to expedite matters by prematurely halting discussion and organizing an all-or-nothing majority vote. —David Levy 22:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

David, you are broadly correct in reading my intent here. I believe the best way to go would be to wipe the existing page and write it down anew in two or three sentences; that should cut away most of the old stuff that people object to. Do you think that would help? >Radiant< 21:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think that would help. It would also help if it had a {{proposed}} tag until the content is accepted, not a {{guideline}} tag. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree regarding the {{proposed}} tag. —David Levy 22:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that two or three sentences would be sufficient, but starting from scratch might not be a bad idea. —David Levy 22:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I created a nutshell. Perhaps not worded right. And maybe people do not agree with my perspective. But basically I tried to say that Discussion is vital and sometimes voting/polling is an appropriate tool that helps a great deal. Because that is how I see it. --Blue Tie 22:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Policy, Wikipedia is not a Democracy

I don't think that anyone has mentioned that we actually have a policy on this, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a Democracy. I don't know why I didn't think to bring this up before. Radiant asked what does one do when someone says "oh, I shouldn't have to follow that, it's an essay!" Well, heck, I recall a lot of times when people just cited "Wikipedia is not a Democracy" directly and pretty much was the "force" that was needed in those situations. The policy says:

“ Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. In difficult cases, straw polls may be conducted to help determine consensus, but are to be used with caution and not to be treated as binding votes. ”

Isn't that exactly what we all agree upon? We have the policy there, the "authority", that we can use to point people to. Then we have the meta essays which discuss some of the pros and cons of voting and polling and where they should and shouldn't be used. I go back to my original point that this proposed guideline is instructions creep on our already existing policy and the meta essays. There's no need to make a guideline to strengthen a position that is backed up by policy. -- Ned Scott 20:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'd always thought the spirit of WP:IAR explains why we avoid majority votes and binding polls. Their outcomes could and occasionally do suggest a course of action we feel would lower the quality of the project, so it's always been seen as important to not tie decision-makers hands to the results of some poll somewhere. No one should be doing things they believe deep down hurt the project. --W.marsh 20:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I like that both points are brought up. However, I think that WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a Democracy is both right and wrong. It sets up a concept of "vote vs discussion" which I believe is bad. I believe that the concept should be something along the lines of WP:BRD but when things involve many editors and particularly with regard to policy and matters not subject to "fact checking" but rather with judgment, discussion can reasonably and profitably be followed by and preceded with a poll. In other words, discussion may reasonably include polling and it is not a "vote vs discussion" or a "voting is evil" or "voting is right" or even "voting = discussion" but rather that voting is a tool, neither preferred nor subverted to other tools with consensus being the goal. The vote is not the goal but a tool. Majorities do not necessarily "win", particularly in the case of issues that are easily resolved through fact checking/verification. However, that does not apply to guidelines and policies and in those cases a position really should clearly dominate before it can be called a "guideline" or "policy". (Unless it is directed from above by the Foundation (which may have necessary legal requirements and constraints) or by some other body appointed to that task.) I could even see where something might NOT be a policy even if it does dominate, but I have a hard time seeing something as a policy without dominance. (Note, I refrain from declaring what "dominate" means at this time -- that is a secondary discussion.) --Blue Tie 20:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Commonly held ideal

Sorry, I'm new to the debate, and I haven't read all of it, but it occurs to me that the problem might be that there needs to be another tag for pages that are not actionable guidelines, but are more important than someone's essay. I would call it a "Commonly held ideal". Discuss, don't vote is not quite a guideline, it is impractical to enforce a policy that people should never vote. However, it is a widely and strongly held ideal that people should discuss and that voting is (or can be) evil. We need to discourage the idea of voting and encourage the idea of discussing. So can we label this essay as a "Community ideal" and create a new template to go with it? -- Samuel Wantman 20:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I object to it even as an ideal. I think it is misguided. Consensus should be the ideal. --Blue Tie 21:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This might be a good idea. (I'm tentative right now and would like to hear other people's thoughs, though.) A guideline is fundamentally actionable and has broad support, while an essay is just some writing. There's a lot of space between those for a class of essay that has broad support. Radiant's basic argument is that this should be a guideline because it has broad support, but that's only half of the criteria for being a guideline. Some way of tagging essays that have been adopted by the community as a "we believe this" sort of thing but that lack the actionable criterion of a guideline may fill a need. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I recommend that if you believe that, that you be bold and create a subcategory for Wikipedia essays called "consensus" or "accepted" or "approved"; maybe add "by the community". Then be like Radient and be bold in deciding which essays fit the bill. Go for it. WAS 4.250 21:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That, I think, would be disruptive. I'm not sure if you meant that toungue-in-cheek for just that reason... — Saxifrage ✎ 21:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Besides, I did say "tentative". I'm not convinced that this would aid the encyclopedia beyond possibly resolving this dispute in a summary way, and that's the measure that matters. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It would not have to be done disruptively. Surely some essays are more accepted and others are less accepted. Surely which are which is not a complete mystery. A little sorting of essays by whoever wishes to pitch in would be a good thing. If there is disagreement, no one says you have to create disruption by fighting over which essay goes in which bin. WAS 4.250 21:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

True, but I don't think a single editor is equipped to do this. Doing so would be tantamount to saying that there is a distinction and that some essays should hold a certain amount of coercive power, even if they are not actionable per se. That people could contest individual essays being so sorted doesn't address the potential for fundamental disagreement on the assumption that it's warranted at all. This is something that I think would require community consent. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• To avert confusion, I would not be in favor of creating more tags. At present, we use "guideline" and "policy" (and the distinction between the two is somewhat nebulous) for pages that are consensual, and tags such as "essay" and "humor" for pages that are not. I do not recall having seen an essay that was consensual but not actionable, but would be happy to hear an example (other than this page, which should be reworded anyway). >Radiant< 21:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sax, with respect, I thank you for your efforts to find some middle ground. But, isn't "Guideline" already middle ground between "Essay" and "Policy"? That is how I have viewed it. My objection to this being a guideline is NOT related to it not being the right time or that other guidelines cover it or anything of the sort, but that that I object to it at its core even as an essay. But as an essay it is an opinion without any binding content. That is fine with me. As an educational tool to communicate some sort of value held by some. But I think it is a misplaced ideal. I think that voting or polling or whatever you want to call it is an extremely valuable way to go about things ... if done right. The problem may be "how to do it right". --Blue Tie 21:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• We could arguably "do it right" by taking a look at any country's parliamentary procedures, and use a simplified form of that. The question is whether the added legislation and bureaucratic overhead would be worth the effort; I am inclined to think it won't. If you can write a system that works and isn't overly legalistic, I'd be happy to see it. >Radiant< 21:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

When I say "do it right", I am not referring to a process that subverts or squelches or short-changes discussion. I am also not referring to a process where the "answer" to a "poll" is the goal. I am looking for a process where consensus is the goal. Voting is a tool that supports that goal. Voting or polling as a means to develop concensus is a long-established process, validated by management scientists and covered in peer reviewed journals. Rejecting it is rejection of an important tool. It is a tool that is participatory in the discussion process. It also provides a degree of validation along the way.

Thus, I do not think that parliamentarian procedures apply. At least not the way I view them. Rather, I think that other procedures, along the lines of Delphi, Nominal Group Technique, and other consensus building, brainstorming and other processes are more like what is needed. These probably should be adjusted or simplified. Along the way, there should be at least a bit of clarity regarding to what degree an individual or group of individuals may filibuster something. I have some ideas along this line, but I would at least like to see that the general concept that more clarity is needed be accepted before a debate about the specific quality of that clarity be engaged in. Otherwise the two ideas get mixed up: The general idea and the specific implementation. If the specific implentation is disagreed with, then the general idea is also seen as not approved. Moreover, if the general idea is not approved, then it is a waste of time to get into specifics. --Blue Tie 21:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Personally I think the idea has merit, although I estimate that the community will reject it on grounds of instruction creep. That shouldn't stop you from trying, though. I would suggest making a short draft page about the general idea and asking people's opinion. >Radiant< 22:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Maybe it is creep. Not my goal. But I appreciate the suggestion. We may not always agree, but I value your insights. I will see what I can do. I am working on it in a number of directions. And if I do not get some goals completed in my non-wiki life I may need to take a break. but If I can I will see what I can do about a suggestion. --Blue Tie 22:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hyperbole

Actually, my reading of the original Voting is Evil is that the title is hyperbole, and that it does acknowledge that votes are valuable tools. I don't think anyone is arguing that they're not, though sometimes I am unclear about Radiant's stance when he starts equating running polls with disruptive behaviour. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• VIE is tongue-in-cheek, yes (most old "rules-like" pages are, including IAR). I do not equate polls with disruption; I simply tend to close them down iff they wouldn't be helpful. >Radiant< 21:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

  I don't think that's a wise course of action, nor an undisruptive one. Polls aren't binding, so such action is unnecessary. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

  • The intent is not to stop the poll; the intent is to divert people's energy into more useful directions, such as creating a compromise. It is not something I do blindly, but it is something that has been known to work quite well in several (but not all) cases. One problem is that people do tend to think of polls as binding, even if they aren't meant to be ("the poll wasn't binding, but majority says foo, so let's do foo"). Another problem is that some polls are divisive because of being worded badly. Sometimes polls work fine, too. >Radiant< 21:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

    This is off topic and, personally, disquieting. If you wish to discuss this, let's use our talk pages. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Goals for this page

It is obvious that Wikipedia cannot be legislated. Hence, the goal of this (and other related pages) is education: writing down the way we work, for the reference of future users as well as present users who work in other areas. There are two persistent sentiments, especially among novice users, that need to be dispelled. The first is that AFD (and similar processes) must be decided in favor of a majority of some percentage. This argument appears frequently on DRV.

The second is the sentiment that proposals are enacted by voting on them. It is common for people to claim that a page is not consensual because it was never voted upon, and it is common for people to attempt to validate their proposal by calling a formal vote on it. The latter is especially problematic, as it can lead people to think something is policy when in fact this may be hotly disputed.

There are presently two places where this is a big issue: a vote was held on whether removing talk page warnings is vandalism; since the vote had a majority in favor, some people assert it is now policy, others disagree. And second, on WP:CHILD, a headcount was used to determine a majority of the commenters were in favor, and again, some people assert it is now policy.

Now I am not going to argue here whether or not talk page removal is bad, and whether CHILD is or is not policy. My point is, that in both cases vote counting aggravated the dispute and stood in the way of forming consensus. So it's not just that "in difficult cases, a poll may be used to gather consensus"; it is that especially in difficult cases, polling can be harmful (and of course, in simple cases, polling is not needed). That is a problem. And that is why voting must be discouraged (though of course not forbidden). >Radiant< 21:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Two points:

• I support the intention to educate users about how things are done and to dispell the myth (brought in from outside) that voting can create decisions.
• I believe that moving to codify this right this minute in order to use it in a current dispute is illegitimate and backwards. If the principles that will be used to resolve those disputes are not now fully in effect within the community, slapping a tag on an essay is not going to improve matters.

For the first of these, I do believe that WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOT (a democracy) are sufficient. For the second of these, I believe that those that are attempting to use votes as bludgeons are simply in error and WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOT is strong enough to resolve the misconception. Neither are reasons to label a superficially-rewritten essay a guideline at this time. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • The intent is not to use this page in a current dispute (I am well aware that that wouldn't work anyway). VAND has died down for the time being; CHILD is now at the arbcom. At any rate, I believe we are agreed that this page needs to be rewritten anyway. >Radiant< 21:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

---

It is not obvious to me that wikipedia cannot be legislated. As I see it, it is already legislated. The issue before us is:

Should this page be part of the legislation?  

If the goal for this page is educational, an essay serves that purpose - entirely. There is no need for it to be a guideline or a policy. It should, however, also link to other essays that provide other perspectives... in the interest of a full education.

I think that the problems with "vote counting" on the issues you describe is that a minority disagreed with the results of the vote and there is no clear definition of what constitutes "consensus" when so many people agree with a perspective and a substantial minority disagree. What happens then? What constitutes "substantial minority"? At what point can one person filibuster?

This is the heart of my question that I ask repeatedly: How do we validate consensus?

