User:Kim Bruning/quickpoll does vfd represent the consensus of all wikipedians

This is not an official poll or vote in any way, form or function! I'm just curious what people think. :-)

So! Let's use vfd format (ie, no split sections, and allow threads)

Does vfd represent the consensus of all wikipedians?

 * No. Hmm, I guess not, since a lot of people don't dare go there anymore. (this is an example vote) Kim Bruning 16:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Quickpolls are evil! --SPUI (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The consensus of all Wikipedians is that you can never get consensus from all Wikipedians. ;) --Alan Au 16:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No, since I see about 3-5% Wikipedians even vote on VFD. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No. VfD owes its existence to history.  It was originally intended to be a temporary mechanism to be used until a non-admin deletion feature was added to the software.  Since there was never any agreement on how the non-admin deletion feature would work, VFD has become a permanent feature.  VFD dates from the project's roots when inclusionism was the consensus.  Since we had so few articles, it seemed pointless to delete any of them.  Now that the project has matured, we still retain what is fundamentally an inclusionist structure -- we keep everything unless we have a consensus to delete, instead of deleting everything unless we have a consensus to keep it.  I don't believe that either VFD or the decisions it produces reflect the consensus of Wikipedia as a whole.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No, but it comes closer than all the options that have been suggested as its replacement. It is in my opinion the best way to estimate the consensus of all Wikipedians, and with slight tweaks it could be made even better at that. - ulayiti (talk)  17:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * My understanding of VfD is, like most "consensus" pages on Wikipedia, it represents the collected opinions of those who bother to express an opinion - which is considered "the consensus of all wikipedians" by most wikipedians, most of the time. So, yes.  AFAIK, VfD isn't broken, it's just large.  Some more courtesy to ignorant newcomers might be nice - but I still see lots of good new Wikipedians showing up, and lots of good content being added, and lots of bad content being deleted, so I don't think the process is broken. JesseW 20:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm specifically asking if vfd still represent consensus. Whether or not it's broken is a question that's being asked elsewhere I think :-) Thanks for your answer :-) Kim Bruning 20:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No. It's so overrun with trolls and extremists that most right-thinking people only stop by when there's an article that needs to be fed to them.  (Not that everyone who frequents vfd is a troll or extremist, but those few brave souls that aren't are vastly outnumbered.)  There are times when I think we'd be better off rolling dice. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, to the extent that it can. It's not going to represent the consensus of User:John Smith who doesn't vote on VfD, but that's their problem.  It's like any other form of voting.  If you don't vote, you're only hurting yourself.  And I think giving articles ratings is a worse solution than the one we have now.   ral  315  22:59, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think yes if you're asking if it's output roughly matches where the general wikipedia population considers the line between inclusion and deletion to be. The current debate involves a lot more discussion about process. As it is, it seems to me that most of the debate centers around volume, tone of the debate and a lack of participation rather than a general dissatisfaction about the results. Rx StrangeLove 02:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * In general, probably not, but it's a workable approximation. The VFD regulars are an obvious subset of 'pedians in general. However, for any important article, however, people involved with that article tend to pile in and make the vote closer to true consensus. In general, however, there are two kinds of VFD nominations: 1) "This is obvious crap, any objections to deleting it" (e.g. anything obvious, such as vanity or advertising), and 2) "I believe that this content shouldn't belong in an encyclopedia" (such as POV articles). The former kind of nomination is largely procedural and does not require attention of the Wiki as a whole. The latter are important and often controversial, and could require more input (preferably in a form that gets less convoluted than VFD is now). Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 11:39, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe. Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the rest. VfD is like a car that needs its tires rotated - not "broken" so much as it is "misaligned". It takes you where you want to go, but it's a bumpy ride. I'm working on some ideas to smooth out the ride. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 16:04, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * No. VFD is simply a "flash poll" -- a quick survey of people who happen to be aware of a situation, are in the "area" at the time, who place a priority on expressing an opinion and/or who are recruited by those with an interest in the issue.  As the sample of editors participating is not random, but is self selected, the result could never be statistically valid or represent "consensus."  Over time, the VFD polls can and will change, as the Wiki participants change.  So all VFD's, oddly enough, are really temporary.  The article topic and related issues are very likely to emerge again.  WBardwin 04:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No --- Not anymore than your quick poll would be likely to represent a consensus of all editors on Wikipedia (eg). A vfd represents a consensus by the people who notice it and are concerned or interested by it only, and individual voting sessions are just not widely visible.  There are too many viewpoints about the relevance of any article (on a topic) to really have that the few votes that do come in are representative, and an individual can only pay attention to so many things at once, noone could reasonably participate on all vfds.  There would have to be a limit of something like 4 or 5 Vfds a week total, and votes posted prominently to really see that you have a consensus of even most of the editors. --Mysidia (talk) 05:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * As much as anything else is. A determined deletionist or inclusionist need only email a dozen other editors to gain a big enough voting bloc to get most things deleted or kept. However, so far as I can see, it rarely happens. That's interesting. -- Grace Note
 * Definitely not, in my view. The whole voting system, for some reason or another, tends to work badly for some reason. One major problem is that whether a page is actually deleted or not is often up to the discretion of the closing admin (which often seems entirely arbitary; VfDs that were an overwhelming majority to delete have been treated as "keep" votes by certain admins). Moreover, the animosity and unpleasantness attached to the process generally discourages people from voting &mdash; on articles where a sole proponent wishes their article to be kept, the whole thing occasionally degenerates into uncivilised ad hominem. As a consequence, it is hardly surprising so few Wikipedians wish to get involved in VfD (and dare I say it, probably rightly so, as it would rapidly become a madhouse if a greater proportion of editors got involved). Something better needs to be put in place. I shall carefully think over the matter and come up with an idea on how to fix it. --NicholasTurnbull 00:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No. It represents the consensus of VfD regulars, who have a skewed perspective on Wikipedia and its users, because they only see the worst of it. RSpeer 04:35, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Mu! Or, "Am I asking the right question?"

 * Am I? If not, what would (a) better question be? Kim Bruning 16:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Possibly, "what would a better question be?" JRM · Talk 17:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * But less facetiously, now. I doubt anyone could agree VfD represents the consensus of all Wikipedians. There's also the question (hey!) of whether that's necessary and if so, how to arrange it. (It's patently impossible, of course, which raises the question of how to deal with that). So, that's three questions already! What a good quickpoll. :-P JRM · Talk 17:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)