[Wikipedia-l] Article count: Vote result

Tue Mar 18 16:00:00 UTC 2003

> Thomas Corell wrote:
>> I hope we get an automatic voting next time, which don't show who's
>> voting what. It will reduce possible influences. Nothing against
>> publishing the result with names, but not during the voting process.

> Oh, I think publishing the names as we go is a very good thing.  I
> think possible influences are good.  If people I respect are voting
> differently from me, it may give me pause.  If people I don't respect
> are voting the same as me, it may give me pause.

> Voting isn't supposed to be an alternative to open discussion and
> consensus building, but a methodology to formalize it.

I agree with Jimbo here, for the reasons I have already explained on  
Talk:Article count reform. Here's a copy:

     Transparency works both ways -- it may encourage groupthink, but it  
also lets you use strong votes to express dissent with options you dislike  
that seem to be winning, esp. in a preferential system. In my experience,  
hiding votes sounds like a good idea at first, but works badly in practice  
because what is often snobbishly called groupthink is really valuable  
information that you don't want to do without once you lose it. Should I  
bother reading this option if all people I trust have rejected it? Should  
I maybe give this a closer look if people I don't trust have buried it in  
negative votes? I also find it funny that the argument "groupthink" should  
be used against open voting, whereas we try to strive for consensus  
without voting whenever possible, a process which is much more likely to  
encourage groupthink ("Gee, I don't want to stop the consensus!").

    Secrecy is necessary for real world votes, but here we can afford some  
openness. It's the wiki way.

Regards,

Erik