Wikipedia talk:Polling is not a substitute for discussion/Archive4

Archive

There's been no discussion for 3 weeks. Since things seem pretty stable with the new version, I've archived everything. -- Samuel Wantman 10:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Nutshell

Recently, the nutshell was changed from "should be used with care" to "should be used with care when assisting discussions", implying that in other circumstances it need not be used with care. I object to this change. >Radiant< 11:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think it needs a complete rewrite. For example, how are decisions made through "editing"? --JJay 11:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure either. Shouldn't it simply be "discussion" rather than "editing and discussion"? >Radiant< 11:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Radiant! what is your objection specifically? Where else is polling being used other than in assisting discussions? (→Netscott) 11:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• (edconf) My objection is that this reads like polling need only be used with care in certain circumstances. >Radiant< 11:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• This seems like reasoning for its being unnecessary. It certainly wouldn't be used in an article. So to me having that phrase sounds like the "department of redundancy department". -- Samuel Wantman 11:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

←Unfortunately people sometimes forget that when polls are used all they are meant to be is an assistant to discussion. There's no reason this shoudn't be clearly spelled out here. (→Netscott) 11:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, so how about this: Wikipedia decisions are not made by popular vote, but rather through discussions by reasonable people working towards consensus. Polling is only meant to be an assistant to discussion, and should be used with care. >Radiant< 11:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• That works for me. (→Netscott) 11:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• It's still not true, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not? --Milo H Minderbinder 14:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Because sometimes there are popular votes.--Blue Tie 04:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

and sometimes there are typos in articles. Also, sometimes popular vote simply is the same as a logical consensus, but that does not mean the results were followed only by voting. -- Ned Scott 05:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines enacted

I have removed the line stating that guidelines are not "enacted" through voting. This reflects talk page discussion of the issue. On December 24, User Radiant wrote on this page that: there is no such thing as "guideline status" and neither are guidelines "enacted". On January 30, User:Radiant wrote on this page that: guidelines are not enacted period;. If guidelines are not "enacted" there is no reason for this guideline to discuss a process that does not take place. I also fail to see why User: Radiant is reverting this change in direct conflict with his statements here. --JJay 11:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• The reason for that statement is that some people mistakenly believe that guidelines are enacted through a vote, so it exists to clear up the confusion. Incidentally, per his earlier comments, that includes JJay. There are also some people that believe guidelines should be enacted through a vote; those people are encouraged to draft a workable system for doing so. >Radiant< 11:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed, these poll assisted discussions certainly had a result. (→Netscott) 11:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It's a very common misconception that editors can just make a policy by calling a vote. This guideline should point out that it doesn't work that way. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

To me there are three clear, legitimate reasons for polls on wikipedia and one area where it is not clear and an obvious problem.

1. Polls where decisions are required such as RfA.
2. Combined with discussion, it can be used to help bring a group to a consensus. (this is hardly ever done on wikipedia but it is a valid way to come to consensus -- entirely ignored on wikipedia).
3. Establishing what the consensus is or the degree that it exists.

The area where it is a problem is when a poll is used to squelch discussion toward consensus, particularly on articles. When a poll is used strictly to "break a log jam" or to establish a majority rules, dissenters go away approach, then there is a problem. --Blue Tie 13:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Do not agree that this is a guideline

I would like to be on record as saying that I have never agreed with this editorial being described as a guideline. I believe it was simply declared to be so by a very small number of people who rejected (and will continue to reject) other views. I do not believe it ever went through a good process and in fact, I do not think a good process exists for such things. --Blue Tie 05:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• As you've been told about a dozen times by now, if you want a formal process for writing guidelines, you should draft and propose such a process. Until such a process gets adopted, no guideline whatsoever will have "went through a good process", making your argument a vacuous truth. >Radiant< 10:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I do not need to be lectured. I do not believe that I have the ability to define such a process and I do not think wikipedia wants a process to be in place. Im not gonna waste my time with that. But this essay is a bad idea and should not have been declared to be a guideline. --Blue Tie 12:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Absolutely agree with you Blue tie... this page isn't all all accurate in it's portrayal of how Wikipedia currently operates. (→Netscott)

This page explains part of good process. It is a corollary of Wikipedia:Consensus.

As such, a good process for creating guidelines is known to exist. This page describes one part of it. (By excluding a negative.) --Kim Bruning 23:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus is a flawed page. It is clear as mud. If a good process exists, I would appreciate being directed to the page that describes it and outlines the standards for when things become policy. I would like to see how that applies to the process that was involved in joining reliable source and verifiablity into a single attribution policy, because the main thing that everyone praises there is how clear the process was.--Blue Tie 12:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, it needs a lot of tidying. The problem is that there's people playing wikinomic in the project namespace, so the s/n ratio is abysmal. :-( Can you go there and explain what issues remain with the page? --Kim Bruning 14:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have left a few little notes. I am not sure I could fix the concept in my own head much less in a group of thousands on wikipedia. Consensus requires such a strong "good heartedness" on the part of each person. If one person fails that test (and it is a higher test than "good faith") consensus can easily break down unless it is well defined. And how do you define it? Anyway, I am a bit ill now and cannot think very clearly.--Blue Tie 19:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a cold virus racing around the globe. I had my worst day on friday. --Kim Bruning 13:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree this page does not have sufficient support of the community to be a guideline. It is too heavily anti-polling. Johntex\^talk 16:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Note

I object to the sentence that "Wikipedia works by building consensus however many of Wikipedia processes do work through polling". First, that seems to imply that these processes do not actually work by consensus; and second, it duplicates text already better explained a few sections down on the page ("Deletion, moving and featuring"). >Radiant< 12:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• And look at WP:ATT/P for a recent example of why polling on acrimonious issues tends to backfire. >Radiant< 12:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The poll on that issue was called, by Jimbo Himself I believe, because the "consensus" process was not working. Or to be more precise, at first there appeared to be a consensus, and then after WP:ATT was published as a policy, it became unclear that there was a consensus. It could be said that what really backfired was the attempt to change the presentation of several of Wikipedia's most important policies through the regular "consensus" process, and that the polling initiated by Our Leader is an effort to repair the damage. 6SJ7 18:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you should ask him. >Radiant< 09:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC) By which I meant, lots of things "could be said" about anybody's actions, but you should not make assumptions about what Jimbo's motives or goals are. >Radiant< 11:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Perhaps we should form our own opinions rather than asking Jimbo "what do you think about this?" or "what were you thinking when you did that?" Johntex\^talk 16:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Totally agree with Johntex's sentiments here, the essay Radiant! created WP:JIMBOSAID specifically covers this. At the same time I also agree that this page has no business being tagged as a guideline. (→Netscott) 16:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Actually, now that I have found and read exactly what Jimbo said about WP:ATT [1], it is clear that my supposition was correct. What I thought he meant is what he said. As for WP:JIMBOSAID, while it is difficult to argue with a lot of your essay, it does not cover the WP:ATT situation. Jimbo made a recent, clear statement of what should happen, he is the "ultimate authority" on what should happen (as your essay page acknowledges), and it happened. You should be rejoicing that something on Wikipedia actually worked. 6SJ7 16:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
          • To Netscott: You and I agree that this page should not be tagged as a guideline, though perhaps our reasoning in getting to that point is slightly different. (I see Jimbo's calling of a poll on a major issue, with a reference to "certification of the results" no less, as being relevant to the "guideline" status of a page that deprecates polling.) In fact, I was supporting your position in my actions on the "tags", although strangely enough, of all the people who changed the tags back and forth, I seem to have been the only one who received a "warning" on my talk page over it. 6SJ7 16:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Should not be a guideline

This page isn't truthful in it's explanation of current practices. So much of Wikipedia depends on polls that if this page is going to be a guideline it should better reflect that. (→Netscott) 12:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• It already does, see the relevant section on deletion and featuring. >Radiant< 12:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• No, the lead is wrong. It is too anti-polling based upon what current Wikipedia practices are. Until this is repaired this page reads false. (→Netscott) 12:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Your new wording, however, stated more-or-less that Wikipedia works by consensus, except for RFA/AFD/etc which work by polling. That is far more false than the current wording. By the way, a disagreement over wording does not invalidate the concept, as I'm sure you know. >Radiant< 12:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Nice Radiant!, I suppose I'll have to do the same to balance things out here. Polling doesn't negate consensus, you know this to be true. Polling is an integral part of how Wikipedia works and as such the lead of this page should reflect that. (→Netscott) 12:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a problem where opinion polls/surveys look a lot like majority votes. Especially when you work with rough consensus: "If we can get just 80% on board for this decision, we have enough agreement and can call it quits"... it looks VERY MUCH like majority voting. But there are some big differences and nasty gotchas if you assume that it is so. For instance, a lot of people will yell at you and call you an idiot if you voice an odd or contentious opinion on a wikipedia-type poll or survey, without providing an explanation for that opinion. Also, people are sometimes surprised with the attention their oppose opinion garners on RFA for instance. (An oppose is worth 4-5 supports, and the whole point is to try to convince people... so no wonder opposers get so much attention! :-) ) --Kim Bruning 13:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the doctrine of Consensus as implemented on wikipedia has some great strengths. When editors collaborate in good faith it can be astonishingly powerful. But when it does not work, its failures are abysmal. And they fail pretty often. The issues with this page are actually more versions of the problem with "What is consensus"? That includes things like whether voting is good or bad, how should it be handled and even -- whether this is a a guideline.--Blue Tie 13:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Listen. The last time we had a disagreement over this we talked it out and reached a compromise. I'm offering, once more, to talk about the header which you object to and compromise on that. Yet instead you start claiming that the entire guideline is wrong based on disagreement over the wording of the header. Why don't we fix the header? >Radiant< 12:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• • I'm taking the Guidline tag off. As until this is worked out the page should not be tagged as such. (→Netscott) 12:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That may be your opinion but it's not backed by policy. Disagreement over the wording of a guideline does not mean it's not a guideline any more. Such disagreements are quite common and discussed on their talk page. I think your second attempt to fix the header is an improvement over the first. >Radiant< 12:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, you talk about a "compromise" but there has never been a compromise that supported making this a guideline. It "became" a guideline through bullying and ignoring the opinions of others, and they (we) eventually gave up. That is not consensus. 6SJ7 13:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• That is incorrect. The original version is still at m:polling is evil. The difference between that and this page should be obvious. This page has been rewritten from scratch with a wide amount of input, opinions and compromise. Consensus is not unanimity. And I'll thank you for not making personal attacks. >Radiant< 13:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed 6SJ7, this is how Radiant! has played this out. I'm in this for the long haul now... I'm sick of folks talking about ZOMG pollling is eeeevvvviiiilll!!!! when is is used on an hourly basis all over Wikipedia. (→Netscott) 13:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thankfully this page doesn't talk about "evil" at all. I suggest you take WP:VIE and m:polling is evil up for deletion, perhaps that will make people use the term "evil" less often. >Radiant< 14:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

