Wikipedia:Voting is not evil: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Redirecting to Wikipedia:Voting is evil |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
#redirect [[Wikipedia:Voting is evil]] |
|||
{{essay|[[WP:VINE]]<br>[[WP:VOTE]]}} |
|||
'''Voting Is Not Evil (VINE)''' is a [[counterpoint]] to the Wikipedia essay that Voting [on editorial decisions] Is Evil, or [[WP:VIE|VIE]]. This essay, like that one, is an unofficial ''suggestion,'' not a mandate. It explains what voting on the Wikipedia entails, and how voting ''can'' be a useful tool toward harmonious editing. |
|||
==Voting vs. Consensus Board== |
|||
Each article has a built-in talk page. In the event of a dispute over how something should be done, it may be brought up, in one of two forms, on the talk page. |
|||
The most common form is an ''ad hoc'' consensus board, which will materialize around the catalyst issue, debate it, and, hopefully, bring it to a resolution. This is the "community" approach, and in most cases it is the best option for a mutually amicable solution. |
|||
Voting is a vaguely more formalized process. It requires no warning - a vote can be sprung on a topic at any time. Each user gets ''one'' vote, and when the voting closes (either by a consensus or predetermined time limit) the side with majority votes is the winner. The terms having now been defined, the rest of this article will be dedicated to helping you choose the right times and places to stage or participate in a vote. |
|||
==Voting as an Asset: The Right Times== |
|||
There ''are'' right times to stage a vote. The trick is knowing which ones... |
|||
==="Two Roads Diverged in a Wood...:" One of Two=== |
|||
In the event that there are two very clear options to be chosen from, a vote is probably the most succinct way of coming to the right conclusion. However, if there are more - say three - option B might win with 40% of the vote, but the other 60% of the voters - the majority - won't be happy. See [[voting system]] for more on this. |
|||
===Massing the Forces: Concentrating an Effort=== |
|||
Wikipedia has [[:Template:COTWs|quite a few collaborative projects]]. The umbrella project - the [[WP:AID|Article Creation and Improvement Drive]] deals with all articles of all types, but there exists a whole host of other specialized projects. For these projects, the system of choice is the vote. The winner is the article with the most cumulative votes becomes the new project of the week/fortnight/month, and will be groomed by loving editors into (hopefully) a [[WP:FA|featured article]]. |
|||
The beauty of that system is that the losers don't actually lose. If a runner-up article has enough support to remain on the roster for another week (see each project for the nuances of its voting system) then it may yet be pulled from the bin and made perfect. |
|||
==Voting as an Obstacle: The Wrong Times== |
|||
Rule of thumb: if you have more detractors than supporters, you're going to lose no matter what system you're using. |
|||
===House Rules: Fighting the System=== |
|||
It should go without saying (see [[WP:NOT]]) that "Wikipedia is not a democracy", and you can't actually vote down the system as it stands. Wikipedia rules (those on [[copyright]], for instance) overrule any local voting. If there is a picture due to be deleted because it has the wrong licensing tags, you can vote until your face turns blue to no effect. |
|||
===A Fistful of Edits: When Voting Becomes a Shootout=== |
|||
A point from VIE is that the thing about having winners is that everyone else automatically becomes losers. This will damage, rather than unify, the community spirit that's holding the dear old WP together. If you're staging a vote just to beat the other side into submission, then you're doing the wrong thing. Try holding a community ''discussion'' instead. |
|||
Just to note that the world is not a Happily Ever After kind of place, even this doesn't always work. The fight at [[aluminium]] is an epic example of two groups of people - those who favor the American spelling (without the second "i") and those who don't - locked in an entrenched series of flareup fights over who is right. It's entirely possible that they may never decide, and in this case actually bringing up the subject ''at all'', either in vote or debate, is probably going to do much more damage than just trying to forget about it. Some fights simply can't be won - the point is picking the fairest set of rules to tie at. |
|||
==Note: An inherent flaw of voting== |
|||
Voting has (at least) one inherent flaw in use at the Wikipedia, and that is that votes are semi-permanent, and community board discussions are not. |
|||
A community board discussion shifts with the community members. When a community view changes, its approach will merge seamlessly into the new line of thinking. This is because a community view is intangible. Votes, on the other hand, are nailed to the wall - and, worse still, the best way to really be rid of a vote is to have another vote against it. |
|||
Votes are especially unfair to those who come after. Someone walking in on a situation in which the dice have already been cast doesn't even get the chance to vote. Understand, when you vote, that what you are doing is, for all effects and purposes, permanent. |
|||
==Voting is a Tool== |
|||
The reason this article is not titled Voting is Good (other than the fact that VINE makes a pretty nice [[acronym]]) is that voting ''isn't'' good. Neither is it evil, however, as the above evidence will hopefully convince you. Voting is a tool, and like any tool there are some places where it's perfect and some places where it's useless... or disempowering. You, as a user, must decide for yourself when voting is the right thing to do. VIE and VINE are here to help, but actually finding the fairest way to do something is a decision you'll have to make yourself. |
|||
[[Category:Wikipedia essays]] |
|||
Revision as of 23:24, 13 September 2006
Redirect to: