Wikipedia talk:Polling is not a substitute for discussion/Archive 5

Jimbo quote
Maybe include this quote? "If you’ve ever seen the film 12 Angry Men; it’s the story of a jury that’s trying to decide in a murder case. And there’s one guy who disagrees with everyone else. He thinks that the evidence does not prove that the defendant is guilty. He argues for two hours, and one by one he slowly convinces people that there are holes in the evidence. And in the end, they acquit. Well, that’s what happens sometimes in a really great Wikipedia debate. You may have eleven people on one side and one on the other. But if that one person is reasonable and thoughtful and deals with the criticisms one-by-one, people will actually change their minds and we end up with a strong product."

- Jimmy Wales Or in Consensus, maybe? :-) — Omegatron 02:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ironically, in 12 Angry Men their discussion is punctuated by polls. BenB4 16:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not really ironic. Polls have a long history of being part of formal consensus decision making.  They are polls, not votes.  Until the poll is unanimous and consensus is reached, they are not binding.  The process of reaching consensus is also much clearer when you have 12 people locked in a room instead of an unknown number of people discussing things on-line. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 00:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Too strong
I think this guideline is too strongly worded. When there is a discrete choice, polls can be helpful. People do indeed discuss their position in polls if they are so inclined. AfD and FAC nominations are filled with such discussion where it is more common than not, I would say. I think we should be encouraging straw polls in some circumstances, as long as people fully understand that per WP:CCC the results of any poll are not binding. Does anyone agree with me? BenB4 16:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

lists
Suggestion to add somewhere:


 * On pages which invite opinions on an issue, it is often better to list opinions using bullet-pointed lists rather than numbered lists (i.e. * rather than # in wiki markup), so as to discourage mere counting of opinions.

Sześćsetsześćdziesiątsześć 21:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Are polls banned or not?
Given the friendly back and forth between me and Radiant on the subject, I think we need to figure out whether polls and surveys are banned (and thus proper to shut down), or they're allowed (and thus should not be shut down) on policy and guideline pages.

Because the issue affects a number of related guidelines, essays, and other pages on the subject, I think this page is a little too remote for that discussion so I proposed the question at Village pump (policy).

Until we decide, I won't re-add my statement that polls are not prohibited (thought I think that is true) or that editors should consider alternatives to shutting down polls. However, to preserve a status quo pending discussion I am removing Radiant's new counter-edit, which was to add an affirmative duty to obtain advance consensus on the appropriateness and wording of a poll. Thx, Wikidemo 09:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're askin the wrong question. No, polls aren't banned. However, speedily closing an ill-consired poll isn't banned either. They keyword is "ill-considered".  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

!vote defined
The new-speak term "!vote" seems to be becoming more and more prevalent to describe the act of participating in consensus building. While WP:!VOTE redirects to this article, it would be useful to define it's usage so that the confused (as I was) can have a place to confirm their intuition on what is meant. Here's my proposed definition to be added to the article:
 * The terms !vote, !voting and !voter are used in WP discussions to refer to the fact that taking part in a straw poll is not voting, but rather engaging in an act of consensus-building. In programming, the "!" character represents the negation operator, returning the opposite of the value it pre-pends. For example, !false = true.

Anyone else think this is a useful thing to define? Ronnotel 03:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, definitely. This is an example of Wikipedia slang that's perfectly understandable to established editors, but may not be to newbies, and could give them the wrong impression entirely (that the expressed opinion is a vote). In the interests of keeping Wikipedia open to newcomers, such potentially confusing Wikislang should be explained, or else discouraged. Terraxos 23:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I've never liked "!vote", and doubt that its usage will ever become clear to the vast majority of people who come across it, no matter how prominently it is defined. When it makes its way into general usage in many different forums outside of Wikipedia, I'll think differently. Until then I think there are many common English words that can and should be used instead. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 00:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think I like it either and would just as soon do without it. But still, I found myself at a disadvantage in not knowing what it meant recently. Ronnotel 00:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's wishful thinking to say the expression "!vote" is merely a reminder that the process is an act of consensus building; more often they are objecting to there being a straw poll in the first place, and using the expression as an argument against it. I let this stand (but shortened it to avoid it being too pedantic).  Much of the guideline, though, is overstated and doesn't really describe what happens in practice in consensus discussions.  Wikidemo (talk) 11:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It would seem that the best place to define that is in the glossary. There is some disagreement on what "!vote" means, even.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  23:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