One thing for sure. Radiant has worked long and tirelessly on this. His efforts deserve recognition. My criticisms are not directed at, what I view to be strong, good faith efforts to improve wikipedia and I do not think anyone should view his efforts as "backward" or negative. I do not even fault him for declaring it a policy. What's to stop him? There is no system to effectively or efficiently say otherwise and he has worked hard on something he believes will make a positive difference. I do not think personal attacks are correctly aimed.--Blue Tie 19:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you. >Radiant< 09:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I strongly support what Radiant! and Kim Bruning are doing on this page. I am not as active on the page as they are, and do not often say anything when I agree with what they are doing. I suspect I am not alone in my support of their efforts. -- Samuel Wantman 22:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this guideline in general, but it does take the extreme when it doesn't need to. By trying to really emphasize one point we mask the real reasons why we avoid pure polling. I often reads parts that are true, but don't properly explain why, or could be explained in a more accurate way. It almost feels like propaganda, and that tends to make people defensive even when they don't actually disagree with what it says. -- Ned Scott 23:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to say that it's "mostly" like that. Small changes in tone here and there can change the perspective of the same text greatly. -- Ned Scott 23:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds good, what would you suggest? >Radiant< 09:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree with your "propaganda" commentary there Ned Scott. This essay has been treating polling like the embarassing step sister to be hidden away and shunned. If that were how polling was considered on Wikipedia (ie: descriptive of current practice) that would be fine... but it is not... too much polling goes on on a daily basis and this should be properly recognized for what it is. (→Netscott) 00:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• There are sections that explain how AFD and RFA use polling. Perhaps you could suggest better wording for these? >Radiant< 09:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Polling can be as bad as not polling if it is done badly. I do have to say though, that, like war, polls may tend to settle things. --Blue Tie 20:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, hell no. Not a guideline. It's a fine sentiment, a fine essay, but unless you're planning to do away with WP:RFA it's not a guideline. Polling is definitely not a substitute for discussion. But, that doesn't mean polling doesn't have its place as a structured way of assessing opinion. It's also standard practice, see Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll. Frankly, most of the time I see this or vie pulled out it's by people who see it as a threat to their own interpretation of "consensus". Derex 04:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• There is a section that explains how RFA uses polling. Perhaps you could suggest better wording for that?

• I agree that the current wording is too anti-polling. It needs to be changed to reflect how valuable polling can be. Johntex\^talk 04:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Polling can be very valuable in certain circumstances, but there are many subtle gotchas. Your average random poll can be quite poisonous, so just making up a poll and forging ahead can be very damaging indeed.

We seem to be lacking a page describing which circumstances polls do work great for, and what the gotchas are, and how to deal with them. And I don't mean when they should or should not work, according to your ideology! :-P

--Kim Bruning 13:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to talk about things that are "poisonous", how about endless discussions and revert/edit wars that never produce anything. I think that it's a matter of opinion as to whether endless discussion or polling are worse. Kim, it seems to me that when you analyze this issue, you compare discussions that produce consensus with polls that don't. Maybe you should look at the 15-or-so (I've lost count) talk pages/archives and edit histories for Allegations of Israeli apartheid, which is about a year old and shows no signs of resolution. In fact the "wars" over that article have recently heated up again, and if anything are worse than the battling that started the day the article first appeared. And yes, there have been a few polls along the way (not even counting "official" ones like AfD's and RPM's), with varying degrees of success. One set of polls showed that there probably was a consensus for a particular compromise title-change, and eventually there was a successful RPM in that direction, so that was a positive result (although admittedly, I was on the "winning" side and might feel differently if I wasn't). Several of the subsequent polls have merely confirmed that name change. There have been one or two polls about the text-content which have not been particularly successful, but they were really just outgrowths of the discussion and did not make the situation any worse than it was already. My point (or one of my points) is that if you have an article that is extremely controversial, with no consensus in any direction, with endless discussion and wars, chances are that a poll is going to make the situation neither better or worse. There are certain situations that the "consensus" method, with or without polling, simply cannot handle. 6SJ7 18:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a question of right tool for the job. You don't use a hammer for screws, or a screwdriver for nails (and neither is good for staples). In the same way, don't use discussions to get a quick grasp of who thinks what, don't use polls to make binding decisions, and in situations like you describe, perhaps use neither. Have you considered asking for a mediation committee mediator, or perhaps some help from an experienced mediation cabal person? (medcab mediators are generally less experienced than medcom these days, but more readily available).

I'm not sure even they can help here, there were roughly 1000 "broken" pages that may need a different wikipedia policy-set entirely, last time we measured in early 2006 (I'm going to guesstimate that number at around 3000 pages today). Not sure what to do with those yet. Policy for all the other 3M pages isn't really great yet :-P. Even so, asking for a mediator-type-person won't hurt, at least. --Kim Bruning 03:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SJ that both endless discussion and endless polling are Bad Things. Some issues on Wikipedia are perennially controversial, and there doesn't seem to be much we can do about that short of perma-protecting the relevant pages, and we don't want that either. >Radiant< 09:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Polling Currently Being Advocated by Jimbo Wales on Policy Mergers

It seems to me like the negativity expressed towards polls on this alleged policy is out-of-place. Wikipedia co-founder Jimbo Wales just advocated using a poll as a way to gauge whether or not several Wikipedia policies that currently exist under separate entries should be merged into one document. (See Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll). Shouldn't we soften the rhetoric here on this entry to reflect that polling does have a place in Wikipedia? --Sixtrojans 23:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but do note that the ATT poll itself teaches us many lessons on what not to do. In part, this is because we are missing credible polling guidelines atm, so people are trying to reinvent the wheel badly. Note that one does need to be most cautious about how, where and when to use polls. --Kim Bruning 03:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Section three on this page lists "straw poll guidelines". Are these credible, in your opinion? >Radiant< 09:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Very short, eh? And the presentation isn't exactly great. Several of those points were learned the hard way. It might be a good idea to explain why each of those points exists, before people decide to try anyway, and thus re-learn them :-P --Kim Bruning 14:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Based on the current situation, the "polling guidelines" should be fixed up, everything else on this page should be eliminated, what remains should be renamed "Polling guidelines" or something similar, and this page should redirect there. 6SJ7 15:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Er, no. That is not based on the current situation (which if anything again shows that polling can create big messes), that is based upon what was your opinion from the very start and what you have been entirely unwilling to make any compromises over. >Radiant< 15:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Polling cannot create a mess. It can fail to clean up a mess that already exists. Perhaps it can make it temporarily worse, but as I say above, the endless discussions do that also. 6SJ7 15:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • False. Check WP:ATT/P. First there was a suggestion of a poll. Then there was about a megabyte of discussion. Then there was a poll about the poll. Then there was a poll over the deletion of the poll about the poll. Yep, it's a mess indeed. And I remind you again to remain civil and refrain from making personal attacks. >Radiant< 15:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, the relevant section of PNSD is consistent with the WP:ATT poll, in that it says that polling is occasionally used to test for consensus. My suggestion would be that everyone agree to revisit this issue once the WP:ATT poll closes to see if we have any more insights to add to the policy polling discussion. (I'm not sure how to phrase it, but the poll may turn out to have been helpful to test for consusus in this specific case -- I for one am very surprised at the size of the opposition to WP:ATT. There are also some potential insights in the form of the poll that was ultimately used - very broad positions, clarified by individual statements - and in any problems, successes or disasters that arise over the next week.) Are people open to tabling this issue until the poll is done, then committing to a full discussion of what the WP:ATT poll can teach us? Thanks, TheronJ 15:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I support TheronJ's suggestion. Why not take all tags off this page until the WP:ATT poll is done and then there can be a better discussion. Incidentally, I have seen that poll described on this page as some sort of disaster or train wreck or whatever, but when I have looked at the page (I still haven't decided how to "vote"), I don't see how that is the case. Maybe when it's over, the first thing someone can do, if they wish, is to provide (on this page) a specific critique of that poll, either how it was initiated or how it was conducted, or whatever their complaint is. 6SJ7 15:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't take all tags off - my preference would be to leave the page as guideline (and disputed if necessary) and try to start a constructive discussion in a week. More generally, is the page as is stopping anyone from polling or just cautioning them? TheronJ 15:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

How can you be surprised at the opposition at the ATT poll. You know ahead of time that there is no community wide consensus for anything, and an entire community does not turn on a dime!

When changing policy, you get people to buy in a couple at a time, and wikipedia is large. So zero surprise. The outcome is quite comfortably in the ballpark of what could be expected. :-P --Kim Bruning 16:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, not entirely. Like I predicted, Monday saw the speed of edits on the poll go much faster, and it's swinging to be 2:1 in favor of ATT now. - Denny 16:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Denny, the poll currently is 274 in favor, 216 against. How are you getting 2:1? --Sixtrojans 20:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It had been swinging that way, and leading to it, when I wrote that... - Denny 21:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

There's > 100 opposers. We would need to convince them, or deal with a massive split within the community. Good luck with that. As far as I can ascertain, the Attribution merger project was effectively terminated on the day the poll opened. :-/ --Kim Bruning 16:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Hence my request to at least delay polling. But that's all for post-mortem.