I firmly disagree that the polling failed to help achieve consensus or injured it. Instead, I firmly believe that impossibly vague rules on this matter have done that. And will do so more and more as time goes on. --Blue Tie 21:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

How do we validate consensus? I've been around here long enough that I can tell you the answer to how we do decide stuff (but not how we should). Temporarily decided (never permanately): by fiat from above (eg Jimbo, OFFICE), by Arbcom, by threats from a consensus of admins (back off or be blocked/banned), by everyone involved agreeing, by those disagreeing leaving the discussion for one reason or another, and by agreeing to disagree with the majority (decided formally by poll or informally by unnumerated head count) "winning". Discussions that cause creative solutions to surface are best and often result in genuine agreements. Discussions that never get beyond two unchanging positions are generally a waste of time for everyone. WAS 4.250 21:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply, which tends to match my view of how things go. In fact, it is what I have experienced (not the Jimbo or Arbcom stuff). I also have some responses.

First, your statement :Discussions that cause creative solutions to surface are best and often result in genuine agreements. Discussions that never get beyond two unchanging positions are generally a waste of time for everyone. is so good that I wish I had said it. I agree with it completely. (Having said that, I think that two unchanging positions between two editors is the same as "no consensus".)

Second, what you have described is a process for arriving at a decision. That is not quite the same thing as "validating consensus". One of the key issues here is that consensus is claimed by some. How can such claims be validated? Of course the decision may simply be made by one person walking away. Is that really best for the encyclopedia? --Blue Tie 22:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia cannot be legislated in that changing a policy/guideline page is not going to change people's behavior (as evidenced by a recent effort to write policy to forbid sarcasm; no, I'm not kidding). You are correct in that the definition of consensus is nebulous. However, this nebulosity has been proven to work well in the past. I think we are agreed that the combination of polling and a nebulous consensus is contradictory; we disagree as to in which of the two we see the problem. >Radiant< 21:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you cracked me up and I did not think that was possible!

I believe that as a general rule, policies and guidelines should have an eye toward proscribing (changing) behavior. Otherwise they are irrelevant. (They do not have to change beliefs, but certain behaviors may be a condition of participation here). I also understand that the nebulosity has worked in the past. I am not so sure it worked well but it worked. I also believe it can "work" in the future. But I am pretty sure it cannot work well even if it worked well in the past (and that claim is not something that is validated). I do not believe it scales. (I have been doing some research into the conflict space / scaling issue, which you may review at GTBacchus Talk Page). We may disagree about which of the two is a problem. And then again, if this is left to a group of editors to decide, how can we validate what the consensus opinion is? Is my view alone sufficient to deny consensus to you? Or do I only need one more person to agree? If not, how many? --Blue Tie 22:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that nebulous consensus and polling are at odds. A poll only makes clear the views of the editors currently active in a discussion (assuming the poll is well-constructed). Nebulous consensus is something that only applies at the level of The Community. If consensus is nebulous on a particular point between the active editors, there damned well isn't consensus. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think done the right way, they do not have to be at odds. The problem is (and I know this is at the heart of the reluctance to answer my question)... the minute you put some sort of "guideline" about numbers and percentages down, it starts to become a matter of "lets vote and see who wins". In article space this is probably bad and might be deadly to article integrity. However, in policy space, it may not be quite as bad. Particularly as long as WP:CCC is remembered. But, there should be focus on using polling as a tool to arrive at and document consensus.

I think, for example, that a position that does not take at least the majority position, cannot claim to have consensus. However, it may be appropriate to say that for consensus, the position must be even stronger than that ... a supermajority. Thus, discussion goes on. Some aspect of the issue is covered in detail. A poll is taken to determine directions. More discussion. Considerations of objections. Some proposals. Polls on the proposals. And so on... until supermajority "generally agrees" and only a small percentage (not necessarily all the remainder) are unwilling to agree at all. Perhaps, for example... 67% or more agree generally, 23% do not agree but consider it not worth arguing over the disagreement and 10% view it as just wrong. At this point it would seem to me that a "consensus" but not a unanimity has been achieved on that point. Then move to point 2 and repeat. When the whole thing is done, and a final document or concept is produced in which everyone had a hand and their opinions were considered. Along the way, consensus has been both "developed" through discussion and "validated" through a count. If at some point at least 2/3 of the people do not agree, it should be re-worked until at least that many do -- or left alone (no consensus).

Perhaps the number is not 2/3. Maybe it is 3/4. Or maybe 90%.

If the minority feel abused, there should be an appeal process, like Request for Comment or Mediation that looks specifically at the issue: was their view given reasonable consideration prior to the completion of the matter? If the minority do not feel that they were abused or that their ideas were not taken into account but they still just disagree, that would tend to further confirm consensus... just not unanimity.

Incidentally, I think, when it comes to policy, it is ok to "campaign" for a position among users and to invite others to the discussion. The more the better. --Blue Tie 22:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think codifying numbers or percentages for determining whether a poll has validated consensus is something that will, ahem, get any consensus. But I do agree with your general portrayal of how "votes" and polls play a role in discussion without replacing it.

However, I disagree about why "nebulous consensus" and polls don't conflict: nebulous consensus simply doesn't apply at any level where polling can be used. Nebulousness of consensus exists at the level of the whole community and is accepted as an unavoidable limitation due to the size of the community. Nebulousness of consensus is not accepted at the level where polls are used in practice, though: when deciding what the consensus is of a specific set of active editors discussing an issue. Nebulousness there is synonymous with "no consensus" or "disagreement". — Saxifrage ✎ 00:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not know if we agree or disagree after reading that! I think that often a few editors can wikiedit and discuss an article without a need for any sort of numerical analysis. I think that breaks down when the number of editors increases, or the overall degree of disagreement increases. I also think it increases in areas such as policy where it is not so much a matter of fact as it is a matter of opinion. In these cases, I think polling helps understand the nature of the division and may also help provide a bridge if done well. --Blue Tie 00:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Explain to me why this is needed if we have WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a Democracy and the meta essays? -- Ned Scott 01:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, re: WP:CHILD, that example just shows how the real motivation behind all of this is Radiant's frustration in his push for other guidelines. Why are we even entertaining this idea anymore? -- Ned Scott 01:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• That's obviously false, since WP:CHILD is now at arbcom. It would be desirable to avoid similar problems in the future, though. >Radiant< 09:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but I feel that the idea that "Voting is Evil" has badly influenced wikipedia and I want to see things improve. Furthermore, Radiant! has previously declared that this is consensus because it is standard practice. I disagree. But if I do not register and activate that disagreement with arguments, then his position becomes "True" by default. So that is why I am here.

Incidentally, I also happen to think that the phrasing in WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a Democracy is regrettable. I would change it as follows: "Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. In difficult cases. Sometimes, straw polls or votes may be conducted to also help determine and validate consensus, but are to be used with editors should exercise caution and not to be treated as binding votes. allow a polling process to minimize or curtail a discussion leading to an agreed upon solution. In particular, editors are encouraged to talk back and forth to improve the articles in a manner that all can accept and editors with minority positions should be heard and their concerns given a full and fair treatment.".

Finally, I would suggest that dismissing Radiant's efforts as just frustration may not be in the spirit of assuming good faith. I happen to think he believes this is for the good of the encyclopedia. --Blue Tie 02:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

We have frequently used voting to resolve contentious issues

We have employed voting to resolve contentious issues of Wikipedia policy. For a few examples, see Wikipedia:Arbitration policy ratification vote, Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/G4, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/1, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/10, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/11, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/13, and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Blatant copyvio material. The Requests for adminship process is effectively a vote in most cases, because it is extraordinarily rare for an RFA to succeed with the support of less than 75% of the established users who comment on it. Carnildo's recent RFA attracted significant controversy precisely because its outcome was an exception to the usual practice. The claim that voting is strongly disfavored on Wikipedia simply does not comport with current practices. Thus, this essay should not be guideline. John254 22:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Very well said. In fact, that's exactly what I've been saying. This being a guidline goes against the practices of many Wikipedians and Administrators, thus it should be kept as an essay, regardless of wether or not Radiant! wants people to read it.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 22:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• None of the links John cites are current practice (the newest of those citations is a year old). We have enacted several policies through a vote in the past, and we have enacted more policies without voting. Also, these citations are extreme examples of issues debated for months before a vote was called. Voting remains discouraged (and not forbidden), as well as often used ill-advisedly. By the way the ArbCom ratification vote is a textbook example of how not to hold a vote. >Radiant< 22:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a consensus that it is a textbook example of how not to hold a vote or are you declaring that there is actually a verifiable source that declares that this procedure was simply wrong? --Blue Tie 22:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Check the history. The textbook error lies in leaving the vote open forever, which has led to people believing they could "halt" the arbitration committee a year later by gathering a bunch of people to vote against it. Needless to say that didn't work, but it did cause an unnecessary mess that way. >Radiant< 22:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Checking the history, I see that the vote was held open 1 week, not forever. It was not protected though. Is that what you mean? That vote pages should be protected?--Blue Tie 23:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• [4]. "This is a rolling vote, which means that further votes and expressions of support or opposition are very welcome". That is the problem. It was solved several months ago, though. >Radiant< 09:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

First you say we don't vote at all and never have voted, then you say we vote very rarley, and now you say we only voted a year ago. You know what I think? I think you're making this shit up as you go along, and you're desperatly trying to defend the article because of a WP:OWN issue. We vote frequently on Wikipedia. Straw Polls are used thousands of times a day. We vote in AfDs. We vote in the Board of Trustees Elections. We vote for the ArbCom thing. Saying voting is discouraged or against the rules is saying that all of the people participating in the things listed above are breaking the rules, and should be blocked. That is what this "guidline" says. Nothing you say or do can change the fact that we do vote on Wikipedia, and very often at that. We vote, and discuss each others opinions.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 23:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Voting is current practice to my knowledge—check out Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign/Final draft vote for a recent example. In fact, I am in the process of writing a script to help with the approval voting process; if voting were not current practice I wouldn't bother devoting my time to coding it. --DavidHOzAu 23:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, we do vote on standards. I had added a section on that several weeks ago. >Radiant< 09:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

--- Connection problems.... I am having a hard time with wikipedia right now. Probably cannot continue discussion. --Blue Tie 23:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any need to enact this as a guideline. We vote on stuff all the time, it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise. BUT there is a big difference between a vote sensu lato and a simple majority vote. To be honest, I've never thought of the two as synonymous, and I don't see it as at all counterintuitive that a vote might be decided in favour of the minority- it happens in real life all the time (although in fairness AfD and RfA are effectively supermajority votes, and in my opinion the better for it). All this "WP Is not a vote" stuff reminds me (and no offence to anyone is intended) of a kind of zombie mantra, that everyone repeats without actually thinking about whether or not it actually chimes with reality. We already have WP:Not a Democracy, which actually is accurate and which is widely accepted. Not sure why we need to extend this fallacy even further. Badgerpatrol 03:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• I believe that "AFD is not a vote" should be read as shorthand for "AFD is not decided by vote counting". >Radiant< 09:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Interestingly, someone placed a "This is not a vote" template on an active RFA. >Radiant< 09:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yet the RfA policy actually calls it a vote. So they were in error--Blue Tie 17:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote/Draft

There you go. Voting is (of course) not forbidden, but people are encouraged to discuss things.

1. AFD is not a majority vote, and people are encouraged to discuss on it rather than merely saying "k/d" and leaving.
2. Policy/guidelines are not ratified by voting on them, with 3RR and parts of CSD as a historical exception.
3. Standards are chosen by voting, such as the sidebar redesign.
4. We also vote on people, e.g. on RFA, but this is subject to interpretation by the 'crats, and again people are encouraged to discuss rather than merely saying "s/o" and leaving.
5. Feature requests are decided upon by developers, who have more important arguments to consider such as server load.
6. Parliamentary-style motions and votes are ineffective.

I'm quite confident this describes current practice. Feedback and such welcome. >Radiant< 09:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

That looks good to me. I agree that it accurately describes current practice.

