Talk:Center for Election Science

Expanding Stub Article

This article is a bit of a sub. We can easily expand out the history section to include the Fargo, St Louis, Seattle, and Missouri efforts. It might make sense to include an organizational structure section as well. Perhaps even an organizational opinions section too ? Jasavina (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Do not remove "See Also"

(Non-constructive edit.) The See Also sub-category is an integral aspect of Wikipedia. It provides users with opportunities for expansion of their worldviews, education and learning about alternative approaches/proposed-solutions.

I contest the removal of this, and especially as the editor who did so appears to have a conflict-of-interest. (See the author's profile page.)

The topic-pages that were removed provide competing, mutually-exclusive solutions in a "marketplace of ideas" —which is itself essential to the healthy function of any open (democratic or else truly representative) society. SilentAshes (talk) 08:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@SilentAshes Sure we can add it back. It just seemed pointlessly short. I'll see if I can dig up a few more relevant pages that weren't already mentioned in the article. Jasavina (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@SilentAshes To expand on my point, it consists of two links, one of which doesn't actually link to a page about the organization listed. it just seemed like it wasn't actually contributing anything of value to the article. Jasavina (talk) 04:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@SilentAshes You know, I've been looking for another wiki project. I guess this is a good excuse to write up a page for the Equal Vote Coalition and find a few more organizations to flesh out the see also section. Jasavina (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@SilentAshes Although, I have to say, I strongly disagree with the high value you place on the see-also section. even the wiki style guide says it's optional. Jasavina (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you.

I’ve been dealing w seeing sabotage in other communities I’m in, so when I saw that, it was a bit hard.

I always believe that fair reporting and education in texts means mentioning and providing in-roads to a diverse set of views.

It also acts as a helpful prompt & easy link,

by reducing the cognitive load otherwise.

For me personally, I find it very useful.

I think the main advantage is finding (even this small count) of articles in the same category.

Specifically, nonprofit organizations that research & develop (and promote) alternative specific voting methods.

I agree that it is quite small!

AFAIK there *are* no other groups which do the sort of R&D, advocacy work (for their other methods) like what these do.

So maybe the “See Also” is going to be a short stub,

simply because the existence of other groups is small, indeed.

I really appreciate your patience with my strong reactions here. Sorry and thanks again. SilentAshes (talk) 05:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks also for clarifying & elaborating on your points! Helpful for me to bear in mind. SilentAshes (talk) 05:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@SilentAshes No worries! You gotta keep a sharp eye on politics stuff anyhow, since there's strong incentive to paint things the way you want them to be, instead of the way they are.

I think I'll do some digging and see if there's enough information out there to make a decent page on The Equal Vote Coalition, the current redirect isn't bc acceptable in my opinion, but I don't want to write up a poorly-sourced article. Jasavina (talk) 06:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)