I don't get it. If there was no real consensus for the merger of the policies, and the poll results reveal and/or confirm that fact, isn't that a good thing? Or is "consensus" important only when one agrees with the outcome? I ask this as somewhat who has no real opinion one way or the other about WP:ATT. 6SJ7 04:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"Tag war"

I removed that tag that Radiant added after seeing this on RFPP. It seems like only Radiant is going against others in the history. Also, in reality, Polls can be used at times. Polling is a supplement to discussion. - Denny 15:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems others have agreed with your removal of that tag Denny. I've submitted it for deletion. (→Netscott) 15:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry -- my edit was based just on the edit warring that is going on over the tags. Others should step up if they agree to edit the tags--from an outsider's perspective it ends up looking like (based on edit history) that Radiant is exerting authority over policy to a degree that gives him/her some special rank/authoritative position when none exists. - Denny 15:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I believe that is what is known as page ownership. (→Netscott) 15:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

(3x edit conflict) I put the tag back, not necessarily because I think it's the best tag for the page (I think the guideline tag would be that), but largely to show that Radiant is not alone in defending this page. Just because some of us don't get our hands dirty every day, that doesn't mean we're not watching and supporting Radiant's defense of our practices regarding polling and discussion. It's been removed again and replaced with a Guideline tag, which I'm perfectly happy with. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• (edconf) (resp to Netscott) It is unfortunate that you insist on making ad hominems rather than actually discuss the matter. You are well aware from the history that this page is supported by many people (including Tony Sidaway, Tjstrf, Centrx, Dmcdevit, Sean Black, Kelly Martin, Mackensen, JYolkowski, Mindspillage, Extreme Unction, Visviva, Kim Bruning, David Levy, Saxifrage, TheronJ, The Land, Doc Glasgow, JzG, JackyR, Samuel Wantman, Rossami, Psyphics, Daniel Bryant, Milo H Minderbinder, Friday, Jdforrester, Hipocrite and Calton). Ownership doesn't come into it. >Radiant< 15:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect GTBacchus, have you read this page lately? It reads very false... and is propagandistically "anti-polling" which is not descriptive given how we know Wikipedia works. Such a page should not be tagged as a guideline. (→Netscott) 15:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If the page needs to be fixed to better reflect practice, then that should happen. The spirit of the guideline — that polls can be harmful and that we use them as vehicles for discussion, and not as ends in themselves — is important and true. It is the case that a fair amount of polling goes on here, and a casual observer might mistakenly get the impression that we're forever voting on things. This page explains that we're not voting, and that we need to always keep that in mind when creating and participating in polls. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone else readded the disputed tag. Finding this page, I'm really not happy with it. Shouldn't it clearly be "Polling is a supplement to discussion?" to reflect actual practice? - Denny 15:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Historically, we worked a long time on this guideline, to try to reflect the competing viewpoints that (1) polling is often unhelpful and devisive, but (2) that it is sometimes used to test for concensus. (There are also some policy and guideline issues that relate to polling, especially WP:CONSENSUS). My guess is that people who hate polling find the current page too permissive, and people who love it find it too dicouraging towards polling.

I think you will have a hard time forming a consensus to move the page towards "polling is great," but guess we could discuss it. IMHO, the bottom line of the current page is that polls are (1) permissible but (2) should be used with caution and shouldn't be used to shout down a minority opinion or end discussion prematurely. Given that, my own policy has been to use polls (with caution) where I think they are appropriate, and I haven't had a problem. Thanks, TheronJ 15:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Denny, yes, or something like that. Or there should just be a page saying when you should and shouldn't use polling, and how to use it when you use it, and it should be named something like "Polling guidelines". Unfortunately some people treat this whole subject as a matter of ideology and not as a pragmatic issue of how Wikipedia works and should work. 6SJ7 15:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

So now I see the page is protected, with two conflicting tags, one saying this is a guideline, the other saying its status as a guideline is in dispute. Surely a non-viable combination, which at least for the moment is etched in stone. 6SJ7 16:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't take down the guideline tag when the disputed tag is up. When the disputed tag is up, the page is still a guideline. -- Ned Scott 17:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Furthermore, what we're having here is a disagreement over the wording of the page and not a disagreement over the page's "designation". Second, discussions about the wording of any guideline are quite common, and if such a discussion was grounds for immediate revocation of a guideline we'd have nothing left in CAT:G. And third, we're not having much of a disagreement either, because I don't see anybody here objecting to improving the wording. >Radiant< 11:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify my own personal position on this page. It's a guideline, it has consensus. I'd like us to work on some of the wording in the guideline, but the logic behind it still stands. At least, that's how I feel about it. This whole dispute tag business is silly. -- Ned Scott 17:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Surveys can be a supplement to discussion

Wikipedia:Surveys can be a supplement to discussion? Current wording makes it sound like a dirty thing to be avoided, which can give just the loudest/most frequent voices on an issue authority, which is very bad, right? Just thinking aloud, I guess, based on my experience. Dropping that silly pre-poll poll on the ATT thing was the only thing that broke the deadlock to make any forward motion and cut out half the crap. Polling is used constantly in various degrees from quick what to do with this? to should we rename this page? to should we AfD this article? to should we make that guy an admin at RfA? Maybe that's the problem: Polling as the word. It's not voting, it's a survey. I renamed the lingo in places on the ATT thing to be say, specifically, survey. It's basically just discussion in a somewhat structured format. I think that renaming and a tweak in lingo to not make 'polling' sound like a dirty backroom thing, like a gallery of heroin shooters, would be more realistic based on what is actually happening across Wikipedia (whether some people like the current/traditional behavior of frequent polls or not). - Denny 15:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note that ATT is the exception rather than the rule, and that we usually don't handle policy changes the way ATT was handled (it generated over three megabytes of discussion so far...) >Radiant< 16:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think people read too much in some off-hand comments by Jimbo on the mailing list. *sigh* --Kim Bruning 16:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that statement, Kim. We'd be a lot better off if we start treating Jimbo like an extremely respected member of the community and stop doting on his every quote as if it were an appearance of a burning bush. Johntex\^talk 16:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep. WP:JIMBOSAID is not a strong argument. >Radiant< 11:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Fix {{main}} tag

Currently The policy and guidelines section uses{{main|WP:NOT|What Wikipedia is not}}, but this produces

Main pages: WP:NOT and What Wikipedia is not

, indicating that there are two separate articles, when in fact "What Wikipedia is not" links to the mainspace, which redirects to the same Wikipedia page as WP:NOT. The intended structure was probably {{main|WP:NOT|l1=What Wikipedia is not}} which produces

Main page: What Wikipedia is not

. (Although {{main|Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|l1=What Wikipedia is not}} should probably be used to avoid the unnecessary redirect.) --Ybbor^TSurvey! 22:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed it Ybbor; thanks for catching that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

merge

I don't really care which title we go with, but the bulk of the content should be from this page, being the guideline. Take content from Wikipedia:Straw polls and propose it for inclusion with this, see what happens, and then we get one page that talks about polling instead of two. Editors should not be running off to another page in an attempt to "counter" a guideline.. that's how instructions creep happens. -- Ned Scott 09:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Seconded. It's confusing to have overlapping pages, and Wikispace is confusing enough as it is. Most of the relevant content is already here anyway (and changes/additions suggested a couple of sections up). As I recall this title was the agreed-upon compromise between "straw polls" and "voting is evil". >Radiant< 09:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well I tend to see a need for two pages so that messages are not mixed/crossed and there is clarity for both. This is part of the problem that WP:ATT suffers from (inho) in that it is trying to do too much on one page. Let this page be about polling caveats and let the other be about how to actually conduct a poll. (→Netscott) 09:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • That's a false analogy. Verifiability is not the same thing as original research, but polling is obviously the same as polling. People get the wrong idea if they are told only half of the story. >Radiant< 09:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This essay would benefit by pointing to real examples of polls, and elaborating on how the polls helped or hindered reaching consensus. Perhaps we could start by just coming up with a list of some of these polls on this talk page, and then discussing why they worked or didn't work and why. -- Samuel Wantman 09:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What's your definition of a poll that has "worked"? (→Netscott) 09:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The polls that built consensus on the 3RR were pretty successful. This poll helped gauge feelings on the 3RR when it was still in a fairly early stage. This poll, which took place after much more debate and drafting, cemented the consensus that had emerged during the discussions. --bainer (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Move

This page was moved against consensus and should be moved back. Note that Netscott requested page protection first, then moved the page. This is very bad form. The old name was a long-discussed compromise, here. Older names included "Discuss, don't vote" and "Voting is evil". >Radiant< 12:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did request the protection some time ago (08:15). There was no coordination on this. I've moved the page per WP:BRD. What the next logical step is to make a subsection entitled "Polling is not a substitute for discussion". Then like WP:ATT we can make shortcuts to individual sections. (→Netscott) 12:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I support the move. The page name should be helpful and descriptive, not ideological. If you want to give your opinion, make yours an essay, which PNSD always really was anyway. 6SJ7 13:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

So if guideline names should be descriptive and not ideological, we should move Wikipedia:No personal attacks to Wikipedia:Personal attacks, Wikipedia:No original research to Wikipedia:Original research, Wikipedia:Assume good faith to Wikipedia:Good faith: assume it or not, Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point to Wikipedia:Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point... --Minderbinder 14:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a strawman argument particularly as Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll is in effect. Polling is an integral part of the functioning of Wikipedia whether folks want to admit that or not. (→Netscott) 14:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Proof by assertion isn't. Got any evidence that polls are integral? So far the only thing you've pointed out is that we've had a couple dozen polls in the past five years (other than, yes, RFA/xFD/FAC) which should serve to indicate they're exceedingly uncommon. >Radiant< 14:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Why this delineation? What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Polling is happening (and yes that includes... all aspects of the project). (→Netscott) 14:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • So you agee that it is by no means integral, it is simply "happening" at times. >Radiant< 15:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Without polling we'd be forever discussing X deletions, X elections, X RfAs, X policies, and yes X guidelines so absolutely polling is integral to the functioning of the project. It is very incongruent to rely so heavily on polling for the function of the project and at the same time illogically tell people that "polling is evil". (→Netscott) 15:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What's a strawman argument? The assertion was made that page names shouldn't be ideological. That seems to have no logical basis considering that many other policies and guidelines have names which are "ideological".