Given the increasing overlap with Wikipedia:Straw polls, I strongly suggest merging the two pages together to form Wikipedia:Polling. This title is entirely neutral (neither condemning nor condoning polling) and it would encourage users to actually read the page instead of parroting a catchphrase that they don't fully understand. —David Levy 12:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

A good description for new users who misunderstand the above discussions. --InShaneee 14:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Radiant!'s description describes current practice well. The part that is missing, that baffle's new and old users alike, is how Wikipedia changes. Many conflicts occur when a minority of very well intentioned people propose a different way of doing things that goes against the established consensus. Often, these proposals eventually get accepted after a long, difficult, and sometimes painful process. It would help to add a description of how things change:

1. Change occurs slowly. Often starting with an experiment in a small corner of Wikipedia. Experiments should be encouraged as long as they do not cause major disruptions, and are labeled as experiments.
2. When consensus is not clear, multiple experiments should be encouraged.
3. If experiments catch on to the point that they become the norm, they can be considered to be approved by the community, and written into policy.
4. Change is evolutionary, not revolutionary. Major changes usually only happen in small steps. Revolutionary changes usually only come from edicts or software updates.
5. Evolutionary change towards major changes that distrupt or threaten the pillars of Wikipedia must be prevented from continuing to evolve for the sake of the project.

--Samuel Wantman 16:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd reduce that to a single point, if that, since it isn't just about voting. --InShaneee 17:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I still think the idea that this is needed is a misconception and would most likely result in instructions creep. However, David's idea about merging this with the Straw polls page and making a Wikipedia:Polling page would likely take care of part of this concern. It would work with our existing guidelines rather than piling one on top of another. I like the idea and think we should explore it.

And I'm sure someone has probably pointed this out, but it should be noted that how polling is used isn't always to decide final outcome. Sometimes what you are polling about isn't about the proposed resolution at all.

I really don't like the wording of the Draft page; not because I agree or disagree with it, but because it attempts to address specific issues, making it a target for people to nitpick and try to find loopholes. The section on "Motions" seems badly done, because it's not talking about how a poll or vote is being used. Rather, it seems to be an attempt to scare off newbies than actually being a guideline. Less is more, and we don't need silly little sections talking about "Motions" or "Feature requests" to drive our point. For one, it doesn't matter whether or not we had voted on a lot of polices in the past, because that doesn't tell us if it was or wasn't a bad idea.

The wording on WP:NOT is probably the best way to sum up our view on voting/polling. If we want to expand on that in the form of a guideline, then ok, but we shouldn't try to redefine it, which is what this proposal seems to be doing (intently or not). -- Ned Scott 19:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that the bit on motions isn't all that useful. On the other hand, some people have a tendency to call a vote on feature requests, under the impression that the devs are more likely to listen if more people want a feature. Also, while it is true that whether we had voted in the past doesn't tell us if it was a good idea, the fact is that several people have been using precisely that argument, that since we have voted at some point in the past, voting must therefore be a good idea. >Radiant< 15:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a few of the problems with Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote/Draft

The statement that "We have historically voted on a select few policies (WP:3RR, WP:ArbCom and the older parts of WP:CSD)" is unverifiable. We have a relatively large number of policies, and it would require weeks of research to carefully read through all of the talk page archives for every single policy to determine if they contain or link to additional votes which have been used to determine policy. The claim that "No guideline was ever enacted through a vote." is unverifiable for a similar reason.

Moreover, the assertion that "We have historically voted on a select few policies (WP:3RR, WP:ArbCom and the older parts of WP:CSD)", even if true, is misleading. Many non-contentious policy enactments and amendments have been effectuated without voting; consequently, the relatively small percentage of Wikipedia's total policy that has been created as a result of voting is unrepresentative of the extent to which voting has been used to resolve contentious policy matters.

The statement that "In all other cases, policy was decided through discussion." is factually incorrect. This certainly is not an example of deciding policy through discussion. Indeed, the persistent inability of discussion to resolve policy disputes practically necessitates the intervention of the Wikimedia Foundation or the Arbitration Committee to avoid massive edit warring on policy pages -- such as that seen on WP:DDV and WP:CHILD -- when there is strong resistance to resolving policy disputes by voting. Perhaps most instructive is the fact that the Arbitration Committee itself uses voting as an internal decision-making mechanism to avoid the gridlock that might ensue if it relied entirely on "discussion-based" consensus.

The assertion that "if a proposal is controversial, doing a headcount to see where the majority lies will not resolve the controversy, and may polarize it further. Controversy may spill onto the poll itself, causing debate on its mechanics." is inconsistent with Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_vs._supermajority, which states that supermajority support for a proposal can indicate consensus. Polling is particularly useful when an extremely small but vocal minority is creating the appearance of a dispute in discussions; under such circumstances, polling may be valuable to illustrate the outcome that most established users favor. John254 04:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• In response to the above - the items alleged to be unverifiable can, if you don't want to trawl through the history, easily be verified by asking some of the oldbies. The CSD mentioned that Danny inserted is, at present, under discussion, and was discussed earlier on the mailing list; discussion does not have to take place on the policy talk page. The paragraph on WP:CON that you cite states that "simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate", so that is not in contradiction with the draft. >Radiant< 15:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I would dispute whether "the items alleged to be unverifiable can, if you don't want to trawl through the history, easily be verified by asking some of the oldbies." For instance, Phil Sandifer claimed that "The fact of the matter is, Wikipedia has a longstanding tradition of avoiding votes, and not taking votes all that seriously. The amount of major policy that has been decided by vote currently stands more or less at one piece - blocking for 3RR violations." [5], an assertion which is contradicted by the existence of Wikipedia:Arbitration policy ratification vote, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/G4, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/1, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/10, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/11, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/13, and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Blatant copyvio material. Furthermore, Phil Sandifer himself made major edits to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration policy ratification vote [6] [7]. Now, I'm going to assume good faith, and presume that Phil Sandifer merely forgot about the existence of the Arbitration policy ratification vote whose talk page he himself edited. This, however, compels the conclusion that "the items alleged to be unverifiable" can not "easily be verified by asking some of the oldbies", because they might honestly not recall the existence of past votes that were used to enact or amend policies or guidelines.

This edit was indeed preceded by a large quantity of discussion concerning the utility of CSD G11. Nonetheless, this edit is in fact representative of a Wikimedia Foundation action that authoritatively resolved the question of whether or not CSD G11 should exist. Therefore, this edit does not represent policy making through "discussion based" consensus.

Perhaps the most important question here, however, is whether discussion-based consensus alone is capable of resolving policy disputes. The recent edit wars over the status of WP:DDV, WP:CHILD, and CSD G11 (before this edit) would seem to constitute examples of the inability of discussion-based consensus to resolve contentious issues. By contrast, Wikipedia:Arbitration policy ratification vote, Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/G4, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/1, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/10, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/11, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/13, and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Blatant copyvio material did resolve the questions that were voted upon. Perhaps we need Wikipedia:Voting is a necessary evil as a guideline :) John254 00:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• You are generalizing. You can't point to a few cases of voting and conclude from that that voting always works - and you can't point to a few cases presently under discussion where you claim consensus failed (a claim which is disputed) and conclude from that that consensus does not work. Phil correctly states that Wikipedia discourages voting, and it is reasonable for him to not remember every precedent since by his own admission (check his user page) he works by IAR and common sense rather than using the policy pages.
• You may want to look at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/4 and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/5, all of which were voted down and yet enacted anyway. There's also the fact that all these votes refer to clear-cut one-liner policy, and you cannot assume the same strategy works for more complex policy, or for guidelines. And as explained a couple sections up, the fact that we have voted at some point in the past does not imply that we have decided that voting is a good idea. Part of the wikevolution is learning from past mistakes (i.e. things similar to what you just showed votes for have in the past year been decided without voting, e.g. on CSD). >Radiant< 09:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it seems that the recent edit wars over the status of WP:DDV, WP:CHILD, and CSD G11 are typical examples of the inability of purely discussion-based, non-quantitative consensus to resolve policy disputes. Furthermore, the "non-notable groups" addition to CSD A7 portions of which were voted down in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3 and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/5 was added to CSD A7 six months later as shown here. And, (drumroll please) consensus for the "non-notable groups" addition to CSD A7 was determined as a result of the vote linked here. Perhaps the most intriguing part of this affair, however, is that Radiant! himself determined the existence of consensus for the "non-notable groups" addition to CSD A7 in the following manner:

That's 76% support after three weeks, in a high-visibility place and advertised in many others. Also, several of the oppose-voters object to the wording rather than the spirit. The proposal has obviously met consensus. I'll add it to WP:CSD now...[8]

Despite claims that little of Wikipedia policy has been enacted and amended using voting, we keep discovering more and more votes used to make policy :) John254 00:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that there are flaws with the present system (or lack thereof) for making policy/guidelines. I disagree that voting would be an improvement. There's also the fact that all these votes refer to clear-cut one-liner policy, and you cannot assume the same strategy works for more complex policy, or for guidelines. >Radiant< 09:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Eric was elected. Yes or no? Arbcom votes on its cases. Yes or no? WAS 4.250 05:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Please read the draft. It specifically stated that we do vote on people. I'll add a line on the ArbCom. >Radiant< 09:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

My Objections to the new Draft

HUGE Problem with the following statement (and the whole section that is involved):

• Statement: Policy and guidelines are not ratified through a vote. People sometimes think that a page cannot be a guideline if it wasn't voted upon, but on Wikipedia this is not the case. ... this means that is not necessary, and in many cases unwise, to call a vote or straw poll on a proposed policy or guideline.

As long as this statement is in here, I can't support this even as an essay; Particularly with NO CLEAR IDEA OF WHAT CONSENSUS IS, this is such a bad idea it can never be rescued. Policies and Guidelines are GOVERNANCE. Either this is decided by some reasonable and validatable process or I can't support it. What are reasonable and validatable methods? I can think of three but there could be more:

1. The OWNING ENTITY with legal authority declares things to be a certain way by FIAT and ANNOUNCEMENT
2. A selected and accountable (electable) GROUP formulates and decides upon such matters and ANNOUNCES them.
3. The COMMUNITY decides with a WIDELY PROCLAIMED VOTE to VALIDATE the view.

However, a "self selected" group without accountability, under a system where "consensus" is not defined should NOT have authority to declare that their idea is policy. I feel very strongly about this.

Important problems with the following statements:

• Title: Discuss, Don't Vote. Sets up the view that discussion and polling are necessarily not integrated functions.
• Statement:"Decisions on Wikipedia are made by consensus" No definition as to what consensus means. Hence the meaning behind this statement is vague and easy to manipulate.
• Statement: "it is preferred on Wikipedia to discuss issues rather than formally voting on them." Establishes the notion that discussion and voting are necessarily opposites.

I have QUESTIONS about the following statements:

• Statement: "Indeed, these processes can be 'decided' in favor of the minority."

Is there an instance where such a decision in the minority actually occurred? (Ignoring sockpuppet issues). How do we know that was "consensus" other than simply a "declaration" by the minority that they have consensus? Indeed, how can that be "consensus" by any reasonable definition of the word?

• Statement: "Once it has been decided by consensus to standardize an issue "

How is consensus to be objectively validated to be sure that it really and reasonably exists? What is the test for a "consensus failed"?

I actually like this statement but I do not see where it is necessary

"People Whether certain people are trusted for certain functions is put to a community vote, in particular on WP:RFA and with the ArbCom election. However, in both cases the vote results are subject to interpretation by the party who makes the decision (i.e. the bureaucrats or Jimbo). There is no exact "target" percentage that forms the cutoff point. Again, in these processes it is preferable if people discuss, ask questions of the candidate, and state their reasonings, rather than simply voting "yes" or "no" with no further comment."

--Blue Tie 15:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

For good or for bad, right now you can edit policy and guideline pages and people do and some of their changes remain unreverted and no votes are conducted normally in this process. This is how things are at the moment. My point is simply that not liking it doesn't stop it from being so. WAS 4.250 16:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that is what happens, particularly for changes and recently I saw it not be a good thing. I saw a change that had been, in one form or another, enacted into policy for 8 months. The introduction into policy was simply made by edit. It was not challenged at the time, but was later weakly challenged. However, some editors did not like it and challenged more aggressively. Several discussions and polls showed support in the direction of this change of between 66 and 82%. Yet, the change was removed -- by what seems to me to be a minority -- and then protected by an Admin who had been involved in the dispute. To avoid further edit wars, the version with that popular change removed has been preserved. The people who removed it "declared" consensus for that removal.

