User talk:Roscelese/Canvassing incident

Sorry you had to learn that way. I got lucky and saw others get burned. I personally think WP:CANVASS is a crock, because the dishonest editors will just canvass off-wiki using email. That's why I don't have my email disabled, so no one can ever accuse me of off-wiki canvassing. I think Wikipedia is missing the boat here--canvassing isn't a problem, it's a solution (which I will never employ until the policy changes). We need more input from editors, not less. I can't begin to count the number of times I've come across discussions that I missed because, though I had edited there before, I hadn't been there for a few months and so didn't know what was being discussed. Anti-canvassers worry about vote stacking. (Hey, why don't we just completely abolish political ads, too; if voters want information, they can just log on to each candidates website, right?) If both sides are openly canvassing, we're more likely to get a representative picture of how the community really feels.

Have I ranted enough for one day? HuskyHuskie (talk) 06:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. We do need better ways to get users to discussions that might interest them, but that means editors need to be more proactive about (neutrally) notifying others who have edited the article in the past and about notifying WikiProjects and such. Canvassing can actually discourage wider involvement: if you've got a stable of editors to call on that share your POV, you're not going to post at a project or a noticeboard, are you? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the posting on project noticeboards is that you are pretty much guaranteed to get the same voices that have already decided matters should be the way they are at present. Yes, many editors would round up like-minded editors, but as long as both sides are doing this openly, whoever closes the discussion has a better chance of making a fair determination of whether a genuine consensus was achieved.

What often happens now is that whoever has the idea for change (in an article, a policy, whatever) is left to fend for herself against the legions that monitor the project boards. If she seeks out a couple of friends whom she suspects may think like her, she's canvassing, and the discussion is rendered contaminated and moot. Allowing both sides to openly canvass makes it fairer. The current system is like a democracy where only the incumbents can purchase ads. No, it's more like a democracy in which only the incumbents know where to buy the newspapers and most people don't even know that there are newspapers.

After all, what fraction of people editing Wikipedia even have a single Wikiproject in which they participate? I'll bet it's less than 5%. But does that mean they shouldn't be aware when important matters are being discussed? HuskyHuskie (talk) 07:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)