And I dispute your logic that polling is the reasons deletions and elections end. The reason we're not forever arguing over those isn't because of polling, but because policy allows an admin to interpret the discussion and close it with a result. Without the method of closing, those would go on forever, regardless if they were in the form of a discussion or a poll (as seen by the polls done that don't have a designated way of closing and go on forever). Along the same lines, there's no reason we couldn't take away the numbering/bullets and other "poll" looking aspects from RfA's, AfD and such, and they wouldn't go on forever, they'd be closed by an admin same as they are now. --Minderbinder 16:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I ask where is the logic in this denial of the large amount of polling that is going on here everyday? Sure at the end of each poll there is an interpretive reading of it but none-the-less the interpreting is of a poll... (→Netscott) 16:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, your response has nothing to do with my comments. I didn't deny that "polling" goes on, I just disagree with the conclusion that the "poll" nature is the reason for it not "going on forever". --Minderbinder 16:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well as I'm sure you are aware XfD, RfA, ArbCom, etc. polls do have a duration... am I missing something there? (→Netscott) 16:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes they do. So what's your point? --Minderbinder 17:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

When has a consensus discussion ever had a duration? Essentially all of that polling allows for determining the state of consensus there exists in an orderly and standardized format in a timely fashion... that is a good thing. (→Netscott) 17:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Editprotected request

The name of this page was decided by consensus as a compromise after long discussion, here. Netscott requested that the page be protected against edit warring; after this request, he kept edit warring anyway, which is very bad form, and minutes before the page was protected he moved the page away from the consensual compromise name to the name he preferred all along. I request that this bad-faith move be undone. >Radiant< 12:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes any admin is kindly requested to make a change from one wrong version to another. (→Netscott) 12:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You mean from your personal version to the consensual version, yes. >Radiant< 12:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Again the move was made in accord with WP:BRD... completely normal. (→Netscott) 12:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed, so the R is next, which is what is requested. Then we can discuss it, which you should have done to begin with. >Radiant< 13:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• I've been bold... with this talk about merging this page and Wikipedia:Straw polls this move is completely logical. (→Netscott) 13:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• You are requested to refrain from altering my comments by sectioning them off and removing the Image:The_Wrong_Version.svg image. (→Netscott) 13:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Netscott, you have been changing my edits by adding an image to the middle them, [2] and [3]. Such edits are considered disruptive. Do not do that again. You are welcome to add your own comments, but not to add images to the middle of what other people say. >Radiant< 13:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• In the middle? More like above... as in under the heading... nice way to "couch" this. (→Netscott) 13:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Netscott on the move of the page, if that wasn't clear already. Contrary to Radiant's comments, there never really was consensus about PNSD. And just to throw my 2 cents in about the "funny graphic", I don't think it's necessarily helping the situation. 6SJ7 13:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It's illustrative of this request. That is why the image is there. It so accurately portrays what the situation is here. I agree with your other comments however... there was never really a consensus... more like a resignment. (→Netscott) 13:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Actually it isn't, because this issue is unrelated to the issue that caused the page to be protected. Anyway, if as you say there was no consensus to rename this to "PNSD", we could always go back to the original name Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote. >Radiant< 13:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• As far as I am concerned, you can have "Discuss, don't vote" all you want -- as an essay. The guideline should have a neutral name. And, the lack of consensus was really more as to whether it should be a guideline than what the name should be, but this is a much better name. Also, there were still some "content issues" in the page that never got a consensus, like the ridiculous effort to tell people they shouldn't use the word "vote." 6SJ7 13:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • That would have been fixed by now if you had actually stated your concerns and helped in improving the page, rather than tag warring to deprecate it. >Radiant< 13:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• You were the one tag warring, not me, though apparently you got one of your clique members to warn me about it. As for my concerns, I find that doubtful. My main concern is that people should not be told not to use polling, rather they should be advised about when and how to use it. 6SJ7 14:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Lovely violation of WP:KETTLE here. No, you have not been tag warring at all. >Radiant< 14:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I have yet to see a case where accusing someone of a WP:KETTLE "violation" (what is this, Reno 911?) advanced a discussion. On point, it's not inconsistent to tell people they should avoid polling, and to provide guidelines on how to avoid doing it wrong when people inevitably do it. It's like telling teenagers to abstain from sex, but providing condoms and sex education anyway, because some of them are going to have sex.

      If we don't have WP:PNSD (or something like it), we imply that polling is encouraged, which is false, and if we don't have WP:STRAW (or something like it), we create a situation where people fall into the usual pitfalls over and over again because we fail to explain how to avoid them. We should embrace the contradiction of having one guideline saying not to do it, and another one saying how to do it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

      • Rather, to avoid contradiction and confusion, we could have one guideline saying both not to do it in most cases, and telling how to do it in the cases where it is. Otherwise we'd get two contradictory guidelines and people arguing (and/or wikilawyering) over which one takes precedence. >Radiant< 15:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I could see going either way. You've made the argument for consolidating the two into one; the argument for keeping them separate would be that each page could be more focused and say what it needs to say with a minimum of fuss. They actually have different spheres of application: one answers the question "when should we poll?", and the other answers the question, "having decided to poll, how do we best do it?". -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Moved it back, since the title "Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion" is clearly the right one per previous discussions and per the actual content of the page. I really do hope this is not going to get any lamer, because it is pretty silly at this point. I am also minded to remove the disputed tag, since there is as far as I am aware no significant informed dissent from the view that in all but the most restricted of circumstances polling is no substitute for discussion. I can't think of one place offhand where we go by blind vote counting without assessing the merits of arguments put forward, though there may be such a place. Guy (Help!) 13:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Very improper move in light of the page's protection. Mine is not the only dissenting voice about this current title. (→Netscott) 13:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Then I suggest we restore the earlier name, Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote and restart the debate that led to the compromise on the current name. >Radiant< 13:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• If Wikipedia:Straw polls and this page are going to be merged then the very obviouis name is Wikipedia:Polling. (→Netscott) 13:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, an equally reasonable name would be Wikipedia:Straw is not a substitute for discussion. >Radiant< 14:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

So, one or two people get to decide this? It's madness! I have an idea, let's take a poll! 6SJ7 14:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Taking a poll on a page that is going to function as a guideline for polls is perfectly logical. (→Netscott) 14:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

These pages might be merged someday, maybe. First lets actually finish (or even properly start) working on the other version, before we even think about that. Ok?

If it makes you at all happy, we can consider the other page a working copy, with this page being the live copy (but only if it does make you happy). But discussing a merge or page name for merged versions at this point in time is just a waste of time.

This is also why I'd rather not go play with tags at the top of the page until it is done.

Now can people actually stop playing wikinomic and just come to an NPOV description of wikipedia policy (something we should all be familiar with?).

--Kim Bruning 12:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC) If this fails, I'm going to send you all to the Featured Article team to do penitence and learn what all this "NPOV" and "Attribution" stuff actually is, just see if I don't! :-P

Suggestion

Saw this at WP:AN. Not attempting to wade into the discussion, but just offering a suggestion for a solution:

• This page and Wikipedia:Straw polls should probably be merged to Wikipedia:Consensus. With the subjective POV information (polls good, polls bad, polls exist, polls shouldn't exist, whatever) relegated to an essay of who-cares-what-it's-called. (Following Wikipedia:Naming conventions, of course. : )

Hope this helps : ) - jc37 14:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

While I agree there is overlap between this page, WP:STRAW, and WP:Consensus, I don't agree with merging all of them together. Sometimes you want to link to a page that explains a very specific argument in a succinct manner. That's what this page should be doing.

I can see a place for WP:STRAW providing details on the best ways to avoid the pitfalls of polling when doing it. (It's kind of like harm reduction - you encourage people not to use heroin, but you provide clean needles.) The fact is, a lot of polling goes on around here, and it looks at first glance like voting, so why not have a page about it? That page can explain in detail that it isn't voting and how to make that clear and avoid the problems that come up with polling.

Both this page and WP:STRAW are related to consensus, and I could see the consensus policy having sections summarizing both, with {{mainarticle}} tags pointing to the more detailed pages, kind of like how WP:NAME is a policy with a lot of short sections summarizing guidelines that each provide more detail. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I was not suggesting that they all be merged together in a single article, but that what doesn't merge into WP:Consensus, be merged into an essay. - jc37 14:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I still disagree. I think a policy, plus two guidelines, is the way to go, for the reasons I stated above. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jc37 -- subject of course to consensus as to what would actually be said at WP:Consensus. All the rest is essay. 6SJ7 14:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of guidelines is to describe good practices that we've developed. One of those good practices is avoiding polls in situations where we might be tempted to use them. Another one is figuring out less harmful ways to poll when we do it. Therefore, two guidelines. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

GTBacchus, I couldn't agree more wholeheartedly, one policy and two guidelines is perfectly logical. (→Netscott) 14:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

To me it is clear that polls are used to determine consensus where a decision MUST be made within some time period. In this context they are absoluely vital.

What is also clear is that this process is not necessary or helpful on articles.

However, what could be helpful on articles would be long established resolution techniques that involve mixed polling and discussion.

This guideline/essay does not firmly declare the value of polls for decision making as I recall. It mainly focuses on the unhelpfulness of using polls to push some majority position. And it is utterly silent on using polls to help develop consensus. This makes it a flawed writing. I think a huge amount of the problem on this page stems from the lack of clarity about what consensus really is per WP:CON. That page is the cause of troubles sometimes or at the very least is useless at resolving consensus issues. --Blue Tie 14:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the best thing this page could say is "Don't rush to use surveys; avoid them as much as possible for reasons A, B and C.... but if you really must use them, here's a link to WP:STRAW". -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• There is a problem with that. It means that we would split the current guideline (which alerady covers both aspects, but needs a bit of rewording) into two half-guidelines, neither of which actually gives the full picture. In general we tend to centralize such pages to give the full picture, otherwise we would be confusing editors (who e.g. only learn how to poll and not when, or vice versa). That is why, for instance, our blocking policy explains both how to block people, and when to block people. There's no good reason for confusing people that way. >Radiant< 15:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• On the contrary, this page indicates (at least in this one place) that there is not a consensus about everything on one page. (→Netscott) 15:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Straw man. This is an entirely different issue. As a counterexample, This page indicates that centralizing issues is helpful. >Radiant< 15:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Not a straw man, besides your counterexample of WP:NOT doesn't work due to the fact that most NOT items are covered in a few lines and not entire pages. (→Netscott) 15:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Yep, a straw man, look up its meaning some time. If you want another example than WP:NOT, try WP:BLOCK which also covers e.g. unblocking. Note by the way that this page could easily be summarized in a few lines. >Radiant< 15:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• No, due to the fact that my statement has qualification. It appears that your reading of straw man needs a bit of brushing up. As to this page being summed in a few lines I think while that might be a noble direction to head in it is almost assuredly unworkable. (→Netscott) 15:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Both examples are interesting. WP:NOT reminds me of WP:NAME, where a lot of items that are detailed on separate pages are summarized in a list. There are differences, but they're both largish collections of related ideas. This case is about two ideas that are complementary to each other.