All-in-all, it is squirrelly and vague a process and standard. However, if it is that way by default because we have not codified a formal system, THAT is one thing (chiefly neglect). But if we codify it as a formal rule, then we declare that it is certainly the way it should" be and THAT is what I disagree with. So to me there is a difference between benighn neglect and intentional enforcement of dysfunctionality. --Blue Tie 13:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The complaint that consensus isn't defined doesn't really apply, because it remains that consensus is a core thing at Wikipedia. Defining it is far beyond the scope of this page. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem about the problem of defining it being beyond the scope of this page, but when that condition exists, a policy that rests upon the vague and shifting sands of reliance upon consensus, is fundamentally flawed. --Blue Tie 13:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That's just how Wikipedia is structured, and some see it as an advantage, others as a flaw. The fact remains that Wikipedia operates by consensus, even if we have a hard time defining it on paper. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't buy the idea that we have a "hard time defining it on paper". I think we refuse to do so. I believe that there is a refusal to define it. Consensus -- even in the way wikipedia uses it -- has been defined by others so definitions exist. But (at least some) wikpedians refuse to do this yet at the same time they rely upon consensus as a standard. Any "standard" which is undefined is not a standard and yet, supposedly consensus is one of the key standards. It is not a minor flaw in the process. As it applies here... "What is the consensus regarding this policy?" "Who says?" "How do we know that they are right?" I shake my head to see a slavish adherence to this dysfunctional concept when it causes obvious problems. --Blue Tie 12:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I would agree, to an extent; I don't really think it's dysfunctional, but I think we should acknowledge that there are two principal decision-making processes at Wikipedia: consensus and arbitration. (Or if you prefer, dialogue and fiat.) It is, at least, somewhat confusing to speak of arbitration as consensus, as seems to have been done at some points in this discussion. The highest level of arbitration would be Arbcom, but it is also present whenever individual users step in to solve problems on their own. Both arbitration and consensus arise directly from the wiki process, and each meets the deficiencies of the other. Without appropriate decisions by fiat, the community would collapse under its own weight; without a consensus on core beliefs and policy, the community would dissolve.

The important point of DDV , I think, is that while polling can provide either a guide for arbitration (a guide which is usually followed by the closer) or an opportunity to forge a new consensus, the vote itself decides nothing. -- Visviva 15:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that saying the vote itself can decide nothing is a mistake of sorts. I will go to an example. When the various factions were meeting in Philadephia to craft a new Constitution of the United States, there was serious doubt about whether they could succeed. The divisions were too great and there was a doubt that consensus could be achieved. How did they go about it? They discussed each and every issue. Down to discussing individual word choices in a phrase. (You would be surprised about how many modern constitutional issues were raised even then -- and specific wording proposed regarding those issues, but I digress). Over time as they discussed the matters they would settle on two or three proposals. They would then vote on these proposals, typically requiring a supermajority to pass. When things did not pass, they would be thrashed about and thrashed about until a general agreement was reached. Even, sometimes, when things did pass, further discussion and votes would occur to refine the matter. Then, after a clause or paragraph or section had been crafted, they would vote again. Finally the whole document was agreed to. By breaking the problems into tiny pieces, discussing it and coming to a group decision, it gave everyone the chance to be heard -- everyone felt that they got some say and some piece of the action. Did the votes decide things? Not exactly. The votes helped the members decide things. It was not the votes that decided, it was the members. However the votes helped develop consensus and gave focus to discussions. --Blue Tie 11:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Very well put, that last point. That cuts to the heart of this dispute. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

On the vagueness of the definition of consensus, yes, it's deliberately so. As I was trying to say above (but failing I see, on re-reading) is that the vagueness is considered an advantage by some, a flaw by others. I'm of the former. If consensus were formalised, then it would become a rule that could be used to beat people over the head and so be self-defeating. As it stands, people who try to beat others over the head with "consensus" simply fail because it can't be wikilawyered. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I can see both sides of the issue. I agree that if it is defined too narrowly it can be used as a club. But here is my problem: There seems to be a "binary" approach to this problem. Black and white. True or false. If we have a vote, it is necessarily binary and unnecessarily divisive. To me this is simply not so. I suspect that it is a lack of familiarity with systems for conflict resolution and consensus building in groups that involve polling -- even though MOST such systems do include votes or polls. Even on something so supposedly binary as a vote, there could be better guidelines that reduce conflict. For example: Without some sort of arbitration a person cannot claim consensus contrary to the majority. This is not to say that a majority is consensus, but you cannot claim it if at least half of the people disagree. Just that one clarification alone, which is not unreasonable, would be a big improvement. There are more, that can retain a huge degree of flexibility and retain a focus on discussion yet not leave things entirely vague.

And I further note that there is a distinct difference between the notion of consensus in article editing vs consensus on Policy and Guidelines. These latter items, as elements of governance are even more appropriately decided by polling and votes than content would be.

--Blue Tie 11:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Blue Tie. (Note: this will hopefully be my first and last post here for the week.) When I made my first post to this page, I had just come from Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign#mockups by letter where we had gone through 29 variants of the proposal using ordinary discussion and voting-like discussion. (For the record, we eventually reached a point we simply couldn't decide what to do because either option was just as good, and :drumroll: we had a straw poll that most of you took part in.) Anyway, it was apparent all the way back then that straw polls have a place on Wikipedia, and that discussion often takes on a straw-poll-like feel despite the lack of bold leading words, (ala AfD,) especially when discussion is over "which one is better".

I have observed that discussion and voting are often the same and go through the same motions — ruling out one of these implies ruling out the other. I'm glad to see that the article is finally moving in the right direction; let's keep it up. --DavidHOzAu 08:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• I have to respond to Blue Tie by saying that it's not nearly as binary as he claims. Despite what some people seem to think, we're not writing a policy here to forbid voting. That would be black and white. Rather, we're writing a guideline that discourages voting. That's pretty gray and in the middle. The most important thing is that people should think of AFD (et al) as a discussion, and be encouraged to discuss in it, not simply select an option and leave. (Radiant) 15:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

My general concerns about DDV

I think that voting is evil is somewhat outdated. I agree that voting is a distant second best to true consensus, but it seems to me that a lot of disputes are resolved by something worse than both consensus and voting, a sort of Darwinian struggle.

• True consensus: This is obviously the best case. As I understand WP:CONSENSUS, however, true consensus means you keep chewing on the problem until everyone, or very nearly everyone, agrees.

• Darwinian "consensus": Lately, it seems to me that when someone declares consensus, they mean that they (1) are in the apparent majority, (2) have declared "we have consensus" and (3) willing to edit war to get what they want. (Of course, because they have "consensus", they aren't edit warring, just the minority editors). A vote is inconvenient in these cases not because it polarizes opinion, but because it records the absense of consensus.

On the other hand, I feel strongly that a lot of "outside opinion" procedures such as RFC's are essentially more like polling than they are not. Rarely, an RFC can convince someone in a dispute that they are mistaken about a core point, by citing to a relevant policy that no one has considered, or by finding a reliable source to replace a blog source. More often, RFC's work (if they work at all) by numerical pile-on -- when the editors see that many other editors (particularly ones they respect) make a particular judgment call the other way, they may change their mind, or at least disagree with but respect the "consensus." However, IMHO, it's the "votes" that do it, plus the identity and reputation of the voters, much more than the arguments.

Just my two cents, TheronJ 14:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems like you are describing a true consensus to respect the vote.  :-) I don't mean to be fatuous... I think that the real reason voting is harmful is that it isn't native to the wiki process. Wikis evolve through a) individual action, and b) community consensus (in practice mostly negative consensus, i.e. a general unwillingness to accept certain changes). Voting creates a dangerous illusion that the outcome of the vote has some force of its own. But in practice a vote accomplishes nothing unless either a) a person with some special power (usually an admin) boldly chooses to accept its outcome, such as by deleting or moving a page, or b) the community shows a true consensus to abide by the result. In other words, again, voting can be a useful tool to guide arbitration or community practice. But the vote itself accomplishes nothing. Pretending otherwise puts us at odds with Wikipedia's very nature, and feeds into all sorts of misguided instruction creep. Voting is best avoided, in part, because it encourages a faulty conception of what this project is all about. -- Visviva 16:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that RFC is a poor example in that it fails more often than not. (Radiant) 15:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Draft

Draft copied over the old wording, with some changes per the above comments. Any more comments are, of course, welcome. (Radiant) 15:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

As Blue Tie points out, it's still anti-polling. I don't mind it being anti-voting, but a blanket discouragement to not use straw polls is a disservice to those who find themselves in situations where a straw poll is exactly the right choice (done right, of course). I'd suggest that language on the proper use of polls ("proper" often meaning not using one) should be part of this if it's to be a guideline. I'd also like to see it moved to something like Wikipedia:Voting (a redirect to WP:STRAW right now) or somesuch, but that's a minor quibble compared to the anti-poll problems. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• That is reasonable. I believe this is mostly about article content, or did you have something else in mind? (Radiant) 12:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  Sorry, I'm failing to parse that properly. Could you rephrase that? — Saxifrage ✎ 23:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Oops :) I meant that it seems you believe a section on "voting on article content" is missing. E.g. list some situations where it is or is not useful. Is that correct? (Radiant) 09:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I oppose this as a guideline or a policy

The new draft is much better than the previous draft. However, this still suffers from the same error as the previous version did:

It is anti-voting

I do not have a problem with a policy or guideline being PRO-DISCUSSION.

But I am opposed to a policy or guideline being ANTI-VOTING

And this one is. Voting, polling or whatever you want to call it is used by wikipedia for difficult things, in cases of large numbers of people being involved or where a clear decision is required. So anti-voting is inappropriate since it is an important part of wikipedia process already.

But even more fundamentally, voting and polling are methods used to develop consensus. They are methods that are used by almost ALL (I actually cannot think of any examples to the contrary) validated, scientifically developed methods for arriving at consensus... even methods that are very low in persuasive pressure and that rely mostly upon discussion ... still use voting. To be anti-voting is, to me, to be the same thing as anti-consensus. That may not be the intentional purpose but throwing out one of the most important means for arriving at consensus has that result whether intended or not.

And finally, voting provides the SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE that consensus has been achieved. It is not just someone standing up and declaring it to be so.

Thus, I oppose this as a guideline or a policy. I see it as a hammer to beat up people who want to use polls and votes for legitimate consensus building purposes. --Blue Tie 16:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Once more, this is a guideline to discourage voting, not a policy to forbid voting altogether. There is no contradiction here: this page is a documentation of the status quo, whereas your recent proposal is an attempt to amend the status quo, and if it succeeds at that, the documentation will change accordingly. If you find any statement on this page to be factually incorrect, please point it out. But we base guidelines on what does happen, not on what some believe should happen. (Radiant) 17:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Ok. I do not want a guideline with the specific intent to discourage voting. I consider it inherently anti-consensus. --Blue Tie 21:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Once more, if you find any statement on this page to be factually incorrect, please point it out. But we base guidelines on what does happen, not on what some believe should happen. You misunderstand consensus if you believe that discouraging voting is detrimental to consensus, or if you believe that consensus needs to be shown by voting. Indeed, for consensus, simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate. (Radiant) 00:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, for example, I disagree that decisions are based upon consensus. I realize that is what we say, but what actually happens is that way sometimes and other times it is distinctly different. I also disagree that "we" base guidelines on what does happen not on what some believe should happen. I know that is your statement, but I do not agree that it is, in fact, true. I believe that you misunderstand consensus if you believe that discouraging voting is not detrimental to consensus and I believe that you do not understand the concept of validating consensus if you do not see how a poll does this. Indeed, for consensus, simple vote counting is the single most common method described in various methods used in scientifically established methodologies for reaching group decisions. --Blue Tie 00:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way... I liked your old signature better!--Blue Tie 00:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Simply put, Wikipedia is not based on "scientifically established methodologies for reaching group decisions". As Kim likes to say, Wikipedia is one of those things that in theory could never work - except that in practice, it does. The phrase "simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate" is part of our longstanding description of consensus. Wikipedia is a unique community in scope, purpose and structure, and it is not generally bound by whatever rules apply in more common communities. (Radiant) 00:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I consider it anti-consensus to reject well developed methods for arriving at consensus. And I have had a brief discussion with Kim about this quote and said that there is no reason to imagine that wikipedia, in theory cannot work. Kim essentially agreed with me. Wikipedia is not in anyway special or different from other communities of people. That is a myth. --Blue Tie 04:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• We are an order of magnitude larger, for one. Basically, you're asserting that Wikipedia cannot work well except by way of these scientifically established methodologies. I assert that it is self-evident that Wikipedia does in fact work well, and does not follow these methodologies. Thus theory is contradicted by practice. A central tenet to science is that in such cases, theory is wrong. (Radiant) 09:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

We are an order of magnitude larger than what? England? Brazil? The United States? India? Switzerland? As far as working well, I think that would depend upon how you define "well". By my definition it is self evident it does NOT work well unless it uses ALL the tools for coming to consensus. And often, perhaps even usually, it does use them all. --Blue Tie 17:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Blue Tie, I do not think this should be a guideline or policy. Voting, polling, etc. are used in various circumstances on Wikipedia and are sometimes helpful. Even in a content dispute, a properly constructed poll (usually it would have to have multiple options) is better than endless discussion and warring. The same is true for determinations of policy. Even if one accepts the unworkable notion of policy being "descriptive" rather than "prescriptive," this proposal is not an accurate description of how Wikipedia works. I have seen people start votes, polls, etc. only to be told that "this is not how we do it on Wikipedia," sometimes with a citation to this very page or its predecessor. If policy or guidelines were merely descriptions of what occurs, the policy or guideline against polling would vanish simply by the act of a few editors starting polls. This is probably just another way of saying that the "policy by description" thing is a fallacy. If policy were really determined by describing what occurs in practice, there would never be a valid occasion to ever mention a policy as a reason why someone shouldn't be doing something that they are doing. The fact that the policy is not being followed would be evidence that it is not a policy at all. And I realize that one violation would not be enough, but the fact that various Wikipedia policies have to be cited so often in various discussions means that there really is no consensus for them. That does not mean they shouldn't be policy; it only confirms that to a degree, policy-making on Wikipedia is indeed prescriptive, and must be if the project is to function. 6SJ7 01:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• You are making the straw man that this is a policy to forbid voting. It is not. It is a guideline to discourage voting, so that it isn't used inappropriately; and your own statement admits that it is, indeed, discouraged. The statement that we can't have such a guideline because sometimes people start polls anyway is akin to saying that we can't have a spelling guide because sometimes people spell differently. You might want to read this essay which explains how guidelines are descriptive; and please point me to any statement on the (now reworded) page that is factually incorrect. (Radiant) 09:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Just dropping by from village pump (policy). The content of the page doesn't feel very anti-voting to me. With comments such as "Unless one of them is clearly preferred, an approval vote is recommended to select the best-liked standard" (taken from the "Standards" section of the page), i feel this is not so much against the use of voting, but just against putting too much significance/importance on voting and vote results. To me, it's really the title of the article that is so "anti-voting". Perhaps a title such as "Discuss, don't just vote" may be better in showing how discussion is defintely better, but at the same time doesn't completely replace voting? --`/aksha 12:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Radiant, I am not making a straw man argument. It was not me who included the words "Don't vote" in the title of this essay, guideline or whatever it is. It was not me who named its predecessor "Voting is Evil." (I suspect you didn't either, but I know you did cite it somewhere before the name was changed.) The words "don't vote" somehow suggest an antipathy to voting. As I read on this talk page, others agree. As for WP:3P, I do not know whether any of the facts are incorrect. I do know that if this sentence, "Whenever the result of process does not correspond with policy, it means that the policy is outdated.", is accurate, then the "policy" in question is not really a policy. This is made even clearer by the idea of "no binding decisions." If all of that is really true, then what we are calling "policy" really isn't policy. It should be called a "practice" or something else, but then it shouldn't be cited anywhere as a reason why someone shouldn't do something. At most it can be referred to as the way things have been done in the past, but without any power to bind anyone in the future. That shouldn't be called a "policy", because it isn't one. 6SJ7 22:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Exactly, this shouldn't be called "policy", it should be called "guideline", which is our usual term for descriptions of common practice. Guidelines are recommendations that are expected to be treated with common sense and can have exceptions with no problems. Policy is more stringent and more official. The wording of this page suggests a discouragement to, but by no means a prohibition of, voting. (Radiant) 10:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should discourage voting, because it is seldom constructive. In particular, it is not constructive in the way that I have seen it used tediously often, in an attempt to "resolve" deep-seated controversies, or frankly any real controversies; on a wiki, votes are powerless because they can only be enforced through consensus. Unfortunately people tend to forget that WP:NOT a democracy. We need DDV (and frankly I liked the old title even better) because it warns people that voting is not a solution, except in rare cases: where (as in a value-neutral straw poll) the community is united in accepting the results of a vote, or where (as in AfD) the arbitrator closing the vote has the actual power to enforce it. Wikipedia certainly should not prohibit voting, because it is occasionally constructive in cases such as these. I agree that mentioning those exceptions would be an improvement, although per the definition of a guideline, I agree with Radiant that it isn't strictly necessary. -- Visviva 12:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Postscript: At User:Visviva/DDV, I have rearranged the page and added a few things. The specific language is not quite ready for production, but I think the three-part layout (votes that aren't votes, OK votes, not-OK votes) would help to clarify the point of this guideline. My net access is limited, so I probably won't have much time to do more work on this for a while; feel free to incorporate or ignore. -- Visviva 16:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If this is enacted as a guideline (and I don't think it should be) then the title must be changed to something more equivocal, most obviously to clearly reflect that what this is actually talking about is majority voting, and not voting per se. There is nothing wrong with voting (in fact it is essential), and we do it all the time. Whether various processes on here are actually de facto super-majority votes is another, rather tortuous issue (and whether they should be is another even more tortuous issue). Badgerpatrol 11:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• It is simply false that it's essential to decide things by vote count, or that we do this all the time (please do provide evidence of that allegation). As explained here as well as in the processes themselves, "various processes" are not in fact "de facto super-majority votes". It's not necessary to argue about what kind of votes (if any) they actually are; it is useful to educate people that (as this guideline states) they should join the discussion rather than simply stating their opinion and leaving. (Radiant) 12:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• First of all, I'd advise you to drop the adversarial tone. Secondly, please point out where exactly I make the "allegation" that we decide things by "vote count" (which I take to mean simple majority voting) "all the time", or that it is "essential" to do so? It is certainly true that respondents should actively participate in a given discussion rather than just voting and leaving- might I therefore suggest "don't just vote, discuss" as a suitable and less confusing alternative title? In actual fact, whether or not issues like AfD and especially RfA are actually super-majority votes is to say the least a controversial issue (I recall a recent massive fuss which largely centred around an RfA which was passed without a clear super-majority) and not one to be dismissed glibly. I also do not argue in the above that this putative guideline should describe the various votes we have here, of whatever variety they may be. Please actually read my comment and then respond to what I actually said rather than what you seem to think I said. Badgerpatrol 13:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Well excuse me if I misunderstood you, but in your previous post you said that "voting ... is essential ... and we do it all the time". AFD is not, and has never been, a supermajority vote; that is frequently demonstrated on WP:DRV and is not controversial. RFA is, indeed, confusing; it appears that many contributors expect it to be a supermajority vote, but the bureaucrats do not. (Radiant) 16:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• You did misunderstand me. "Voting" means "to cast one's vote", i.e. to express one's individual preference. Singularly, "a vote" is an individual expression of one's choice; collectively, "a vote" is a framework in which multiple respondents (in this case, Wikipedia editors in good standing) have the opportunity to express said choice. I have a feeling that you may be confusing "voting" sensu stricto with your own intepretation of voting- which seems to be that users express their opinion for or against a given motion and then the motion is carried (or not) according to a simple majority. I do not understand how this idea that every "vote" must be a simple majority vote propagates when in fact we have abundant examples in the everyday "real" world indicating that such a scenario is by no means intuitive- presidential elections, parliamentary elections, etc etc can, and have been decided in favour of the minority, and separately it is often the case that referenda, parliamentary votes etc. require a super-majority rather than a simple 50%+1. Voting (i.e. a collective expression of editors' will) is indeed, IMHO, absolutely essential to the project, we do indeed do it all the time- and we ought to encourage and cherish it. As I say above, whether or not processes such as AfD or RfA (and I confess that it is these two areas in which I have the most experience) actually are super-majority votes is another issue. For my own part, I think that at least for RfA (where the passing or otherwise of the motion (i.e. "promotion" to adminship) is very much a matter of individual opinion and preference) a super-majority requirement is actually valid and sensible. For AfD (which is largely an issue of policy enforcement) the waters are more muddied. Your own confusion might in fact be indicative of a more widespread mischaracterisation of what voting actually is, and for this reason (if for no other) I am unlikely to ever support a guideline with a highly misleading title like "Discuss, don't vote". If it was, for example, "Don't just vote, discuss" or "The majority doesn't always win" then I might be more inclined, although frankly I am not at all convinced that it is sensible or useful to enact this as a guideline at all, to be honest. Badgerpatrol 02:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

How does this page describe current practice?

Based on the discussion above, I understand that this page is attempting to describe current practice rather than change it. If so, I have some criticism and questions:

1. As I read it, the page currently says "polling is discouraged, except in the following seven (or so) circumstances." I'm not sure that that is true as a matter of common practice, and even if it were, I think a rename from "discuss, don't vote" would be appropriate.
2. I disagree that polling is generally discouraged as a matter of common practice. Out in the actual articles, (as opposed to the policy pages), people routinely "test the waters" with polls, with very little opposition to polls that meet WP:STRAW.
3. Is there a way to test whether polls are generally discouraged in the day-to-day functioning of Wikipedia that doesn't violate WP:POINT.
4. Is there a paragraph discussing the use of surveys contemplated by WP:STRAW and the surveys that get listed on Wikipedia:Current surveys, or are the proposal authors arguing that those pages no longer reflect current practice?
5. Why does this page describe current practice more accurately that Wikipedia:Discuss and Vote?

Thanks, TheronJ 15:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Nothing on your specific points just now, sorry... but in general, I'd note that this page, originally on Meta, is actually considerably older than WP:STRAW, so I think it's rather unfortunate that it's suddenly been re-labeled a "proposal," as if it hadn't been playing a key role in community discourse for years. -- Visviva 16:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Not quite. Polling is discouraged in deletion, featuring, policy, guidelines and feature requests. Polling on people and arbitration is not what some people think it is. The only true exception of the seven you mention is standards.
2. The page as present lacks a section on articles. It would be nice to add one; please cite some links for people "testing the waters"?
3. The most recent example is a poll for an amendment to the semi-protection policy; it gained more votes against the poll than votes for or against the amendment. Also, check WP:DDV for the various instances of the standard rebuttal that "AFD is not decided by vote counting".
4. I've noted Alphax, Brenneman, Dmcdevit, Sidaway and Bruning all stating that WP:STRAW doesn't reflect current practice. Personally, I see no reason not to take their word for it.