wow

 * Wikipedia is not a democracy? what are you? a communism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.3.186 (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * An encyclopedia. 220.253.112.173 (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No guideline has ever been enacted through a vote
This looks like an exception to me: Talk:Gdansk/Vote. As a result it has its own approved template and an edit-warring exemption. Novickas (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. There is a discussion at WP:NCGN if the GdanskVote (which has generally proven useful) should become a precedent for some future problem solving by voting (and if not, why should it be kept). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Some prominent pages clearly violate this policy
For example, Files for deletion states "files that have been listed here for more than 5 days are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion have been raised." In other words, images can be deleted by one person's nomination (and possibly a bunch of supporting votes), even without consensus. In my experience, whether with files or articles, some people like to delete when the issue could be easily fixed by improving the article / file inclusion. ··gracefool&#9786; 17:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Potential problems with voting include:
Point 6 for introduction: Most people will not know about the voting at all. So mostly pro-supporters will have more votes. As happening all the time on the german wikipedia. (They voted against the stub template, idiots!). --helohe (talk)  20:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Nominators For Deletion Of An Article Voting Twice
In the Articles for deletion/Michael White (bassist), the nominator voted twice. Once with the nomination, then a second time just over an hour later on the same day he or she nominated the article for deletion. Basically, if you look at the AfD statistics for a particular nomination, the nominator already "voted" in favor or deletion when they nominated the article. But this person is saying that there is not rule or consensus about this. It is just WP:COMMONSENSE to not "vote" a second time. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 20:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So what do you all think about multiple "votes" by a nominator?  Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 00:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is generally no need for a nominator to add a bolded !vote, though sometimes it can be useful when the nomination is not clear about the desired outcome. One bolded !vote of the type that is present in Articles for deletion/Michael White (bassist) is generally fine, since it makes no attempt to hide the fact that the !voter is also the nominator, but admittedly it is not useful since it does not give whoever closes the AfD information beyond what is present in the nomination. However, a nominator (or any other participant in a discussion) repeatedly adding bolded !votes to his or her comments can be distracting, and such comments should be unbolded with a polite explanation.
 * Since AfDs are discussions and not votes, the important thing is to express one's opinion, not to cast a vote. In this context, the nomination itself is usually sufficient expression of the nominator's opinion. However, adding "Delete as nominator." is also fairly harmless, since whoever closes the discussion should be concentrating more on the substance of the arguments than on the raw ratio of bolded !votes. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I know that they look at what is being said rather then a "vote." But I just wanted to make sure that a second vote from a nominator was being used to inflate numbers.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 01:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Polls vs. court
Possible statement for inclusion in the article, which I can't seem to place correctly, but it kind of differentiates between "consensus" and "vote."

-

"Reasoned consensus" is what we are trying to achieve. What is the difference between consensus and majority? Consensus indicates that most -- if not all -- editors have discussed the issue in question thoroughly, and have agreed together on a solution. Rather than simply imposing one side's view or the other, many times there is room for a reasonable middle ground -- polling tends to eliminate that. Think of it not as an election, but as a trial: but what is on trial in this case is not a criminal, but an article or a policy.

Polling simply asks for peoples' opinions as they are -- and people's unargued opinions can be demonstrably wrong. Consider a court case, such as the one presented in Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird. On trial is a black man accused of rape, in an openly white-supremacist town from the 1930s. A simple straw poll of the town might well produce an overwhelmingly "guilty" verdict, despite the evidence all pointing to the contrary. In this view, polling for "how many people take each side" would be similar to attending a trial and deciding a verdict based on how many witnesses each side brought up to the stand. If at a trial, dozens of character witnesses for the defense all present fallacious arguments, and the lone witness for the prosecution presents irrefutable evidence that the accused is guilty, the correct decision would be to go against the majority of witnesses. If the majority opinion is at first unstudied or in some way ignorant of the issue at hand, polling promotes and preserves that ignorance. Polling, therefore, can often come up with the wrong solution.

Building consensus, on the other hand, invites discussion into all the various pros and cons of the impact, viewed from every angle, that a change might have. In the worst of cases, where many Wikipedians are on one side of an argument and simply restate what has already been said while paying no attention to fact, a small group of voices on the other side can present convincing and reasoned arguments that swing the final decision the other way. In this sort of worst-case scenario, for the final decision to go against majority (and with reason) would actually be a good thing. But this isn't how it usually happens. As consensus is built, people start to see other sides and why there is more to the issue to consider. Many times, after consensus is closed, everyone feels like their voice has been heard, as they too have listened to the voices from the other side of the debate -- and sometimes even joined that other side. Jsharpminor (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Voting system used in Arbcom elections: decision being made now!
People here may wish to indicate which voting system should be used for Arbcom elections. Feel free to compare and make your choices. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 10:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