  I guess WP:V and WP:NOR are complementary to each other as well, but in a different way than PNSD and STRAW are. They're more like a "do" and a "don't" version of the same rule. Another similar pair is WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. The two we're talking about are also a "do" and a "don't", but they're opposed to each other, which is different from the V/NOR pair and the CIVIL/NPA pair.

  Radiant, I think you make a good case for combining the two into a single page about polling. Such a page would make it clear that polling is non-binding, does not obviate the need for discussion, creates polarization and hides potential compromises, inspires sock/meatpuppetry, and undermines WP:NOT a democracy by misleading casual observers. Then it would go on to explain that there are, at any given time, hundreds of polls running on Wikipedia to make decisions about renaming pages, deleting pages, merging categories, promoting admins, banning users, and occasionally about content. Finally, the page would give instructions on how to set up a survey in the least destructive way, and suggest when it would be the least inappropriate to do so.

  Is that what you're thinking of? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Pretty much, yes. >Radiant< 08:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think you just gave us a nice outline for what the merged page should look like and contain (starting with "Such a page...") - jc37 11:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with GTBacchus. I do not believe we should say to avoid surveys as much as possible. I think that the way we use them could be greatly improved but I do not think that we should declare that they are to be avoided. --Blue Tie 15:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Why? Do you think polling should be used more? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Rulers are not fingers. Rulers measure fingers.
Polls are not consensus. Polls measure consensus.

ruler should not be merged with finger
These pages should not be merged with Wikipedia:Consensus

;-) 

--Kim Bruning 16:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• And also, slapping someone's fingers with a ruler hurts - and likewise, slapping a consensus with a poll hurts :) >Radiant< 08:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• And silly slogans and meaningless analogies do not help determine a good policy. 6SJ7 17:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The actual issue

There is a lot of confusion about this dispute, so let's look at what it's about.

Now the issue isn't that polling happens; nobody is denying that.

The issue isn't whether we should give suggestions on how to poll; nobody is denying that either. Note how this page already gives a screenful of such suggestions. Are these imperfect? Nobody is denying that either. But we can fix them.

Then why would we split them off to some other page? The answer is very simple. The people promoting this are largely the same people who object to the very idea of discouraging voting, and want this page deprecated. So they are trying to replace a page that discourages and explains voting, by a page that only explains voting but does not discourage anything.

But as we clearly know from article space, a disagreement over a page is not resolved by splitting the page into two "forks". First, this results in two contradictory pages, and second, this gives us two pages with disagreement on them. Rather than resolving the issue, this approach perpetuates it. So instead such issues are resolved through careful discussion on the talk page. You have suggestions for improving this page? Make them. That's how the wiki process works. >Radiant< 07:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes very nice way to assume bad faith about the motives of those working on Wikipedia:Straw polls. User:GTBacchus's idea that there should be one policy page and two guideline pages Wikipedia:Straw polls and Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion is perfectly logical. The only way what you are saying here will ever work is if the title is changed to be just Wikipedia:Polling and like WP:ATT have subsections of which Polling is not a substitute for discussion would be a subheading. I doubt you'd like that idea very much and if that is the case then that makes two of us. (→Netscott) 08:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The idea of one guideline called WP:POLLING with subsections about PNSD and STRAW sounds pretty good to me. Is that really so awful? -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If Wikipedia:Straw polls and this page are to be merged then that is logical. (→Netscott) 09:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggested a merger of this page and Wikipedia:Straw polls to form a page entitled Wikipedia:Polling in October and again in December. I still advocate such a setup now. —David Levy 16:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This is academic, as the page in question does not encourage voting. (as per the definitions provided). --Kim Bruning 11:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, where did they go? Ok, as per the definitions now provided again, at least. %-/ --Kim Bruning 12:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• The problem with WP:POLLING is that we don't need it. Or rather, if we did, we could just make it a redirect to here. This page states the fact that it's best to discuss not vote. Yes, we also give guidance on how to poll. But if we are to have a merged page it must retain the overall message that polling is a very, very poor substitute for reasoned debate. Plus, every time we have a poll, Jimbo kills a kitten. We must not forget that. Think of the kittens. Guy (Help!) 20:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • -) No wonder this page got moved by you away from Wikipedia:Polling back to the name it currently is showing. This survey of surveys appears to refute the notion that we don't need it. (→Netscott) 21:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Plus I wonder how many kittens Jimbo killed of his own accord (ie: without outside influence) in proposing this poll and this massive one? The kitten killing portion of your argument is falling flat. ;-) (→Netscott) 21:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Seeing the edit summary of this in my watchlist made me spit, as I had a mental... vision of Jimbo chasing a kitten ala that Domokan web meme, waving his arms. - Denny ^(talk) 21:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Guy (and others who disagree with a single guideline at WP:POLLING), what do you think of the rough outline I sketched in the section above, just above Radiant's reply "Pretty much, yes"? If that sounds like an appropriate description of the contents of a polling guideline, then the remaining disagreement is largely over the page's title, I think. Is that where we're standing? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    • That seems to be the gist of it, yes. However, it bears mentioning that the present name is already a compromise between the people who disapprove of polling (who suggested names like "voting is evil") and the people who like polling (who claim that a name should not be suggestive, even though we have plenty of guideline names that are). >Radiant< 09:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
      • The name is definitely going to have to change. There's no reason that "Polling is not a substitute for discussion" couldn't be a primary subsection of Wikipedia:Polling however. (→Netscott) 09:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
        • And why does it "definitely" have to change, other than that you don't like the name? >Radiant< 09:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• A guideline for polling doesn't start off with what is going to be one of the points of the guideline. That is just illogical. (→Netscott) 09:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• I've tried to read the whole conflict here, so I may have missed it if it wans't clear - why is having a page at Wikipedia:Polling bad? You mention how, traditionally, we as a community frown on polling, but it happens, and leave it at that. Fairly simple, in my mind, and better than the somewhat wonky title here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Because the ideologues among us insist on a page title that tells people what to do, rather than one that helps people. 6SJ7 01:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Because traditionally, we as a community frown on personal attacks, but they happen - and hence the relevant page is called Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I could likewise ask why having a page at the current title is bad. >Radiant< 08:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• I've already responded to the question at the end of your message here. As a guideline for polling a page having the title of what will be one of the points of the guideline is not logical. By such logic such a guideline could equally be entitled, "Wikipepdia:Polling can be a tool to guage consensus". (→Netscott) 11:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree that it's not logical. It makes perfect sense to clear up the most common misconception in the page title, and we have quite a lot of other guidelines that do just that. >Radiant< 12:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, so far of the currently active participants in this discussion, User:David Levy (who apparently originally proposed it), User:GTBacchus, User:Badlydrawnjeff, User:6SJ7, myself and presumably User:Johntex and User:DennyColt (who proposed a similar title) support this renaming. (→Netscott) 12:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • So instead of giving a reason, you're now saying that a majority is right? Wikipedia is not a democracy. As you are well aware, a couple months ago with greater participation in the discussion, this name was decided upon as a compromise between the name you prefer and the original name. >Radiant< 12:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes and Wikipedia is not a government either. I've provided a summary of the views that have been expressed here, why the need for citing not a demo? Also I have provided a perfectly logical reason why if this page and Wikipedia:Straw polls are to be merged the title should reflect this new reality. Citing an earlier consensus doesn't make a whole lot of sense because the concept of combining these two pages wasn't on the table at that time. Also as you typically are qiuck to cite, consensus can change. (→Netscott) 12:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • What is this "new reality" you speak of and how is it different from the "old reality"? This page already covers everything that STRAW is meant to cover (although yes, it needs improvement, we know), so it is not a matter of "combining two pages" but of "not splitting one matter over two pages that wasn't split to begin with". There has been no change in the situation, and no new arguments, since the last time we debated the name a couple of months ago. >Radiant< 13:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well if general consensus for a new title is evidenced then it is normal practice to adopt that new title. Remember no binding decisions? (→Netscott) 13:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You're dodging the issue and not responding to any points I bring up, instead simply repeating your own point again. That's not conductive for discussion or consensus. >Radiant< 13:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop arguing about a silly title, and start writing ;-) --Kim Bruning 13:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Some (ignored) survey methods for consensus

There is a technique called "Nominal Group Technique" for helping a group come to consensus. The wikipedia article on that subject is weak and of low quality (which indicates the degree to which such things are known about on wikipedia). A better description of it can be found here. Note that it involves a kind of polling or survey technique. This is not considered in any of the policies on wikipedia and the guideline here basically says "bad idea, don't do it if you can help it".

A second technique called "Delphi Technique" also exists. It is more cumbersome, computationally challenging to some, and is often misused in a way that has led to criticism. I could not find a really accessible description of it on the net and the wikipedia article does not quite to it justice -- focusing on its early roots as a forecasting methodology. One description is found buried [here]. But it too involves forms of voting or polling. It is time consuming but is it more time consuming than edit wars and contention?

Anyway, this proposed guideline ignores these and possibly other consensus building methods that use surveys.