• HTH! (Radiant) 16:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I read most of the editors you mention to be stating that they personally don't like or use surveys. In my observation, when editors think surveys may be helpful, they use them. I don't know of any reason for you to take my word for it, other than the fact that I am perceptive and honest. Do we seriously determine "current practice" by asking Dmcdevit? I admire him/her quite a bit, but that doesn't seem like a reliable test.TheronJ 16:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Actually none of the five mentions a personal dislike; please point out where you read that? Of course I don't determine current practice by asking anyone, but barring evidence to the contrary I see no reason to doubt the word of five diverse experienced users; I believe they generally know what they're talking about (and besides, do Brenneman and Sidaway ever agree on anything? :) ). So, please point to some pages that have recently used surveys in an effecive manner. (Radiant) 16:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm an experienced user, although certainly not as experienced as the five you've mentioned. What does my word count for? I am reading between the lines of Dmc's quote, and I can't find Alphax's or Brenneman's; I still disagree that the use of polls is not common practice. A quick scan through the history of Wikipedia:Current surveys will show plenty of surveys in the past few months. I assume that there are many more surveys that didn't make the current survey list, but I can't prove it. Are you saying that those surveys were in violation of widely accepted current practice? (As to whether the surveys are effective or not, I think that's too complex a question to answer, particularly if we are solely debating the descriptive question of whether they occur).
• Given that surveys do occur, let me ask the opposite question. How many surveys that comply with WP:STRAW have been deleted in the past few months? Were the people who posted those surveys warned, and with which template? How many surveys were reported to ANI, and what was the reaction?
• (Sorry if that sounds combative. I certainly don't mean it to be -- I can see that your intentions are good; I just don't think this particular proposal is an accurate description of existing practice or likely to lead to an improvement in practice.) Thanks, TheronJ 17:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, we're definitely going to need a section on polling about articles. I think Visviva had some suggestions. Still, even there it is discouraged (and not forbidden). Polls tend to be used there when discussion fails - and indeed, the list of article surveys you mention is a lot shorter than the list of community article discussions (WP:RFC). I'll check if they match WP:STRAW, but that's really beside the point - we can certainly have both some suggestions on how to hold a survey and suggestions that in most cases we shouldn't hold one. There's no contradiction there.
  • Your question of how many STRAW-compliant surveys have been deleted is really moot, since neither this page nor STRAW calls for the deletion of surveys, nor for sanctions against people who hold surveys. I think that's the perennial misunderstanding (and/or straw man) here: This is a guideline to discourage voting, NOT a policy to forbid voting. (Radiant) 09:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Update: picking ten recent surveys from the page you mention, I find six that didn't work at all, got nearly no feedback, were premature or opposed (by which I mean the poll was opposed, not the motion was opposed); one is about standardization conforming to this page; one turned into a discussion almost immediately; one failed WP:STRAW and turned heavily controversial; and the tenth was about an article title and worked out reasonably well. Evidence suggests that voting is, indeed, problematic, and that the weakly-worded WP:STRAW is not common practice. (Radiant) 09:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Assuming that this proposal merely discourages surveys, I don't think it describes current practice any better than WP:STRAW, which also discourages surveys. For that matter, I don't think it describes current practice any better than Wikipedia:Discuss and Vote, which I think is 100% accurate in its description of current practice, albiet with a different POV. As far as constructive feedback, I would probably sign on if the proposal (1) had a less combative name; (2) had a section discussing methods of dispute resolution that were generally considered preferable to surveys, and why; (3) said that many editors dislike surveys and many like them; and (4) discussed circumstances in which surveys may be profitably used. However, since that's basically an improved version of WP:STRAW, I'm not sure we're going to agree. TheronJ 15:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, you're of course welcome to improve the page as it stands now. (1) I fail to see what's combative about asking people to talk; (2) good idea; (3) true but irrelevant; the civility policy doesn't state either that many editors are incivil; and (4) good idea once more. I see no reason why we can't improve upon WP:STRAW. (Radiant) 16:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation

From a related discussion on WT:NOT :

• [..] Most new users coming to the Wikipedia editing process and decision-making style quickly get to the misconception that "majority rules" and that they can get their way if they just recruit enough other people to say the same thing. That's not particularly surprising given the democratic ideals held by the cultures that most of our editors come from. New users as a rule try to put things up for a vote and that's nearly always a mistake. Some issues flat can not be decided by vote. We are writing an encyclopedia. Majority rule can not overturn fact (though some have tried). More often, the real problem is that a premature poll or vote tends to polarize the subsequent discussion, causing participants to harden into static positions as they seek to justify their vote. Premature polls shut down the consensus-seeking and dialog that we all desire. That's the real point of m:Voting is evil. While your statement is technically true, the softer wording [of WP:NOT] would lead to an increase in the number of premature polls and a general decrease in the quality of discussion. Experience has taught us that we really do need to discourage polls pretty strongly in order to keep actual behavior about where we want it. Rossami (talk) 04:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• It's been my personal experience that polling discourages discussion as people tend to vote and consider their job complete. Their votes are counted in "consensus" building often without any reasonable ground to them, even if their vote or reasoning is called into question and they do not respond. --Newt_ΨΦ 14:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Please explain...

Could someone that supports this essay/guideline/whatever explain in in a simple short sentence what they expect WP:DDV to accomplish? And could someone who disagrees with WP:DDV explain in a simple short sentence what they fear will happen if it becomes an accepted guideline? Cause I'm not really tracking a whole lot of difference here. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 04:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• The point is to educate (especially novice) users about the fact that (with very few exceptions) issues on Wikipedia are not, and should not be, decided by vote counting, and that representing an issue as binary tends to block a possible compromise. (Radiant) 08:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a specific page adding detail to the official Wikipedia policy that Wikipedia is not a democracy. I like it. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Then change the title and emphasis to make it clear that it pertains to vote counting and not to voting per se. Badgerpatrol 10:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason for that wording is that people should discuss rather than voting; for instance, on AFD, people are encouraged to discuss (give their meaning, respond to people, find alternatives such as merging) rather than vote ("keep ~~~~ leave"). AFD really should be thought of as a discussion rather than a vote. If people think they're voting in AFD, they get all kinds of wrong impressions; if people think they're discussing in AFD, it's more productive. (Radiant) 10:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Either the point of this is to discourage deciding issues by simple vote counting, as you state above and which I pretty much agree with, or it is to discourage voting sensu lato (i.e. an expression of one's will), which I don't agree with and which I (and other editors above) do not think chimes with reality. Let's face it, the use of "Discuss here" rather than the previous "Vote here", or editors using terms like "!Vote" rather than just plain "vote", or phraseology like "AFD really should be thought of as a discussion rather than a vote" is actually fairly unsubtle sophistry (and I mean no offence by that) designed to obfuscate the fact that we are essentially dealing with a voting framework where closers/'crats etc very rarely ignore consensus and quite rightly tend to be hauled over the coals when they do so. In actual fact, regardless of what we may or may not want them to be, it is far more parsimonious to think of processes like AfD and RfA as "votes", of a sort. To repeat, I strongly suggest that to more accurately reflect the idea that I think you are trying to convey (that users ought to participate in evolving discussions on particular topics, where they may change their own opinion or encourage others to do so, rather than just stating their judgement once and then leaving) a far less confusing and counter-intuitive title would be "Don't just vote, discuss" or similar. Badgerpatrol 10:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• The wording here is tricky. Of course everyone is free to express one's will on Wikipedia; that, after all, is the whole point. As you say, AFD closers very rarely ignore consensus - but they frequently* ignore specific "votes", and/or decide against the majority (note that "frequently" is another of those tricky words, in that it can be taken to mean "in most of the cases", which is clearly not the case here. What I mean is that it happens a couple of times per week, in a small but significant minority of AFD debates).
• The dichotomy of AFD (et al) is this: it is, strictly speaking, a vote (and note that this guideline doesn't say that it isn't). However. Novice users, if being told this, tend to get the wrong impression of AFD, and assume that (1) comments are undesirable, (2) it must be closed in favor of the majority, and/or (3) campaigning is useful. In other words, it matches the definition of "vote", but lacks the implications people tend to assume for a "vote"; it does not match the "popular meaning" (for some definition of "popular"). Not every editor can perceive this nuance. To editors who cannot (and indeed, it is those that are most in need of education on the topic), it is clearer to say that "AFD is not a vote" (note that this guideline doesn't in fact say so, but people on AFD/DRV frequently do). These editors are in fact served by making tags say "discuss here" rather than "vote here" (well, that doesn't really work on RFA, but compared to other processes RFA is the exception rather than the rule).
• But we're not just talking about AFD and RFA here. We're also talking about articles (can you vote on facts?), dispute resolution (do we vote on disputes and is the majority then right?) and proposals (are proposals ratified by vote?). In fact, those cases are more important, because AFD and RFA are watched by many advanced users, and articles/resolution/proposals not necessarily so. For all these cases, the name "don't just vote, discuss" implies that they must nevertheless be voted upon after discussion. This, again, gives people the wrong idea.
• So the problem is that people assume that this guideline is about AFD and RFA. Indeed, I've seen several people arguing that since RFA is a vote, voting cannot be discouraged. That, simply, is missing the point. It's really quite okay if people discuss without voting, even in AFD and RFA; the fact that few people actually do doesn't make it less okay. On the contrary, it is entirely not okay if people vote just about anywhere except RFA, if they're unwilling to discuss the issue. And that is why people should always be encouraged to discuss, not vote. (Radiant) 11:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Votes tend to be discounted only if they are socks. The "real world" analogy for this is voter eligibility- citizenship, age, residency, registration etc. I don't think anyone would argue with that policy. Very, very rarely is "consensus" among good-faith (non-sock) voters (which, let's face it, is usuallly taken to be synonymous with "supermajority") ignored, and on those rare occasions when it is ignored, all Hell usually breaks lose. The issues with articles themselves (where polls are rare (and "poll" I think is really a much better word than "vote" for what I think you're driving at)) and with dispute resolution (does anyone really think that the DR process is a simple vote?) are surely already better dealt with by the various articles purporting to explain what "consensus" is. I'm not sure in any case that the antidote to any possible confusion amongst new users is to direct them to this page, with a title that we all recognise as misleading and which does not resonate with reality (and hence is surely likely therefore to leave many of these new users scratching their heads). I have certainly seen many novice users participate in discussions (in good faith) where they immediately recognise that comments and discussion, whether attached to a vote or not, are most welcome. An alternative solution to enacting this as a guideline might be to construct and attach a template to be added to each situation which could be mistaken for a simple majority-rules poll outlining the ground rules, and thus removing any problems caused by ambiguous language or perceptions. Badgerpatrol 12:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see WP:DRV for several examples of closure against the majority, that were contested on DRV (which is what it's there for) and nevertheless endorsed. Hell has, so far, refrained from breaking loose about AFD. The title of this page is not misleading, it is an encouragement to "discuss, don't vote". Some people wrongly interpret this as "voting is forbidden" which would indeed be misleading. I'm glad to see that there are also novice users that understand the value of discussion over voting without needing to be told, but that's no reason not to educate the group that does. As Rossami stated earlier, "Experience has taught us that we really do need to discourage polls pretty strongly in order to keep actual behavior about where we want it." (Radiant) 12:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Since an "opposed to this" editor hasn't spoken up with a short sentence about their concerns if this becomes a guideline, I will. My concern is that it will be used to shut down polls by direct action, like removal. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to support Radiant's efforts on this page. If the concern of the "opposed to this" editors are that this policy will be used to shut down and remove polls, let's discuss when that would or would not be appropriate. If people use a poll to test the waters and explore what the range of opinions are, that is appropriate and the poll should not be shut down. If it is used to test for consensus after discussion has seemed to reach a conclusion, that is also appropriate. If a poll is presented as a vote, not being the result of a prior discussion, with language that says the results of the vote will be binding, it should be shut down and removed. If we are to allow polling, let's not call it a vote. Consensus decision making traditions use language like "test for consensus" and "voicing concerns". If these are called votes or polls, people will assume the majority rules. -- Samuel Wantman 23:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think, as an education tool, this page will be useful. I'm still dubious that it needs to be a guideline to do that, but I appreciate that those who need education the most are the ones least likely to take a lesson from a "mere" essay.

If language about when polls can be removed is included, it needs to be very restrictive. In the same way that advertising needs to be "blatant" in order to be speedy-deleted, a poll should be blatantly, clearly, obviously out-of-line in order to be removed. Really, anything else is unnecessary since a bad poll can easily be ignored. Any claims to a poll being binding or to have created a consensus is clearly shot down by pointing to WP:CON. (Though I grant that "clearly" doesn't equal "easily", but then if it's going to be hard to show people the error of their consensus-denying ways with a poll, it would have been just as hard without a poll in the picture.)

