Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Polling is not a substitute for discussion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:VIE)

Guideline status

[edit]
See box. Formerip (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Result: Demote to essay status.

3 editors supported the status of this page as a guideline, 8 opposed it and 1 was neutral. Surely that's all anyone needs to know? However, just in case...

Demoting a guideline is not a minor step, particularly if the guideline has been in place for a long time. So, it should require a very clear consensus. On the other hand, it has been pointed out that this guideline was created without consensus and has been persistently controversial. That doesn't erase its legitimacy, but might mean that a less cautious approach can be taken with regard to altering its status.

One support vote simply stated that it was a legitimate guideline and the user was comfortable with that. This is not an invalid viewpoint, but it also doesn't offer a very strong argument. The second support vote was made on the basis that "Polling is not a substitute for discussion" reflects consensus on en.wp. That's very arguable, but other editors in the discussion seem to wish to add caveats to that statement, and it is not self-evident that they are wrong. I'm also not sure that we should take a position that a guideline should be preserved merely on the basis that the page title rings true, without considering the contents of the page. A third support was made on the basis that removing the guideline would mean we wanted everything to be decided based purely on numbers. That seems to me like a false premise, because WP:NOTDEMOCRACY is policy. Moreover, it seems completely obvious that this is not the view of the community and that removing the guideline would not make it so. No-one in this discussion, for example, appears to take such a view.

Overall, the supports, as well as being inferior in number, do not offer compelling arguments.

Opposes suggested that the page is written like an essay. This is a fair point. It is much longer and more detailed than we usually expect a guideline to be, offers more in the way of observation and, quite possibly, more that might be contentious. It is also argued that polling actually plays a significant role in the development of the project, so it is not desirable to be very prescriptive about its use. On the one hand, this may not be entirely fair on the guideline, which does make clear that there is a place for polling. On the other, a number of users in the discussion express a desire for flexibility where prescription is not needed. From this perspective, it can again be observed that the guideline contains greater detail than guidelines normally have. It is more in line, perhaps, with what the community expects from an essay. Some participants to the discussion indicate a feeling that the guideline strikes a tone which is too cautious about voting and fails to reflect the reality that voting (with or without a !) is something many Wikipedians value. This also seems to me to be an opinion with validity.

Please note that this RfC close is not a funeral rite. Content from the guideline may be suitable for canibalisation or adaption for other policy and guideline pages, which is something that editors who might be unhappy about this close can pursue if they wish.

I just read this page, and was surprised to find such a guideline. I then wondered how this could get a guideline status and proceeded to spend an hour reading discussions. I haven't read all discussions, but skimmed over them and am trying to give a summary of the situation.

This page's status has been discussed over and over again, as soon as When was this page authorized by consensus?. As I write this, it is presented as a guideline. The issue is complexified by renames and numerous proposals to merge with similar pages. There are many discussions that followed, but here are the main (feel free to add those I missed):

2 general issues were pointed out. This page was created by copying the Meta essay Polls are evil ([1]). First, this was tagged as a guideline from its creation, without following the proper guidelines life cycle. Therefore, this is not officially a guideline. However, as far as I can see, the last time the guideline tag was removed or marked as disputed was 5 years ago (last dispute ended with [2], although the page was then protected). Therefore, this could be considered as a de facto guideline. Second, Polls are evil is and has always been an essay written as an essay. This page was originally titled "Discuss, don't vote". This was further enhanced to the current "Polling is not a substitute for discussion", which I consider perfectly neutral. Nevertheless, the content still reflects the personal tone of the original essay, although the tone is much more moderate now. The current content still looks more like a demonization of polls than praise for discussion. As I write this, the page's first sentence is "Polls lead to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to... suffering.", presented as a quote.

