User talk:Lele

rules to write external links
Hi Joe, My name is Emanuele Lombardi, I'm new to wikipedia and I would like to ask you a question about the way it works.

A few days ago (Aug 4th) I added to the Wiki page "Electronic_voting" an external link to my site http://www.electronic-vote.org where I write my reasons against electronic vote.

I wrote the following description of the site "We, the people, should pretend to use ballot papers since electronic elections are out of any democratic control". You have changed it to "www.electronic-vote.org. Site apparently the work of Emanuele Lombardi, according to "

I'm not complaining about the change, but I would like to know which are the rules to follow when writing such things, just in case I'll edit some other Wiki pages in the future.

Thank you very much from Italy, Lele


 * I think this was you. I hope I have this right, but please sign your posts with ~


 * Usually, in the external links section, a link should either be labelled with the title of the site (especially if that is self-explanatory) or something like "official site of [Organization Name]" or a succinct neutral description. Additional notes can be provided (outside the link) to:
 * identify the author (which is what I did here: the targetted page did not have an author's name, but a linked page implied who the author was)
 * explain the nature of the site linked
 * mention if it is in some language other than English
 * mention if it is in a format other than HTML (such as PDF).


 * Remember that, other than a title, the labeling is in the narrative voice of Wikipedia, and must conform to neutral point of view. So the "We, the people&hellip;" thing was inappropriate.


 * If you need to discuss this further, please respond on my talk page, because I won't be monitoring yours. And welcome, stick around, browse around. It can take a while to get the hang of this: obviously, many semi-policies are more a matter of a consensus culture than a formal set of rules. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:26, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Joe, thanks for the explanation about the external link label I wrote.

I simply meant to show the basic idea of the linked site just like the label of the following link:
 * Internet Voting vs. Large-Value e-Commerce &mdash; Why securing voting is not the same thing as securing financial transactions via the Internet (Bruce Schneier)

Anyway, do you think the following label is acceptable?
 * electronic vote &amp; Democracy, A study about the relations between electronic vote and Democracy (Emanuele Lombardi)

Apart the label of the external link I would like to modify the following period of the Overview:

"By contrast, in a paperless system, voters must have faith in the accuracy of the counting software."

I would change it into:

"By contrast, in a paperless system, voters must have faith in the accuracy, honesty and security of the whole electoral apparatus (people, software and hardware) because without tangible proofs of electors’ will, no democratic control is possible over elections."

Do you think it is an acceptable modification? Would it be necessary to define "democratic control" in a new Wiki page?

Thank you very much from Italy,

Lele Talk 12:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * electronic vote &amp; Democracy, A study about the relations between electronic vote and Democracy (Emanuele Lombardi)


 * Other than the author's name, the comment doesn't add anything: what do I learn from this that I wouldn't get from


 * electronic vote &amp; Democracy (Emanuele Lombardi)


 * Beyond that, though, since voting is all about democracy, that's still a rather vacuous title.


 * This much is clearly an improvement: "By contrast, in a paperless system, voters must have faith in the accuracy, honesty and security of the whole electoral apparatus (people, software and hardware)."


 * *...because without tangible proofs of electors’ will, no democratic control is possible over elections." I have no idea what you mean. "Electors' will" is particularly problematic (what does it mean? If one elector's will is to kill the leading candidate, would you want tangible proof of that?) and "no democratic control" is a totalizing statement: none at all? You end up effectively saying that there is no middle ground between a totally trustworthy and a totally fraudulent system.


 * You can reply here so we don't keep splitting this over our talk pages, I'll watchlist this one for the next few days. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:17, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

to Joe Mabel
I agree with your remarks about the external link (I would have titled my site "electronic vote OR democracy").

"tangible proof of electors' will" is a (probably obscure) way to say "ballot papers or any other physical, tangible proof of what each elector actually voted for".

"democratic control" is the control that common, ordinary people exercises over its representatives: how they are elected and how they behave when sitting in governments and parliaments. I define democratic control in my web site against e-vote.

Given the above definitions I stated
 * "...because without tangible proofs of electors’ will, no democratic control is possible over elections"

Anyway it's enough for me to end the period where you stopped it:

"By contrast, in a paperless system, voters must have faith in the accuracy, honesty and security of the whole electoral apparatus (people, software and hardware)."

Can I modify the page, now?

Do you feel I can open a new wiki page about democratic_control with the definition taken from my web site?

Thank you very much for your help (and patience), Emanuele

Lele 12:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm a little confused by that last remark: I don't understand what edit you want to make. I suggest you just make your edit, if I disagree I'll edit or respond, and we can continue this from there. Sorry if I've made this complicated. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:28, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Democratic monitoring
Monitoring is not a good term either, it is normally used to describe monitoring of elections. There are four separate issues in your addition, that is the problem...
 * popular sovereignty
 * the distinction between direct and representative democracy, which is already noted in the intro, and also in the section on American use of the term 'Republic'
 * freedom of the press, and access to information. These are now considered qualities of a liberal democracy, and they belong in the section on Liberal Democracy.
 * citizen participation in decision-making between elections. This is not considered to be a defining characteristic of democracy, so you can not say that otherwise a country is an oligarchy. That is implied in your comment.

These four issues should be split, for clarity. The issue of direct versus representative democracy needs more emphasis, but there is a separate article.Ruzmanci 09:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)