In general, I'm strongly in favour of letting polls stay on pages in all cases, and letting social Darwinism kill the bad ones. We don't need to remove the corpses from the page in order to move on without them. Many times, a failed poll is a strong indicator that the poll-creator's position is without merit and so they contribute to the discussion and the demonstration of consensus. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the offending sentence. It is better to prevent than to cure, in that we should be educating people when not to start polls rather than stopping them afterwards. I do hold that while bad polls can be ignored, the fact that most people do not ignore them can break up a discussion. (Radiant) 15:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

A possible compromise solution

Greetings fellow editors. I've just updated Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a democracy to provide a wikilink from the word "discussion" to this page. I don't think anyone can argue that the democracy section (with a link to Wikipedia:Straw polls) hasn't been that way for some time. So we have a policy page that is now pointing to both this page as well as the straw poll page. Given that such is the case wouldn't it be more logical to continue to keep the two pages and upgrade them both to guideline status and then have a better coordination between the two pages? This discussion of guideline status or not on this page has been going on for quite some time and I seriously doubt that a consensus will be arrived at without some sort of a compromise. I propose this solution as that compromise. Thoughts? (→Netscott) 05:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Originally I had objections to this guideline, but I've given it more thought. It's not so much the guideline itself that might give the "wrong" idea, but how some stuff is presented. I think we can say almost the exact same thing, but emphases less on what "not" to do. Doing this will make people less defensive about this becoming a guideline. Maybe we could title this differently, like Wikipedia:Voting (which is a redirect to Wikipedia:Straw polls), and approach the topic as "where voting fits in with Wikipedia". Like I said, we can say almost the same things, but with a different title and a different lead in, it will make people less defensive about what it suggests. Just a thought. -- Ned Scott 06:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Reading this it clicked what my trouble with this being a guideline is: the spirit that it presents is at odds with the practice, but its letter is not. This could be fixed by changing the way the ideas are presented without changing their content much, if at all. I'm big on the spirit of policies and guidelines. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Sure, what did you have in mind? Spirit is good. (Radiant) 16:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Netscott - being linked from a policy page does not confer any particular "status" on a page. Indeed, there are plenty of guidelines, essays and other things linked from policy pages. I think a reasonable compromise would be merging this and WP:STRAW. (Radiant) 16:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Radiant, you're not heading towards consensus with such thinking. Particularly so long as this page is named "Discuss, don't vote". So long as that name is kept I'm going to continue to push for two pages and coordination between the two. (→Netscott) 16:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • How is merging not a compromise? (Radiant) 16:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Merging is not a compromise because WP:STRAW talks about utilizing straw polls in dicussions... while the expression Discuss, don't vote says otherwise. (→Netscott) 16:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
      • This page discourages polling. So does WP:STRAW. This page focuses on when a poll is and isn't appropriate, STRAW focuses on what to do if it is. It seems to me the two are complementary and therefore mergeable. (Radiant) 16:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
        • These, "Discuss first, vote last" or "Discuss and refrain from voting" or "Discuss and poll only when necessary" are titles that better correspond to the WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY wording, no? (→Netscott) 16:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
          • • I like the middle one. (Radiant) 16:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
              • Good, now we're getting somewhere. Anyone else have another title that they think corresponds to this spirit? (→Netscott) 17:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

My first choice would be "surveys" or "voting", but in a pinch, I could accept "Discuss first, vote last" or "Discuss always, vote rarely." TheronJ 03:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• The problem with "discuss first, vote last" is that it implies that we must nevertheless vote (after discussion). (Radiant) 10:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want a title that discourages voting, then it should just be an essay, not a policy or guideline. It's just some peoples' opinion. If it is going to be a policy or guideline, it should tell people when to use polls and when not to, with a title that reflects a neutral position. This whole "voting is evil" nonsense, under whatever new name has been cooked up, doesn't work. The evidence is all around us. 6SJ7 02:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• This page does tell people when to use polls and when not to. Discouraging voting is not just some peoples' opinion, it is based on longstanding precedent and the fact that voting is often used inappropriately and causes problems when used so. Some people have the "gut feeling" that voting is probably a good idea; but at least on Wikipedia, this gut feeling is often wrong. (Radiant) 10:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • All true, but as I also pointed out, simply by giving the guideline a more neutral title (like taking Wikipedia:Voting) we'll likely get more support for it. -- Ned Scott 00:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Your almost-namesake proposed a number of more neutral names above. Note that most of our policy and guidelines that discourage something are named e.g. "no personal attacks". The point of this page is that we do indeed discourage voting because it often doesn't help or makes a mess, and have done so for a long time. (Radiant) 09:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Seeking feedback

Hiya,

OK, I've done some more work on User:Visviva/DDV, and am curious if people think it's moving in the right direction. I think it addresses most of the concerns raised here, although not the matter raised above of removing polls...which I'm not sure is really pertinent here anyway. I observed that Wikipedia:Dispute resolution recommends a survey as one step in the DR process, so I have added that along with other cases where polling seems to be permissible. -- Visviva 14:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a big move in the right direction - thanks for all the hard work. Some suggestions and questions:

1. Your point that surveys should never be understood to be binding is a great one, and I think it is probably the common ground around which we can build some kind of consensus. I might say it even more clearly - that while a survey should be understood as a method for clarifying issues in dispute or testing for consensus, no survey should ever be thought of as binding unless that survey leads to an actual consensus (in most cases) or to appropriate administrator/bureaucrat action (in cases like AFD and Admin nominations). You could actually have a closing sentence or two in each section that discusses current voting/quasi-voting procedures that explains what the actual decision making endpoint is of the quasi-vote (editorial consensus, bureaucrat action, etc.)
2. Your draft doesn't resolve the issue of a name. I still think "Discuss, don't vote" overstates the actual point of the proposal. "Discussion is normally better than voting" is too long, so I'm at a loss for suggestions, though. How about a neutral title like "Surveys and voting" - then the text of the proposal can speak for itself.
3. I'm not clear on why surveys are particularly unsuited to article content. Does that include fairly binary questions like "Source x" is a reliable source as used in statement "Y" or Statement "Y" is not directly supported by the sources offered, and is therefore original research?
4. I like the statement in WP:DR that surveys may be helpful to test for an existing consensus. Does it make sense to add that to your draft?

Thanks again for the good work, TheronJ 15:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• I've taken several parts from your page and added them here. Thanks! (Radiant) 16:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Theron - one of the reasons surveys are unsuitable to article content is that some people tend to vote on facts, or the suitability of unsourced information. Also, articles aren't really supposed to be stable in the first place. The problem with "surveys aren't binding" is that even the people that say in advance that they aren't, are likely to conclude afterwards that it wasn't binding but they will nevertheless follow that option because "that's what people want". (Radiant) 16:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Re your points, in no particular order: ;-)

2. I think it would not be a bad idea to have this at Wikipedia:Voting, as long as the basic principle -- namely, that voting is strongly discouraged in favor of discussion -- is maintained. Although in that case it might be nice to re-create Wikipedia:Voting is evil as a short essay, if only to balance Wikipedia:Voting is not evil.

3. I think it would include such questions, yes; except perhaps in a DR situation where canvassing might be appropriate. As I see it, these are exactly the kind of questions that must be resolved through discussion: if one editor raises valid concerns about a source, it shouldn't matter that there are 99 editors who think the source is OK.

4. I mentioned that in the "testing the waters" section, but I reckon the link to DR should be made more explicit.

1. More information on the mechanics of the non-votes wouldn't be a bad idea, although it would probably only be necessary if this was moved to Wikipedia:Voting. I share Radiant's concern over the tendency of surveys to become "retroactively binding," which I think is one reason why this page needs to discourage them in general, even when they're avowedly non-binding. It's also important to keep Wikipedia:Consensus can change, a fairly long-standing Policy, in mind; arguably, even votes which show consensus are not really binding, and even those which lead to admin action are binding only in the sense that a specific process (such as Deletion Review) must normally be followed in order to undo them.

Since chunks of the draft have already been incorporated into this page (thanks, Radiant!), I'll be leaving off work on it for now. Thanks again for the feedback. Cheers, -- Visviva 05:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What about processes that are a vote?

The title header says it all. Deletion review is a straight vote, for instance. Requests for adminiship isn't explicitly a vote, but if you get 70% support you might not get promoted, while 75% will. The simple fact remains that, even if we "Discuss," and "don't vote," we still have processes where we do vote. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• DRV was recently changed from a majority vote to a consensus-based process, a move I believe you were involved in. If you read this page, you will see that it doesn't say that we do not vote; it says discussion is preferred to voting, which is true even in DRV and RFA (witness the many questions there). "Discuss, don't vote" is not synonymous to "We do not vote", it is a recommendation. (Radiant) 16:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It was? When did this happen? The indications I was getting regarding DRV were that no one wanted to change it, and if the change did go through, no one's letting the closers know. But either way, if we're treating this as a recommendation, this needs to be clearer regarding that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • It says so right at the top, "it is preferred to discuss issues rather than formally voting on them. That is not to say that voting is forbidden, but it should be used with care". (Radiant) 17:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we make a clear distinction between voting and polling. The word "vote" implies a democratic process, while a "poll" implies research to find out what people are thinking. We should avoid the word "vote" whenever possible. We discuss, we don't vote. That doesn't mean that we don't have polls, and processes that heavily rely on the outcome of polls. -- Samuel Wantman 00:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Very good point. In other words, polls are data collection, and not the decision making process itself. The data we get from these polls might have significance or not, but should be seen in context, with discussion, etc etc. -- Ned Scott 01:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point, but I have seen quite some editors who fail to see the difference, or "data collecting" polls that are retroactively turned into having been a "binding" vote (as in "yes, we know the poll wasn't binding, but we're going to do what it says anyway because that's what the majority obviously wants"). Polling is fine for processes such as AFD, but has a strong tendency to backfire when used for article content or proposals.

For instance, I recently saw Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements). After debate showed no consensus, a poll was held on the issue, which yielded no consensus. After two more months of debate (which showed no consensus) five different proposals were made one after the other; all of these were put to a vote, and none showed consensus. A fifth poll was held to establish whether two guidelines were contradictory. After several people pointed ou that you can't vote on a fact, the person who started it claimed the poll was actually to prove he was not alone in holding his position, and closed it. Discussion continues. My point is that a reliance on polls creates a mess like this. (Radiant) 09:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. However, I use polling in situations (like working on a re-write of categorization policy) as a technique to help me see where people stand, and hear their concerns. I think it has helped me with the process of working out a consensus. Ultimately, the test of any consensus is posting the completed result and not having it reverted or challanged. I have heard the phrase "silence is agreement" used in formal consensus decision making environments, and I think that is the true "vote" in a wiki. If something gets posted and nobody alters it, everyone who does nothing has voted by tacit agreement to let it remain.-- Samuel Wantman 09:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sure that some people are capable of using polling as an effective tool. However, it seems to me that most people use polls inadvisedly, prematurely and arbitrarily, and this should (obviously) be discouraged. I've seen quite a number of polls lately and about 80%-90% of them were either ineffective or backfired. Indeed, as you say, when I edit pages in Wikispace, I don't add a poll to ask whether people agree with me, I watch is people disagree and if so we discuss it. (Radiant) 09:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Rounding up

Well, debate has died down here so this is a good time to round up the remaining points. Comments about this guideline boil down to three basic issues here and a few miscellaneous comments.

1. The principle. The principle of the page is that voting is discouraged on Wikipedia. It should be clear by now that issues on Wikipedia are not decided by vote counting. This longstanding principle was affirmed by many editors here, as well as in a recent ArbCom case. That some people are unaware of this principle is a good reason for having this page to educate them; that some people wish to change this principle does imply that it remains a principle until they succeed in changing it.
2. The wording. Well, the page has been rewritten from scratch and reworded by a number of people and should now provide an accurate description of how Wikipedia works. If anyone disputes this I would like to see specific counterexamples. If there are sections missing, please add them.
3. The name. Several people object to the current name of this page. There have been a few compromises proposed and I have no objection to renaming the page to one of those.
4. Miscellaneous.
   1. First, some people assert that Wikipedia should change and should adopt more formal procedures to accomplish things. These people are welcome to propose their new ways, but that is not a valid objection to documenting the status quo. Note that a recent proposal for such change was rejected by the community.
   2. Second, people keep citing WP:RFA as the counterexample to everything; because of an ongoing dispute in that area on its talk page it may be worthwhile to note that this page may not apply there.
   3. Third, some people say that the style of this page needs improvement. These people are welcome to edit the page and improve it; that is not a real objection to the content of the page. Also, note that we do not in fact have a manual of style for guideline pages.

• Comments please? (Radiant) 14:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm against this proposal as currently written. For one thing, the title is a problem because it suggests that policy prohibits voting, which is not the case. Secondly, the substance of the proposal is slanted too much against voting. The proposal needs to give a clearer indication that taking a poll is often a very valuable exercise and the proposal should embrace more instances of voting. Johntex\^talk 14:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• First, I already said I agreed to a rename; and note that neither the title nor the page itself have anything to do with policy. Policy is suggested by policy pages, not by the titles of pages that are not policy (and not becoming policy either); I really have no idea where that suggestion came from, but editors are highly unlikely to accept anything as policy that doesn't have a {{policy}} tag.
• Second, I disagree that taking a poll is "often a very valuable exercise"; please do point out recent polls that were such valuable exercise, because I can cite several that weren't (e.g. here, here, here and here. (Radiant) 15:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• I know that I come across as a wet blanket, and I respect what you're trying to do, Radiant!, but I still have a number of concerns. I'm still forming a final opinion. Some initial thoughts:

1. 1. I'm glad to hear you're open to changing the name. I would strongly oppose any guideline under the "Discuss, Don't Vote" name, for the reasons I state above, and the final name chosen is likely to affect my ultimate opinion.
   2. The proposal as written today appears to be POV against voting. It accurately concedes, I suppose, that procedures that resemble voting occur daily on Wikipedia, but it always does so in a grudging fashion that appears intended to reduce the instances of procedures resembling voting in the future.
   3. The style does need work. It is true that there is no style guide for guidelines, but I would think it would be self-evident that a guideline should be helpful to editors, which requires at a minumum that its point be clear to people who aren't familiar with the debate. (WP:CREEP also comes to mind).
   4. I still am not convinced that this draft describes current Wikipedia policy any more accurately than WP:STRAW.

