But what did you intend as a definitive threshold? To ensure accuracy
for any important decision it would have to be around 90%. Surely if
one person raises a valuable point, and one that is worth voting 'not
yet' for, at least 10% will follow. But 90% will help reduce the
effect of mild sockpuppet use etc. Then again, if we allow experienced
users to strike votes, we should be going for 95%...
On 9/3/06, Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
On 9/1/06,
Angela wrote:
On 9/1/06, Cheney Shill wrote:
User voting, whether by poll or by discussion
until one side stops
discussing (aka, into the ground), is original research. So, yes,
consensus applied this way should die.
Perhaps consensus polling should be tried instead.
http://icannwiki.org/Consensus_Polling
Perhaps we should stop calling it consensus in those places where
there is no desire to find a solution everyone can agree upon.
The main problem is that it is still original research. That's fine for a group of
experts deciding whether to call Pluto a planet, call it something else, or to simply
describe it without any name. In terms of the encyclopedia, it leaves the decision to the
editors, not the sources.
I do like the Yes/Not Yet concept. I wish that a definitive yes/not yet threshold would
be defined in determining whether something is sourced (and therefore can be included in
the article) or not yet adequately sourced (and therefore left out).
~~Pro-Lick
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick
http://www.wikiality.net/index.php?title=User:Pro-Lick
--spam may follow--
---------------------------------
Get your email and more, right on the new
Yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l