User talk:Kim Bruning/voting

Ut Oh. I'm opening a can of worms with this one!

The idea is psychological. Having The Big Explody stuff in plain sight and available, (but with a large warning sign) might be better than denying its existence.

Then again, putting "SMOKING WILL KILL YOU" on packets doesn't really help much either. *Scratches head*. I'm not advertising this yet, please discuss!

Kim Bruning 11:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Kim, why didn't you just use proposed instead of the WARNING + DANGER disclaimers? I saw from history that you removed the proposed template. Didn't really get why you did that. Edit summary was: Proposed? HELL NO! - which didn't clarify much to me. See also intro on category:wikipedia proposals for more ideas.
 * On the content of your idea: Most discussions whether something is a "straw poll" or a "vote" are futile, just absorbs useless energy, compare nl:Overleg Wikipedia:Regelingen rond moderatoren (energy-absorbing discussion on whether a "straw poll" result of more than 66% should be accepted as if it had been a "vote")
 * Many straw polls that are organised (speaking about English wikipedia again) are some sort of dodging of conflict resolution: "Conduct a survey" is seen as something that should come after "negotiation" and "informal mediation"; the fact that wikipedians often jump to voting early in a process is not remedied by saying "oh, it was only intended as a straw poll": basicly the two are not different in an open system like wikipedia, where one can only make others abide by a vote result if they are convinced. Adding a third "flavour" called euphemistically "shortened consensus finding" is still a further step in the wrong direction IMHO. Although your argumentation is very sound (IMHO you really give good recommendations about what should be avoided, and what is a better approach) I fear most wikipedians would only remember if you call a "vote" "shortened consensus finding" you've avoided problems... --Francis Schonken 09:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)