And as an aside for those who are interested, the criticisms of Delphi also are criticisms of a "Consensus" approach. This might be interesting to wikipedians generally. One example of such criticism is here where the delphi process is described badly, (but probably as implemented in some instances) and described as a sort of enforced group think:

"The Delphi Technique and consensus building are both founded in the same principle - the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, with synthesis becoming the new thesis. The goal is a continual evolution to "oneness of mind" (consensus means solidarity of belief) -the collective mind, the wholistic society, the wholistic earth, etc. In thesis and antithesis, opinions or views are presented on a subject to establish views and opposing views. In synthesis, opposites are brought together to form the new thesis. All participants in the process are then to accept ownership of the new thesis and support it, changing their views to align with the new thesis. Through a continual process of evolution, "oneness of mind" will supposedly occur." ... "those in power ... preserve the illusion that there is community participation in decision-making processes, while in fact lay citizens are being squeezed out." --Blue Tie 12:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, I've created a page Wikipedia:Nominal group technique where people can discuss how they like this suggested procedure. >Radiant< 12:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope to participate in a meaningful way. I might be able to. It depends upon how my day and week goes. If I get off my current assignment, I will have some time. Otherwise I am going to be swamped. --Blue Tie 12:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Forming a new consensus technique is going to take a bit of time. Let us do do one thing at a time. Let us stay focused on finishing this page before we go off working on additional pages. (→Netscott) 14:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no proposed procedure at Wikipedia:Nominal group technique to comment on, so I don't see why it has a "Proposed" tag on it, or even why the page was created. The link on that page to the mainspace article on the subject doesn't count, because BlueTie already said that this article was weak and of low quality, so it doesn't really represent his proposal. Why not let the person who supports the proposal actually write the proposal, when he gets a chance? 6SJ7 16:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify my earlier comment: I do see a link the article (or whatever it is) that Blue Tie had referred to as containing a better explanation of the process. However, I think that in order to be an actual proposal, there would have to be a statement about how it would work on Wikipedia, and it seems to me that the best person to do that is Blue Tie, since he understands the process (which I do not) and he thinks it would be a good idea (about which I have no opinion since I do not understand what the proposal is.) Until then, how can there be a discussion? 6SJ7 19:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

Kim has a good point in that we should focus on the content here. Hence this thread. As people are likely aware, there has been some recent controversy with respect to the WP:RFA process. I don't the section on this page about people accurately reflects how RFA works. Suggestions welcome; perhaps we should ask Tony who seems to know a lot about the process and its background. >Radiant< 13:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure he's the best person to ask, given his commentary on Danny's RfA. With that said, no, it isn't accurate, because it is a straight vote count after weighing some subjective arguments inconsistently. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Newbie question...

Is there any actual difference between "Polling" and "Voting" (in WP)? --Ali'i 17:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"Voting" is nonspecific and can lead to confusion. People refer to polling as a type of voting (which it is), but they also use the word "vote" as shorthand for "majority vote." The latter usage often is incorrect (such as when someone claims that something "is not a vote" simply because we don't tally the numbers and declare a purely numerical outcome), but it's prevalent enough that it's best to use terms of greater specificity (such as "polling") whenever possible. —David Levy 18:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

???

Ye olde wikipedians have the following definitions:

• "Polling" is a survey to determine people's opinions. You can then figure out who you need to negotiate with to form consensus. A poll does not bind.
• "Vote" is a majority vote, binding on all parties. (which we really shouldn't do for diverse reasons)

--Kim Bruning 18:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

But as noted above, the latter definition (while commonly applied) is not strictly correct, and people do use the word "vote" to mean different things (which leads to confusion when others interpret it as "majority vote"). —David Levy 18:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That much is true. Which in the end makes it very difficult to have any kind of sane conversation on the matter. %-/ --Kim Bruning 02:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't be so difficult if Wikipedia editors used the same definitions as the English-speaking world in general. "Vote" means "vote", it doesn't necessarily mean "majority vote". Of course, this is not the only word that Wikipedia editors have redefined, causing a great deal of needless confusion. "Consensus" is another. 6SJ7 02:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Misspelled word

In the "Policy and guidelines" section, the second use of the word Wikipedia is misspelled as "Wikipidia." I tried to edit this, but was unable to because the page was protected. I think that the page should be quickly unprotected to change this spelling error and then quickly protecting it.

I'm not even sure what the controversy is over, nor do I care. I'm just a stickler for spelling, especially when it is the name of our beloved project. 128.62.94.7 23:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've corrected the typo. Thanks! —David Levy 00:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes polling *is* discussion

The best style of "poll" I've seen is to create subheadings for each considered option. People can "vote" under one or more of the options that they like and are encouraged to include a rationale. Most importantly, they can add additional subheading options they think of in the process of voting. In this way, new voting options are created that take into account others' rationales, and suddenly a voting option will be created that everyone agrees with and a consensus emerges. It really is a discussion; just a more structured one, which allows large groups of people to arrive at a consensus more efficiently. — Omegatron 16:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Move/merge/rename moratorium 'till may 23

Are folks seriously *still* bickering over a page title here? <sigh> Ok, let's set a moratorium. No merge, no move, no rename for at least one month. Maybe tempers will die down in that amount of time (and else we can extend the moratorium). Let's do something useful in the mean time, like actually editing stuff. :-) --Kim Bruning 16:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Kim. Some of us are attempting to engage in productive discourse, and you inexplicably advocate the prohibition of one side's proposed resolutions to the issues under discussion.

We need to establish consensus (whatever that may be) and act on it whenever it becomes clear, not impose arbitrary and artificial barriers. —David Levy 16:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again I agree with David Levy, particularly about the artificial barriers bit... now is as good a time as any to establish this. User:David Levy and User:Ned Scott are right, it is perfectly logical to combine these two pages. User:David Levy is entirely correct that the logical title for the newly merged pages is Wikipedia:Polling (even User:Ned Scott agreed with that, ""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...." Ned Scott 19:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)"). Given User:Radiant!'s edits to integrate content from Wikipedia:Straw polls, it is clear that the only sticking point appears to be the logical title. (→Netscott) 17:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I happen to think Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion is a wonderful title, because polling is NOT a substitution for discussion. --Ali'i 21:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Why, thank you. (I came up with the title.)

The idea is not to simply rename the page, but to expand it to include additional information about polling. "Polling is not a substitute for discussion" would become a section of the new page, and other aspects would also be covered. —David Levy 21:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Why are you unable to be patient for 1 month? --Kim Bruning 01:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Would the "guideline" tag be removed for the month as well? 6SJ7 01:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? --Kim Bruning 02:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think my meaning was pretty clear. You suggested no move, no merge, no rename, for a month. I asked if you would accept no move, no merge, no rename, and removal of the guideline tag from this page for a month. It's really a rhetorical question since I don't see any point in a moratorium anyway. I was just trying to see whether you were being consistent. 6SJ7 03:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Consistent with what? Is it my imagination or are we viewing the situation from very different viewpoints?--Kim Bruning 04:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course. You see giants where most of us see windmills. —David Levy 05:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess you're just getting a little frustrated, like I am. Would you like to retract that statement? --Kim Bruning 05:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It's an innocuous literary reference, Kim. —David Levy 06:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If you say so. Fair enough.--Kim Bruning 06:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with what we're "able" to do. There simply isn't any apparent logic behind your proposal that we postpone consensus-building for an arbitrary duration. —David Levy 02:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh? I'm proposing we postpone consensus building in an area where we're stuck while we work on other areas where we can achieve much higher gains. Perhaps when we get back to this topic, the solution will then be easier to reach. So in effect (hopefully) all this does is change the order in which we do things. In the end they all still get done. --Kim Bruning 04:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You're presupposing that "we're stuck" (based purely on a dispute involving two editors that appears to have died down). If anything, your continual disruptions are getting us stuck. —David Levy 05:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Stuck at doing what precisely? --Kim Bruning 05:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC) (that and the dispute was still live less than 24 hours ago)

Stuck debating whether we're able to discuss the matter instead of simply discussing it. —David Levy 06:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, forgive me for seeming obtuse, but I think this might pinpoint where we're talking past each other: Which matter are you trying to discuss? --Kim Bruning 06:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to discuss the possibility of merging two project pages in some manner. Instead, I'm stuck debating whether we're able to conduct the discussion regarding the possibility of merging two project pages in some manner (which seemed to be going along just fine until you basically shut it down for no apparent reason). —David Levy 06:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm breaking my head, but I can't see a wise reason to merge them at this point in time. Can you provide one? --Kim Bruning 07:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've explained my reasoning elsewhere on this page. In fact, that's what we were in the process of doing when you charged in and demanded that we stop. —David Levy 07:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for moving forward

I think that there are (at least) 3 separate issues here, and discussing them simultaneiously has been causing confusion:

1. Should the two pages be merged?
2. What should the target name be?
3. And by corollary, what should the intent of the target page be?

Let's separate the discussion at least along these lines. It may help more easily generate consensus. - jc37 21:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes, I believe that the two pages (Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and Wikipedia:Straw polls) should be merged.

2. If (and only if) this occurs, the new page should be entitled Wikipedia:Polling.

3. The new page should explain why/when/how to poll and why/when/how not to poll. It should document the dangers of polling inappropriately and the benefits of polling appropriately. A large portion of the page should remain dedicated to stressing the fact that "polling is not a substitute for discussion," but another section should provide advice on how polling sometimes can supplement discussion. —David Levy 22:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

1. No. This page developed to its current state to explain the pitfalls of "voting". It does a very good job of explaining the pitfalls. It could be a subpage of a more comprehensive page about "discussion leading to consensus".

2. This page is properly named. A more comprehensive page could be called "techniques for reaching consensus".

3. This page is fine as is. "techniques for reaching consensus" could discuss brainstorming, NPOV editing, ways to avert edit wars, when polling is helpful, using moderators or facilitators, mediation, etc... -- Samuel Wantman 01:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. On the one hand, you say that the page should be left alone. On the other, you appear to advocate an expansion to include everything that's been proposed and much more. —David Levy 02:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that this page is fine as it is, but I would be agreeable to creating a page that explains, in a positive way, numerous techniques for reaching consensus. What I'm confused about is why you think that this page has to become the page you are envisioning? Why can't this page be a subpage of your vision, that just illuminates the pitfalls of "voting"? I see your crusade on this talk page to be a wasted effort. It is easier to build on what exists. If you do not think this page is "wrong", but just not complete enough, create the more complete version and link it to this page if it is appropriate. I'd like to see much more positive explanations about how to reach consensus. I've had some consensus training, and there are many techniques which are underused on our talk pages. However, the consensus experiences that I have had reinforce the idea that polling is not a substitue for discussion. Considering that most people have no experience with consensus decision making and lots of experience with "votes", there is an obvious need to disincline the popular notion of having a "vote" whenever people disagree. This page serves that purpose. -- Samuel Wantman 08:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your statement that "it is easier to build on what exists," and I personally believe that the community would be best served by having the positive and negative aspects of polling described on a single page.

Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion could remain in its current form (and possibly serve as part of a series), if this is what consensus dictates. That's what we're attempting to determine, and I don't know why you refer to this as a "crusade." —David Levy 12:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes, it is logical that there be a single page about the pitfalls of polling as well as how to go about polling in the event a necessity for doing so arises.

2. Corresponding to a general guideline about polling the name should be Wikipedia:Polling.

3. I am in agreeance with what User:David Levy is saying in his #3 response. (→Netscott) 02:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Nomic

I am starting to catch a strong odor of Nomic wafting up from this discussion. --Kim Bruning 01:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the third or fourth time I have seen you refer to this "nomic" thing in this discussion (maybe some of them were at WP:Consensus). My bet would be that the vast majority of people who view polling and/or voting as a legitimate part of the decision-making process have never even heard of "nomic". I certainly hadn't before the first time you mentioned it. 6SJ7 02:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, a large number of people aren't familiar of Nomic. If they did, they might at least avoid the pitfalls that Nomic as designed to illustrate ;-)

It's true that many variants include voting, or other decision making processes, but that's not really what I'm talking about here. The goal of nomic is to change the rules and subvert process, until you win!

Right now on these pages, people are basically trying to win their side of the story, as opposed to cooperating on what's best for wikipedia. So at the end of the day, everyone means well, but folks have actually ended up actually playing a new Nomic variant, as opposed to Getting Things Done (tm). Oops. :-( --Kim Bruning 02:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't entirely see the point of this discussion and frankly find it distractive to the idea of hashing out a combined guideline page for polling on Wikipedia. (→Netscott) 03:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, Kim, what are you trying to accomplish? We're trying to have an honest discussion, and the only one playing games is you. —David Levy 03:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to accomplish the writing of an NPOV guideline. Currently people are doing everything but that. My actions are to stop people from doing everything but that, and to encourage them to write such a guideline. --Kim Bruning 05:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC) I have no strong opinion on a combined guideline, but since I currently find attempted editing on the NPOV guideline abandoned and barred by page protection, I conclude that the combined guideline concept isn't working out.

You're "trying to accomplish the writing of an NPOV guideline" by demanding that all discussion cease and nominating one of the key pages for deletion? —David Levy 06:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That is incorrect. --Kim Bruning 06:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That isn't what you've done? —David Levy 06:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Correct. That isn't what I've done. --Kim Bruning 06:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What part(s) of the above description is/are inaccurate? —David Levy 06:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

All parts, except "trying to accomplish the writing of an NPOV guideline". --Kim Bruning 06:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You didn't tell us to stop discussing the proposed merger "for at least one month"? You didn't nominate one of the pages under discussion for deletion? —David Levy 07:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge/rename/move etc are all minor details. They're soaking up a major amount of time here though. I proposed giving those topics a rest while we discuss and work on content. Work on WP:POLL had stalled entirely, it certainly is not a key page, and earlier discussion in one the above sections suggested that several people were in favor of its deletion. --Kim Bruning 07:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The merger proposal is the primary discussion topic, and WP:POLL is one of only two relevant pages. If the final outcome is the determination that the idea lacks consensus, so be it. Halting the discussion is of absolutely no benefit. —David Levy 07:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That's trivial then. Can we postpone that discussion until after we've actually updated WP:POLL? --Kim Bruning 07:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV only applies to articles. Guidelines and policies certainly can and should have a POV when appropriate. You think "no personal attacks" has no point of view? --Minderbinder 12:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Try it and see how you like it first. --Kim Bruning 14:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge this page with Wikipedia:Straw polls to form Wikipedia:Polling

• Ok, so far of the currently active participants in this ongoing discussion, User:David Levy (who apparently originally proposed the idea), User:GTBacchus, User:Badlydrawnjeff, User:6SJ7, myself and presumably User:Johntex and User:DennyColt (who proposed a similar title) support this merging and renaming. Why should this not be done? (→Netscott) 10:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• You are conflating two issues. The point is that polling issues have traditionally (and practically) been covered on one single page (i.e. this guideline) and there's no reason to cover them on two, hence the recent attempts to create a POV fork are not very useful. It is not so much a suggestion to "merge" things as a suggestion to "not split". >Radiant< 10:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well considering that Wikipedia:Straw polls as a guideline predates this page as a guideline it makes sense to merge these two and to make a proper guideline for Polling. Radiant! given the specific conflict between us over this I would recommend that we try to refrain a bit from further discussing this between us and allow others to express their views and respond to them accordingly. (→Netscott) 10:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • That is a nonsensical argument. Considering that "Voting is evil" as a guideline predates even the concept of "guidelines", it makes sense to make a proper guideline for "polling is evil". >Radiant< 10:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• The originally very humorous meta essay Polls are evil (just like Poles are evil) was never a guideline. Please refrain from clouding the issues. (→Netscott) 10:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure it was, it has guided many people in the past, so it is a guideline per the dictionary definition of the word. >Radiant< 10:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Rather than engage you in this type of adhoc fallacy (meaning you're making the rules up as you go along... calling essays guidelines when they are not, etc), I'm going to try do my best to patiently await the input of our fellow editors on this discussion. (→Netscott) 11:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Yawn. You made that argument half a dozen times and it doesn't get any better by repetition. The "essay" tag on Meta was copied from the one on the English Wikipedia. The classification described on WP:POL doesn't exist on Meta, and many important pages on Meta (including this one) predate it. Many essays on Meta correspond to guidelines no Wikipedia. You should know this by now. >Radiant< 11:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Your lack of civility is a bit tiring when you make "yawn" commentary and address me as "dude" (elsewhere). Still, meta most certainly does have policies like this one for example. (→Netscott) 11:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Straw man, dude. I never said Meta doesn't have policies. And what on earth is incivil about the term 'dude', anyway? Unless you're female, of course, but according to your userpage you're not. Seems to me that people who make spurious accusations of WP:POINT ([4]) should not be accusing others of incivility. WP:KETTLE, you know. >Radiant< 12:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The whole "guideline as bureaucracy" thing wasn't invented until after Voting is evil. VIE had the same status as our modern day guidelines do.

And "dude" is a lot better than "hey dickhead". "Dude" is like "You're being irrational. Relax and try to see this from my point of view. We're all on the same team here." It's not uncivil, dude. — Omegatron 15:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I admit, Radiant! and Netscott have now confused me... They both want the two pages united, but now the arguement is over whether they should be "merged", or that they shouldn't have been split in the first place? That seems awfully close to believing that the pages be "united". (Avoiding "merge" since now even the word is a point of contention?)

Then again, I thought I saw some tongue-in-cheek debating above, so perhaps they're just "pulling our legs" : ) - jc37 15:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I am opposed to a merge at this point in time. Rather, I am inclined to list both pages on MFD. O:-) --Kim Bruning 16:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Kim Bruning, you may be surprised but that idea does not strike me as particularly illogical. (→Netscott) 16:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Granted we're talking about one MfD for both pages simultaneously. (→Netscott) 17:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, waiting for a reply from Radiant? --Kim Bruning 17:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Now there's an idea. We could eliminate all pages on polling, whether good, bad, indifferent, or not a substitute for discussion, and let people devise a solution for each dispute that matches the circumstances of that dispute. (Which, by the way, they do anyway, without regard to this so-called "guideline.") That would be my second choice, after having a single page on polling with a neutral title, e.g. "Polling", that gives people some sugestions about when and how to use polling as part of discussion (see section above) to help clarify the issues and possible options involved in disputes, and to resolve them in cases where that is possible. 6SJ7 06:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• That strikes me as a bad idea. Disagreements over the content of a page are not plausibly resolved by deleting said page. >Radiant< 08:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Expanding the scope of the guideline

I don't understand the purpose behind most of the above debate. Who cares which page was a "guideline" first? Just take whatever information is backed by consensus (to be determined), put it together on a page called Wikipedia:Polling, slap on a {{guideline}} tag, and leave everything else for essays. Why is something so simple being turned into something so complicated? —David Levy 12:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

1. We already have a guideline backed by consensus on the subject - this one - and a number of essays;

2. There was an attempt to set up essay WP:STRAW as a POV fork of this page, using the same scope but excluding information that one particular editor doesn't like;

3. That particular editor is ensuring that this page remains protected so that it can't be improved, and is now suggesting its deletion; and

4. The name here is a long-standing compromise between such names as "polling is evil", "discuss, don't vote" and "polling", and the particular editor is suggesting that we abandon the compromise and instead use the name he favored all along. >Radiant< 12:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm not arguing that this page isn't backed by consensus. I'm arguing that its scope should be expanded to include whatever additional information about polling is also backed by consensus.

2. Frankly, Radiant, you're the one who appears to be attempting to exclude information that you don't like. You say that we should have only one guideline about polling (which I agree with), but you also say that because WP:VIE came first, the guideline should only be about how "polling is evil." If I've misunderstood your stance, please say so.

3. I agree that the deletion idea is absurd.

4. I suggested the title Polling is not a substitute for discussion, and I believe that it reasonably describes this page. It would not, however, reasonably describe a page derived from a merger between this page and Wikipedia:Straw polls. Furthermore, I believe that we benefit from the avoidance of titles that can be parroted by people who haven't bothered to read the pages. Do you know how many times I've seen someone exclaim "avoid self-references!" without possessing even a basic understanding of that page? Wikipedia:Polling cannot be used a slogan, so it would force people to actually read the page before attempting to cite it. —David Levy 13:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

(1) Agreed. But please tell me what in particular you believe is missing here that is found at WP:STRAW.

(2) I think you've misunderstood me (my argument there was a refutation of Netscott's argument that "his page is older", by reductio ad absurdum). I have no objection to include information on how to do it properly (e.g. the GTBacchus solution). In fact this page already contains some of that.

(4) While it would be nice if people didn't cite pagess without reading or understanding them, that problem cannot be fixed by renaming those pages, but only by educating those users. For instance, I've seen people cite WP:CON to suggest they decide issues by supermajority, which plainly contradicts both the page's content and its title. Calling a page "Polling" does not force people to read it; they can still cite it blindly, and they can quite easily assume that since we have a guideline by that name, polling is acceptable in all circumstances. If people cite PNSD without reading it, they will at least be encouraged to have a discussion along with their poll. >Radiant< 13:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

1. This page explains why polling can be bad. The sections containing polling advice focus primarily on what not to do. What's missing is detailed advice on when polling is appropriate and how it should be carried out.

