[Wikipedia-l] Article count: Vote result

Wed Mar 19 01:25:43 UTC 2003

Erik Moeller wrote:

>1) An article is counted if, trimmed of all trailing whitespace (blanks,
>newlines etc.), it is longer than zero bytes (non-empty) AND
>2) it contains at least one link.

This is almost exactly the result that I wanted.
The only thing that I'd prefer is to let each wiki decide for itself,
but that takes a lot more coding.

>I have done my best to avoid errors, and for the first stage have compared
>with Tomos' count, but I cannot be certain. While an error is unlikely to
>affect the result, pedants may want to doublecheck just in case. Please note
>that votes added after yesterday's deadline should not be counted. I also
>did not count the anonymous vote (6 against dynamic).

And since Jimbo endorsed the result, you didn't count my vote, right?
(See my comment on the talk page.)

>Finally, I would like to point out that the process has led to a remarkable
>number of ideas -- some of them awful, sure, but some of them, like the link
>idea, have never been mentioned on the mailing list. This, too, demonstrates
>the advantages of a formalized brainstorming process.

A formalized brainstorming process?  Certainly a good idea.
Since the first of your voting pages that I saw,
I've thought that they were a good way to get people
to come out and talk.  It's insisting that the results be valid
that is problematic.

>3) The system used therefore allowed us to gather a very large amount of
>information about the opinions held. It would be difficult, if not
>impossible, to gather as much information through a non-formalized process.

Same comment as above.

>5) The combination of options and the possible requirement to split up voting
>into stages need to be discussed to avoid ambiguity (e.g. "can more than one
>option win?").

In this case, a maximum of 1 restriction other than size was allowed.
Indeed, several things like this were decided by the voting administrator,
not the voters.

>These are my thoughts for now -- please add yours.

Oh, and I like approval voting better than this method. ^_^

-- Toby