General polling policies
We need to modify this guideline in such a way that an editor can start a poll with a defined polling process (such as to gauge the support for different versions of the lead paragraph) and then have authority to maintain those rules in a given section of the talk page. For example, such polls for support are more managable and resolve more quickly when oppose votes are disallowed. However, there is always some (l)user who refuses to abide by the rules clearly stated in advance. It should be permissible to remove those !votes from the poll, and there should be a canned warning which could be put on the violator's talk page warning that ignoring the pre-stated polling process is disruptive and as such may be reverted. The editor who started the poll should not be tasked with preserving the disruptive added content. The editor who violated the polling process should be responsible for expressing their opposition in another way, such as adding their own proposal and supporting that, not the creator of the poll. This M.O. is frequently used by editors to disrupt polls that they think will go against them, even though polls are only used for data gathering and the result would require another level of discussion before implementation. Yworo (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * See WP:ANI and Talk:C.S. Lewis for context. Yworo wishes to set up a process to declare dissent disruption if it upsets a given set of unilaterally-imposed rules. Such a poll is meaningless; while we might indent a comment in an AfD, for instance, under some circumstances, removing or declaring good-faith dissent disruption is something we don't do.   Acroterion   (talk)   02:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Such a poll is not meaningless. There are different types of polling to suit differing situations. If allowing people to disrupt polling polling processes limits the types of polls that can be conducted, then something is wrong. Polling is simply a way of gathering information about preferences. Seemingly, specific polling styles can be selected for arbcom elections, new admins applications or other situations and such rules are enforced in those polling situations. But not for gathering data about content preferences? Something is surely wrong with the current combination of rules if one cannot choose a particular polling style and have other editors respect it. Yworo (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As you've been told at WP:AN/I, editors lack the authority to "own" a thread and remove good-faith responses that fail to comply with their rules. Despite your assertion to the contrary, this is no accident.  —David Levy 05:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * And that this restricts the types of poll possible to the least useful isn't a problem in your opinion? I don't at all believe that this is not an accidental result, and I don't think you know this for sure either. If so, please point me to the discussion that decided this specifically to restrict the types of polling possible. Specifically, besides support/oppose polls, there are multiple choice polls, multiple round polls, ordering polls, and grading polls, to name a few. Again, please point me to the discussion which discussed the types of polls and concluded that types other than support/oppose had no useful purpose for Wikipedia and were intentionally excluded by allowing other editors to treat them as support/oppose polls. Yworo (talk) 05:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You're begging the question and attacking a straw man. I said nothing about a rule restricting the types of polling possible.  (We have rules about polling, but not the sort to which you refer.)  I said that "editors lack the authority to 'own' a thread and remove good-faith responses that fail to comply with their rules."
 * Notice that I wrote "thread," not "poll." You're mistaken in your belief that a poll is a special type of thread in which the initiator is authorized to dictate and strictly control good-faith contributions (thereby preventing "disruptive" deviations that supposedly interfere with a numerical tally).
 * If you regard a response as unhelpful, simply say so. If most others agree with you, it will carry little weight.  —David Levy 06:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, I'm talking about making changes to facilitate other polling type, even if that requires that the "initiator is authorized to dictate and strictly control contributions". You're talking about whether a poll is a thread or not. Your characterization of poll-subverting comments as being in "good-faith" beggars belief. Yworo (talk) 06:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In asserting that the proposed change would rectify a situation in which it's impossible to conduct the types of poll mentioned above, you assume that such a problem exists. As explained above, it doesn't.
 * Your belief that anyone participating in a poll in a manner of which you disapprove is acting in bad faith is highly disconcerting.
 * A response along the lines of "Banana, banana, banana, banana, banana!" or "SCREW YOU AND YOUR POLL!" obviously isn't intended to be constructive. A sincere expression of opposition is, irrespective of whether you attempted to prohibit it.  —David Levy 06:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * But such opposition should simply be expressed outside rather than inside the poll. If there is disagreement about methodology, one shouldn't put the metaconversation inside the poll, but rather in a new thread about that topic. A simple "A poll constructor may move out-of-process comments and metacomments about the polling method completely out of the poll into a subsequent section" would do the trick. Mayhaps there is an even more limited statement that would suffice? Yworo (talk) 06:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * A poll constructor has no special authority to exert control over the responses. Anyone may relocate meta-conversation (ideally by placing it under a subheading), but direct, good-faith answers to poll questions shouldn't be removed, stricken or otherwise formally labeled invalid.
 * You've proposed a solution in search of a problem. You seem to envision a scenario in which certain responses pollute a poll, rendering it worthless.  As noted above, if there is agreement that a response is unhelpful, it will carry little weight (and simply be discounted/ignored).  No blind tally will be derailed.  —David Levy 06:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Get this straight in your mind Yworo, as soon as you post a poll, it's controlled by the community not by you. You were seen off at AN/I and some forum-shopping isn't going to help. Nobody agrees with your position, you will never get any consensus for such a change and any attempt by you to enforce such a rule on articles will be seen as disruptive and ultimately dealt with by the community.  --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Write in an overbearing manner much, Cameron? You clearly don't understand my argument or my reasons for suggesting a mechanism that allows for preventing polling disruption. There is a work around, though. I'll simply make the poll in my user space, moving it into article talk space after it closes. Ciao! Yworo (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. There is no consensus that a "polling disruption" problem exists.
 * 2. Please see Gaming the system. —David Levy 19:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Editing guideline to just guideline?
Revert me if I'm wrong, but I'm trying to get consistency in the editing guidelines cat as part of a plan to get more volunteers to watch it; this seems like more of a miscellaneous guideline. See CAT:G for all the guidelines, then click on "Category:Wikipedia editing guidelines" and see if you don't agree that this doesn't seem to fit. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is not a guideline that should be applied to editing, since in no aspect does editing directly require the use of a poll.--WaltCip (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:3RR means that it does in revert wars. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 22:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Also agreed. Good call. -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 21:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say they are the same thing. undefinedUntil  21:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)