2. Good, then we're in agreement. As noted above, this page doesn't contain nearly enough information about proper polling (IMHO).

4. I can't imagine why anyone would see the title Polling and draw any conclusions regarding the information contained therein (other than the obvious fact that it pertains to polling). Polling is not a substitute for discussion, conversely, can easily be parroted as a slogan by anyone who doesn't want to hold a poll. There will be instances in which polling is appropriate, and people will exclaim "Polling is not a substitute for discussion!", as though it means "we should never poll." (In fact, it also is true that discussion is not a substitute for polling.) For years, people have done this with "voting is evil" (instead of explaining why it might be a bad idea to poll in a particular situation or even stopping to consider whether this is true).

Additionally, the title Polling is not a substitute for discussion is indicative of a page documenting the negative aspects of polling. It is not a suitable title for a page addressing the general topic. —David Levy 17:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

David Levy what you are saying about avoiding a slogan is extremely pertinent. I actually said exactly the same here relative to the essay title "Polling is evil". Propagandistic titles are Evil and I 100% agree that a title should be more than about just being cited and then we're done with it... people should be obliged to read the page that the title corresponds to, not just cite it blindly which makes "Wikipedia:Polling" as a title perfectly logical. (→Netscott) 13:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously not, as I said above. Any page by any title can be and will be cited by people who haven't read it or understood it, so renaming a page with the intent of having people read it is misguided. Calling opinions you disagree with 'propaganda' is needlessly polarizing the issue. >Radiant< 13:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, someone can cite any page without reading or understanding it. The point is that people can't use the title itself as a slogan (thereby implying that the guideline backs the relevant argument). If someone opposes a (possibly reasonable) poll, typing "Polling is not a substitute for discussion!" conveys an actual statement that seemingly supports a staunch anti-poll position (and leads people to believe that this is the guideline's gist). Typing "Polling!" or even "Polling is bad!" doesn't have the same effect. Typing "Polling is good!" also conveys very little about the page other than the fact that it exists and pertains to polling. —David Levy 17:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I really fail to see how this "sloganning" is supposed to affect this. An editor who wants to display a slogan can type anything, and link it wherever he likes using piping or redirects, regardless of whether he links to an article, policy, essay or user page, and regardless of what the page he links to is titled. An editor reading the slogan can accept or ignore that as written, which means he knows the slogan but doesn't care if this corresponds to guideline text or anything else. A more curious editor can click the link to find out where it goes and actually read the page, at which point he has access to the actual text of the page and is no longer affected by just the slogan. Sloganning only works if the reader doesn't read beyond the slogan, and doesn't work if he does. >Radiant< 13:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that people often don't bother to read the actual page (and slogan-like titles encourage such behavior). That's my point.

I'm not referring to a situation in which someone links to a page with the intention of misleading others. I'm referring to a situation in which someone sees a title, misjudges the page's purpose, and cites the page with that idea in mind — an honest (albeit careless) mistake. Then someone else sees that citation and arrives at the same erroneous conclusion (and the vicious cycle continues). I've seen this occur many, many times with Wikipedia:Avoid self-references (which appears to be cited more often by people with zero understanding of the page than by anyone else).

The title Wikipedia:Polling conveys absolutely nothing about whether polling is good or bad, so users are encouraged to actually read the page and find out. —David Levy 13:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, no. To somebody with "zero understanding", the title "Wikipedia:Polling" conveys that polling is a good idea. The concept is the same - someone sees a title, misjudges the purpose, and cites the page with that idea in mind. Again, a careless mistake. The problem with people who don't read the actual pages is a problem with those people and not with the pages. >Radiant< 13:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree with David Levy, the title Wikipedia:Polling by itself cannot form a slogan. (→Netscott) 13:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

And neither can any other title, so that point is moot. You know, it would help if you would not interrupt a discussion to restate your opinion again. What's the rush? >Radiant< 14:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what David Levy has stated in this thread. I think he has explained the issue very well. The other viewpoint is, basically, a blame-the-editors position that does not resolve anything. If a guideline is supposed to be descriptive, then it should be descriptive of reality, not of what someone thinks should be reality. 6SJ7 14:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I can't imagine how the title Wikipedia:Polling could be perceived as an endorsement of polling. Do you also believe that the title Wikipedia:Harassment encourages harassment? (A major distinction, of course, is that polling isn't prohibited.) —David Levy 14:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The existince of a guideline called "Polling" could easily be perceived as an endorsement of polling (just like people use the existence of a policy called "Consensus" as an endorsement of supermajority voting). Apart from that, unlike with harassment, there are people actively trying to get polling used more often, who will at least subconsciously want to perceive it as an endorsement of polling. I suppose I'll go and find some examples of all three. >Radiant< 14:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia:Consensus is misrepresented by people who misunderstand the concept of "consensus," not by people who are misled by the page's title.

2. Are you seriously arguing that Wikipedia:Polling isn't a more neutral title than Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion (and therefore more appropriate for a hypothetical page documenting Wikipedia polling in general)? As far as I can tell, it's the neutrality that you oppose (because you want the title to be one-sided). —David Levy 14:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

(1) Well, and there are also people who misunderstand the concept of "polling", so naming a page that is not going to clear up confusion. My point is that some people will misunderstand any title, and some people will cite anything without reading it, so renaming a page to make sure it won't be misunderstood, or so that it will be read, is ineffective.

(2) "PNSD" is a statement of fact, not value, just like "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" and "WP is not for things made up in school one day" are facts. "Polling is good/bad" would be a statement of value. To my knowledge nobody disagrees with that fact; at least, I haven't seen anybody arguing that polling should be a substitute for discussion (or that WP is a dictionary, or should be for TMUISOD). So yes, it is a neutral title. >Radiant< 08:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

1. You're missing the point. No one claims that naming the page Wikipedia:Polling would clear up confusion on the part of someone who misunderstands the concept of polling. The inherent advantage of such a title is that wouldn't create misconceptions. Yes, someone who believes that polling is the solution to all of our woes wouldn't be slapped across the face by the name (and would actually have to read the page to learn that he/she was mistaken), but the title itself wouldn't generate such a misconception.

2. The above is merely a benefit of the proposed setup. The main reason to adopt a new title is that the current one would not accurately describe the proposed page.

Yes, this page's title is an accurate statement, but it would be only one of the topics covered by the hypothetical page. If you don't think that we should create such a page (and believe that we should instead retain this page in its current form), please just say so. I don't, however, understand how you can justify retaining that name for a comprehensive page about polling. Basing a page's title on the negative aspects of polling (despite the fact that it also focuses on the positive aspects) is far from neutral (or descriptive, for that matter). It would make no more sense than calling the page Wikipedia:Polling is a valuable tool. —David Levy 12:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• (1) That's incorrect. Do you know why WP:STRAW is not a guideline? It is precisely because people were reading it as an endorsement of polls rather than an explanation of polls. So yes, it would create misconceptions.
• (2) Your argument that the current title would not accurately describe your hypothetical page is, I believe, the only valid argument about this. Everything else about slogans and neutrality is a red herring and appeal to emotion. However, just because it's valid doesn't mean it's a particularly strong argument.
• (3) "Polling is a valuable tool" is a statement of value. "Polling is not a substitute for discussion" is a statement of fact. It isn't even a negative statement; it doesn't say "polling is bad for you" or "do not poll" or whatever. >Radiant< 08:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

1. It's funny that you would cite WP:STRAW for a straw man argument. I'm referring strictly to the title itself, not to the entire page. A major advantage to creating a comprehensive page about polling is that it would address the concern that separate pages appear to convey a blanket endorsement or condemnation.

The name Wikipedia:Polling merely indicates that the page pertains to the concept of Wikipedia polling. It doesn't say that it's good or bad, advisable or inadvisable, or anything else. I don't understand how such a title could reasonably be interpreted as an endorsement of polling. But even if it could, I do see how Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion could be interpreted (and quoted) as a blanket condemnation of polling, so the only inherent advantage (setting aside the page's content) is that it favors your anti-polling stance.

2. The argument that the current title would not accurately describe the hypothetical page is the reason why the title Wikipedia:Polling was proposed in the first place. Again, the current title's slogan-like nature is merely a side issue. I mentioned what I perceived as a bonus benefit to the proposed setup, and you latched onto and argued against it as though it was the sole justification for the proposed changes.

As I've continually noted (and you've continually ignored), I believe that Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion is an appropriate name for the page in its current form. Having a page of this nature necessitates the use of a title along these lines (which serves as an accurate descriptor). Expanding this page's scope would eliminate this condition (but again, this is merely a potential positive result, not a primary justification).

3. My point was that Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion would not accurately describe the page (because this would no longer be its sole focus). As you insist on nitpicking, how about Wikipedia:Polling is regarded by some as a valuable tool? That's a factual statement, but it certainly wouldn't be a logical title for a page on which the use of polling as a tool would be only one of the topics covered. Likewise, the fact that polling should not be substituted for discussion would be only one of the topics covered. —David Levy 13:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"there are people actively trying to get polling used more often, who will at least subconsciously want to perceive it as an endorsement of polling." Oh, the horror! 6SJ7 21:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm not "actively trying to get polling used more often" but actually trying to reestablish prior guidelines to enhance the opportunity that if and when folks decide to go the polling route they will utilize best practices when doing so. (→Netscott) 07:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

:-/ Didn't you just try that? --Kim Bruning 07:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not since User:Ned Scott re-proposed User:David Levy's original idea to merge the two pages. Given their input at well as that of User:GTBacchus, User:Badlydrawnjeff, User:Johntex, User:DennyColt and User:6SJ7 I too see the benefits of a combined page. (→Netscott) 07:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I see a combined page emerging automatically over time, as we edit these pages. I therefore don't quite see the point of holding an explicit discussion on the issue. --Kim Bruning 07:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well no, given the page's current title the only thing that is going to emerge automatically over time is further expansion on how polling is to be avoided. (→Netscott) 07:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

←

→ Well, polling is not a substitute for discussion (no pun intended), but there are still some situations in which it is useful, right? Those get explained at WP:POLL for now, I should think. --Kim Bruning 07:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes polling is discussion. — Omegatron 02:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)