Thanks, TheronJ 15:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for your feedback... (1) To me, the content of the page is far more important than the name. (2) The intent has never been to reduce procedures resembling voting (nor, indeed, would such an intent even be possible). However, it is vital to remember (and frequently forgotten) that those processes are not decided by vote count. (3) Regarding style, please edit it. (4) WP:STRAW doesn't really describe anything, it simply recommends polls and describes how to make one. I note that nearly all polls on policy/guideline matters (except standardization) are either pointless or backfire. Thankfully this is less extreme with article polls. Note the dichotomy that polls are used both frequently (as in, several times per week) AND infrequently (as in, only in a small percentage of the debates we have). (Radiant) 15:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Reading through it once more I fail to see where you read that this page would "reduce the instances of procedures [such as AFD]". It simply states that (1) they are not decided by vote counting, and (2) people are encouraged to leave comments. Could you please elaborate on what you mean? (Radiant) 16:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It's a tone issue, so it's hard to point to any one thing. In general, I think the page gives short shrift to the idea that polling does occur (as you accurately point out, simultaneous frequently and rarely, depending on perspective), usually without difficulty. Let me try to find time to take a close look at the style issues, and we may be able to resolve my tone concerns as well. TheronJ 16:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Further to my point that the current language is POV against procedures resembling voting, I thought the ArbComm got it right when it wrote: "Straw polls and voting are used in a number of situations. There is a tradition which discourages excessive voting, but no actual policy. Polls may be used when appropriate to gauge opinion." If the overall thrust of the article was towards that, rather than towards "voting should almost never be used," I think it would be more NPOV as to actual Wikipedia practice. TheronJ 15:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how POV applies to guidelines or policies, it's not supposed to apply to content. Any guideline should reflect the point of view of wikipedia - WP is against personal attacks, copyright violations, unverifiable info. If consensus is truly that wikipedia should discourage voting, then the site should reflect that, POV or not. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• If I understand Radiant! correctly (and I welcome correction if I do not), he/she is arguing that the DDV proposal should become a guideline not because we think it's a good idea, but because it accurately describes existing practice. I've been responding primarily to that argument. If the discussion here is about whether Wikipedia should discourage voting, then I have numerous additional comments. Thanks, TheronJ 15:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed, my point is that Wikipedia does discourage voting. I remain very much interested in more formal systems of accomplishing things (for instance, as used on the French Wikipedia) but I believe that such proposals should take place on a separate page, and I think it's helpful to know where we stand before we decide where we're going. (Radiant) 15:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, despite what the arbcom said, WP policy does discourage voting. From WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a democracy: "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. Votes and polls are to be used with caution and not to be treated as binding votes, and in most cases are not recommended." So discouraging voting is already official policy. This article should just be an expansion on that, consistent with other wp guidelines and policies. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I object to this proposal as currently stated and named, per the comments of TheronJ in this section. 6SJ7 16:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Addition to article section

I added a paragraph to the article section.[9] I don't disagree with the previous text, but thought it was a little light on describing the circumstances under which editors do use polls in the article talkspace, and the circumstances under which those polls are likely to be constructive. (My anecdotal experience is that article talkspace polls are used somewhere between occasionally and rarely -- the hundred or so articles I watchlist probably see several polls a month between them -- and usually without much dispute). I also added a link to WP:STRAW -- I understand that it's not currently certified as a guideline, but think that if an editor plans to create a poll, then the principles for good polling listed there are worth reviewing.

Thoughts? Thanks, TheronJ 14:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• I pretty much agree. Likewise, I've seen article polls used occasionally; some of them were constructive, others were simply ignored by most editors, and a select few were counterproductive. I think the most important points are to keep it simple, and to ask the right question(s); if agreement cannot be reached on what question(s) to ask, then a poll will not resolve anything and likely aggravate the issue. (Radiant) 15:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

I propose to delete the following sentence from the introduction:

It is not unusual for editors to leave Wikipedia entirely, or to drastically reduce their activities, due to the bitterness left by such votes.

Is there any evidence for this statement? I am aware of a few editors leaving because of non-expert editors editing articles, and a few editors leaving (or threatening to leave) because of bad experiences in RFCs, RFAs, et al., but I'm not aware of any evidence that eliminating voting would have prevented those departures. Is it all right if I remove that sentence? Thanks, TheronJ 14:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

!vote = yes that does sound like a bit of an uncited supposition. (→Netscott) 15:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Stricken. While I'm sure that has happened a couple of times, it is certainly not "usual". (Radiant) 15:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can say that I myself left Wikipedia for several months following a particularly bitter and pointless poll... a poll which I probably still can't describe in detail without violating WP:CIV, so I'll stop there. And given the acrimony I've seen around many other polls, to say nothing of AfDs, I would be astonished if I'm the only one. -- Visviva 16:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, I have to wonder how many people have left in frustration over discussions that go around and around forever with no "consensus", and no universally accepted and effective manner of resolving the issue in the absence of "consensus." 6SJ7 16:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The point is, of course, that contentious issues can drive people away from the wiki, regardless of whether or not those issues are dealt with through voting. It is incorrect to assume that voting makes an issue contentious; it is likewise incorrect to assume that voting will resolve a contentious issue. (Radiant) 09:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I only meant that remark to explain why I had initially added that line in my draft; I agree that may be better left out. However, I would argue that by creating a zero-sum game, voting does tend to push discussions toward more and more hostile behavior, sockpuppetry, etc.; and that a close review of contentious past votes would show this to be the case. Since Wikipedia editing must be its own reward, it doesn't take much unpleasantness to push dedicated contributors away. -- Visviva 09:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed v policy?

This has been accepted practice for a very long time. How is it "proposed" rather than policy? Friday (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Lack of actual consensus? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This has been accepted practice for a very long time, has it not? This would mean there's concensus. or do you want us to vote on it? :-) Friday (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure if "accepted practice" was "consensual practice," though. Until roughly a month ago, we still had one major process as a straight vote, RfA is only a statement of consensus in theory, ArbCom plays by their own rules. We chuckle about voting on it, but I'm not entirely sure that, as a whole, the preference when it comes to more minor situations - conflicts on pages, certain inclusion discussions, situations where two consensual situations collide, that a majority vote isn't something useful. That "not entirely sure" feeling is exactly why this probably isn't a guideline right now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Do read this page, it explains exactly what you seek. (Radiant) 17:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I have, thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Mainly, there are a few people that have a "gut feeling" that voting is actually a good idea, and thus resist a page that discourages it; and there was a counterproposal for a while to mandate vote counting in all wikiprocess. (Radiant) 17:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Is it lack of consensus, or that consensus goes so far back that it's hard to find? This exact wording may be more recent, but the general concept seems to go back a long ways on wikipedia (and meta) and to be generally accepted. I can see arguing with the specific wording, but the general concept is already mentioned in multiple WP policies and guidelines already. If you have specific quibbles about the wording here, work toward ironing them out. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    • But, after all, consensus can change. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Can you demonstrate that consensus has changed? --Milo H Minderbinder 17:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Sure, there's a lot to look at above, along with the way a lot of people handle their conflicts. Also, the fact that someone was to the point of proposing a voting guideline before it was unfairly nuked from orbit says a lot to me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
          • That the suggestion to vote on everything was "nuked from orbit" (by which we mean, rejected after fair discussion on MFD) is a strong indication that in fact concensus hasn't changed here. (Radiant) 17:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
            • I don't consider MfD a strong indication of anything other than those who patrol MfD. As MfD isn't visited by a strong amount of established editors on a general basis, I struggle to find consensus there. The fact that we were not able to actually find a consensus and reject it, choosing rather to delete it, implies that many of the folks who went to that MfD didn't even want it discussed, which somewhat runs contrary to the spirit of how we do things anyway. There was a lot wrong with that, truly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Milo - that's why this page was rewritten from scratch. There haven't been any objections to the wording lately, except that Theron wants to change the overall tone. Some people want the title to change; I have no strong opinion on that. (Radiant) 17:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• IMHO, the title as is mischaracterizes existing practice, and I am still mulling over whether the overall tone mischaracterizes existing practice. I still have some issues with the theory that once a page accurately describes existing practice, it is automatically promoted to guideline, but they would be a distraction here -- maybe Radiant! and I can take it to the Village Pump when I have time. TheronJ 17:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think "essay" would be more accurate than "proposed", if we can't agree that it's policy. Friday (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

RFA has been a consensus process for as long as I've used it, when did this change? Kim Bruning 21:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Kim, I agree with NetScott that we don't have consensus for this page yet. (particularly with the current name). If your concern is primarily with RFA, I don't think you would have a problem if you decided to tag WP:RFA as a guideline. TheronJ 21:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • From the edit summary I'm not sure Kim realized this has been totally rewritten from what was copied from Meta. --W.marsh 21:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There never was any consensus for such a change. When the meta essay was brought over into en space in January, Radiant! tried to upgrade it from meta's essay status to guideline status here but there's not been a consensus for that move. (→Netscott) 21:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This is about as guideline-y as we get, IMO. There's pretty wide acceptance, and you hear the "discuss, don't vote" mantra frequently. It's clearly not a proposal, at any rate. Friday (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• I respect your opinion, but I don't agree that your anecdotal experience establishes consensus. In my experience, votes happen every day, with a number of surveys happening a week on my watchlisted pages alone, and those surveys are almost never discouraged, prevented, or impeded. (The most common outcome is that everyone chimes in without objection, and then the editors agree that there's not consensus for the name change or whatever it was). While it is certainly true that many editors disparage voting, surveys, and other snoutcounting, the established practice has always seemed to be that "Votes and surveys occur occasionally, usually without objection. Some editors have strong objections to voting." TheronJ 21:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think most everyone would be fine with the {{essay}} tag displaying here in equivalency to the meta:Polling_is_evi essay tagging. (→Netscott) 22:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)l

I think there's a point of confusion here - while surveys happen on a regular basis (including things like AfDs), even though they look like votes with all the "support"/"oppose", they are not in fact votes since the result doesn't depend on the numbers, but on the arguments that follow those "support"/"oppose". Meaning a position with a fewer number of "votes" (not votes) may previal. Attempting to call a vote is also generally useless because there's no definition of how many votes would be needed anyway - the site makes it pretty clear that simple majority certainly doesn't equal consensus, and supermajority isn't defined in numbers. The whole "Voting is Evil" concept applies to doing it as seldom as possible, and that in almost all cases on wikipedia, even when a survey is done, it's not a vote even if the people doing it call it that. What makes things sticky is that in most disputes, there's no voice of god to come in and declare a "winning" side. But hopefully that means the two sides will negociate and find a compromise or an otherwise acceptable solution. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• As written, it seems to me that the proposal discourages surveys. If the proposal said "don't vote, but non-binding surveys are not votes and therefore used when editors feel they would be helpful," I would probably not oppose. TheronJ 03:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Dude, is supporting or opposing really such a good idea? Guidelines should be descriptive, not prescriptive. Let me explain:

In the current en.wikipedia system, holding a majority vote would be a bit of a disaster, so we really want to reccomend against that. What's almost equally bad is when people grab an opinion poll at the outset, and thereby kill any kind of consensus gathering (oops). Perhaps somewhere we should warn people about these potential pitfalls, while at the same time helping them understand how to avoid them.

So that's why guidelines should be descriptive: What we really need is a realistic description of what goes right and why and what goes wrong and why, so that maybe one day we might even have a written body of guidelines that has some remote resemblance to actual daily practice on wikipedia.

*sigh* Perhaps I should just give up and let people write fairy tales in the project namespace. It'd certainly make me more popular ;-) "* support : my truthy feeling is that this person finally understands policy after all these years with wikipedia" :-p

Kim Bruning 04:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)