The "definitive threshold" suggestion was meant specifically for counting
sources, not to editor voting. Editor voting at an article level is original research.
It's best viewed as setting a 3RR threshold to content sources. If the threshold
isn't met, then it's simply up to the users that want the change to find
additional repubtable/reliable sources, not to re-argue endlessly or to find more puppets
to vote for their cause.
So whether or not there is a really good point is left to the external sources, not to a
group of editors of unkown expertise.
Because the threshold would be preset, there would be no arguing over whether or not x%
represents consensus every time. We would count up the reputable/reliable sources for any
proposed change to see if the threshold is reached. If reached, then change.
To put it another way, we, or more likely Jimbo and higher-level admins or the same group
that arrived at 3RR, would define a set level at which to decide whether there is a
consensus of sources for any given article. From there, that threshold would be used like
3RR for any change to any article. If the source level is reached, that change would be
made. No voting. Just counting the sources.
I think this would take care of the ongoing libel issue too. You really don't have to
create yet another policy. If 90%, or 80%, of verifiable sources say somebody said
"macaca", then the libel is with the sources, not somebody reporting what the
sources are saying, which is the somebody Wikipedia is supposed to be. You may, however,
still need some monitoring mechanism, other than the supposed efficiency of the grand
"Wiki way".
Akash Mehta <draicone(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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 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--
---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengers low PC-to-Phone call rates.