To go forward, we would need to decide whether this should keep the personal and living tone of an essay or if we should continue to turn it into a neutral piece. If there is consensus to make it an essay, the status could be changed. If there is consensus to make it a guideline, an RFC could be opened. If there is no consensus, perhaps this needs to become 2 pages. I am personally not familiar enough with the other pages with which a merge is proposed to say what would be best in the long term. Meanwhile, I have simply restored the disputed tag. --Chealer (talk) 05:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disputes that haven't been touched in a year or more may be fairly said to be inactive. You may not like this being a guideline, and you are welcome to start a new discussion on its status, but I'm comfortable with it being a guideline. -- Donald Albury 14:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I didn't mean to say that the dispute is active, nor that this shouldn't become a guideline. As I said, I did not check related pages enough to give an informed opinion on the best course in the long term. I just quickly checked Wikipedia:Straw polls. It could be decided that this page addresses a subtopic of polls and that some content from Straw polls should be moved here. I believe Straw polls would then become an informative page without normative content. In this case, the question of whether this page should become an essay or a guideline remains.
Then, it was also suggested to merge with Wikipedia:Consensus. I don't have an opinion on this at this time. --Chealer (talk) 03:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:articles for deletion/Olivia Hack... well, the closer said that "keep" arguments are strong but not strong enough to deal with blurry intersection, and even superior amount of "delete" votes does not overcome the "keep". Even I, myself, voted "delete". Moreover, another closer said that failure to meet one guideline is not a strong reason to delete. I wonder if NOTVOTE guideline (or disputed guideline) applies to this discussion. Nevertheless, this guideline is conflicted by stronger points in renaming discussions. I tend to ignore this guideline because of readers' interests and intentions to read one article or another. See Talk:Doctor Zhivago. --George Ho (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked here because I was pointing to it in another discussion, and I was very surprised to see the "under discussion" tag. Although I do realize that a certain amount of discussions are essentially closed by vote-counting, particularly when the responses are clearly one-sided, I really think that there is strong community consensus that Wikipedia reaches consensus through discussion and not through voting. If there ends up being any serious interest in changing the status here, I would strongly urge a community-wide RfC in order to get, um, discussion, from more than just a few editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support formal adoption of this principle as a guideline (no, I've not fully read the entire page recently). The demonstrated consensus (e.g. in determining AfD outcomes) is indeed that polling is not a substitute for discussion. -- Trevj (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Not that with the message traffic here people seem to care all that much, but it's plain that there are many areas of Wikipedia which DO use polls. Aside from those AfDs which are flooded by anon IPs, it is seldom the case where a closing admin will dare to rule for policy over consensus, and most of those cases go straight to DRV. RfA is absolutely a head count, pure and simple; as I documented a couple years ago, almost no admin candidate who hits the 75% threshold and fails to withdraw is ever denied admin status, and almost no candidate who fails to hit 70% is ever promoted. Unless people are willing to truly apply this principle, across Wikipedia, there is no sense in enacting it. Ravenswing 20:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Polls are evil - I love that there is a poll about a page on polling. - Anyway, This should be an Essay. It's how it's written. Wikipedia:Straw polls exists for those who want a project guideline. If anything, reverse-merge to Wikipedia:Straw polls. - jc37 20:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note:This user actually means Demote to essay.Forbidden User (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This user actually meant what this user wrote : )
    Comments in an RfC need not be emboldened text : )
    (and yes, the irony here doesn't escape me : ) - jc37 22:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Demote to essay - Weighing on consensus is very hard, especially for those not familiar with policies and essays. With recent events, such as Justin Bieber on Twitter, maybe majority vote is becoming more important than article quality and rules, as some deletion-ists have good arguments. Also, move requests rely more on vote counts, as rules may change. --George Ho (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Demote WP:NOTDEMOCRACY is an adequate explanation of the subject at hand. Yes, it's a bit vague, but so is the (US) Constitution; wiggle room is desirable. Admins are free to give as much or as little weight to poll results as desired, and I certainly wouldn't want this page to discourage anyone from voting because he or she doesn't think it matters. --BDD (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support as a guideline Logic and reason have got to be worth more than how many people sign their name to something. The only reason to demote this would be if we don't believe in that anymore and we want AFDs, RFCs, etc to be closed based solely on majority rule. Does that sound like a good idea to anyone? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stuartyeates, I'd suggesst using stronger arguments, as consensus concerns about the quality of argument more.Forbidden User (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that a desire for a small set of consistent rules rather than the current rambling musings of the community is not a strong argument, then you have misunderstood the last 300 years of scientific reductionism. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you could explain more on why there should be fewer guidelines, not really saying it is not a good reason.Forbidden User (talk) 09:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Demote. Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Discussion is not a substitute for polling. This is trivially true: the two do different things and get used in different ways in Wikipedia. Right now Wikipedia works remarkably well by being flexible about everything (sometimes excruciatingly so!). Anything that acts against this is probably unwise, particularly if it encourages category errors of the kind implicit in the wording of this discussion. (You'll note that my response is a weird hybrid of both a poll response and a discussion response. A pure poll or a pure discussion wouldn't allow this sort of mixed response, but by having both a great deal of flexibility is obtained.) RomanSpa (talk) 06:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Guideline status

[edit]
This RfC was closed because no one leaves comment at all. Forbidden User (talk) 06:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As there is a tied and inactive discussion on whether to retain Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion as a guideline. I would like to have outsiders' opinion here. Thanks!Forbidden User (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: It looks like a consensus on demoting this guideline is forming. Before requesting for closure, I hope some more people can give their opinion here.Forbidden User (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Voting is evil!

[edit]

If this is true, then what is Wikipedia? A monarchy?! --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 16:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a problematic policy. Who decides if an argument is "good"? Wikipedia is a self-perpetuating oligarchy.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Explanatory supplement

[edit]

This should be an Explanatory supplement. Several policies and guidelines link to the essay to supplement and clarify their meaning.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of !vote

[edit]

According to WP:!VOTE which links to a section of this article, Wikipedians often use the expression "!vote" (read as "not-vote"). The "!" symbol is used in various fields as a symbol for logical negation and was introduced in this way on English Wikipedia in 2006. So a reference to a "!vote" or "!voting" is a reminder and affirmation that the writer's comments in a poll, and the comments by others, are not voting, but are just offering individual views in a consensus-building discussion. However, in practice, I feel like it is much more common to see people use the phrase "!vote" to refer to their actual votes. Perhaps the text on this page should also include a comment that this phrase is often used in a way at odds with the original intent of the term? signed, Rosguill talk 00:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion&oldid=1241354497"