UDWiki talk:Open Discussion/Democracy on the wiki

Notice

This is NOT a policy discussion. This is an Open Discussion about an issue regarding the wiki. Please treat it as such and contribute with that in mind.

Please use third level headers when adding a new topic or dividing the conversation.

Another Meatpuppets Example

The links in the project page are pretty old (but still good), and I think this is a decent, more recent example of it. The 4H dragged members from their forum in order to try to get the page deleted, and Escendo Numerus did the same, but to keep the page. --Z. slay3r •  Talk  15:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, regarding examples of onerous meat-puppetry, one of the first things I thought was that, if the only examples on the go are from 2005, and both are suggestions (not the most important thing in the world, given the Kevan-filter), then where's the fire? You dig? I sometimes think "man, when the zombies come out in force, it seems like a really one-sided voting system", but I fall back on my Kevan-filter philosophy (if it's a suggestion) and don't worry too much. Are there some key examples of where a democratic UD wiki is causing serious problems? --Funt Solo 16:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Another prominent example is the DEM roster deletion request. Also, the links i gave in the main posting were merely there as the most blatant examples i could think of (Where scores of people signed up to vote). There was a time when zombies had to do it to stop super overpowered survivor suggestions through before we struck the healthy balance we have now, roughly. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting example - not of democracy, but of mob rule. I mean, hardly anyone there agreed on anything. Having read through it - I have no idea what criterion it was finally deleted under, tbh. It looked like an angry crowd of peasants with torches and hay-forks just went in there and set fire to everything. I didn't notice any meatpuppetry, though. Just a large mob. Not so much a problem with democracy, as a problem with the way the deletion system was being abused with no clear-cut intervention from a sysop or 'crat. --Funt Solo 17:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh, yeah. I guess it is pretty easy to tell from all the red usernames and absences of comments. --Z. slay3r •  Talk  18:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are talking about the DEM Roster deletion request, there is only one red name left, Tumu, but he's been active since he signed up. I'm sure some people have popped in at the request of others to vote down something, but that is hardly new. Looking over the rest of the people who voted, they have all been either around for a while beforehand, or active since signing up. It's hardly meat-puppetry. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 19:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, Is it realy meat-puppetry if players of urban dead log in to vote or whatever, even if it is at the behest of someone else they know?--Seventythree^Talk 19:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Meat-puppetry is the idea that someone goes to get new people to sign up simply for a vote. Look at the contributions of the people involved in that vote. The majority of people were already on the wiki, and the few (two or three) that joined for the vote have remained members on the wiki. It's not like people made an account to simply vote for it, and then never used the account again. However, I wouldn't be surprised if it happened. More what I see happen from time to time is that someone goes out and makes a general call for votes, and summons people who haven't been on the wiki in almost year or more, then the summoned people go back "on hiatus". --Akule ^{School's in session.} 19:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, so we're talking about the creation of one-time accounts for one sole purpose huh? Then the awnser is simple, surely, if the person putting the whatever it is into voting feels that most of the voters are meatpuppets, then they may call on sysops to nullify the votes of the users with less than, say, ten contributions.--Seventythree^Talk 19:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

A simple change to the deletions, suggestions, or policy or voting requests stating that a user needs to be a part of the wiki for at least one-two weeks (most voting requests run two weeks, so two weeks might be appropriate) and have over, say, 10 edits to their name could be done. That gives you an idea that while the user is new, they are more than likely going to become a part of the community proper. Even then, you can see if someone is doing obvious padding or not to just meet the requirement to vote, simply by looking at their contributions. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 20:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry doesn't necessarily have to involve new accounts, Akule. Surely calling on people from a forum or IRC to vote would count whether those people have accounts or not? I mean, as long as they wouldn't have voted otherwise, this whole new account argument is just a red herring. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 20:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Big problem here is that people hear about stuff that is up for vote in-game, if that vote is going to change the game then they have every right to join the community vote and then leave. Obviously that pretty much only affects suggestions but it is possible to read group pages etc... without joining the wiki isn't it? If that is the case then those same folks may join just to vote for or against deletions and a lot of other points too! This whole thing supports the game not the other way around and insisting that people register and actively participate just so they can vote on 1 single issue that affects them enough that they want to vote is going too far!--Honestmistake 14:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, HM, which is why I voted against a BobHammero policy years ago that was trying to push through a "x edits before you vote" rule. And, I was exercising my right to vote against that as a brand new wiki member (10 edits or something daft) who'd been playing UD for months. I hate that elitist bullshit - we've been here longer, we know best ka-blah. But, I don't think that's what Grim is suggesting on this open discussion. What he is suggesting, however, has some key flaws - consensus voting takes effing ages to reach a conclusion and can be veto'd by just about anyone and their dog. --Funt Solo-QT- 14:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Funt is correct, i am not suggesting that newbies not have a voice. I am just proposing that "votes" are weighted by their content, instead of their presence. Believe me, under the cirrent system, a huge forum could come along, propose a stupid and damaging policy, and then spam keep it well beyond our capacity for rejection, and under current policies in place we would be required to impliment it. I can think of three or four forums off the top of my head that could do it, two of which probably would if they had thought of it first, and were interested enough to do so. To solve some of the flaws You raised Funt, we could keep the time limit on the votes. Two weeks to reach a concensus for or against, if none is reached, then the motion is tabled until a later date, and maybe an open discussion on the matter is opened for people to hash out the issue in preparation for another request. Im just tossing out ideas here. You are all welcome to do so (In fact, im asking that you do so) --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Very well, how about this? Don't know how this could be implemented, but a system of worth of votes based upon contributions, so, something like <100 contributions worth 1 point, 100-250 contribs 2 points, 250-500 contributions 3 points, 500-750 contributions 4 points 750+ contributions, 5 points. Rewards active participation within the community.--Seventythree^Talk 17:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope you realise that's insane. There's no way of knowing the quality of a contribution. Someone could be prolific, but utterly unreasonable, and thereby have the strongest vote in the entire wiki. Then again, a complete newcomer might be a mixed clone of Albert Einstein and Mother Teresa, but have the weakest vote. In some cultures, the people who talk the most are considered the least intelligent. --Funt Solo-QT- 18:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You've got a point. Some asshole could just mouth off at everyone. Ok, scrap that.--Seventythree^Talk 18:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A Modern example of meatpuppetry in action: Suggestion:20071110 Pac Man in Malton!. Half the keep voters havent posted in ages, or have signed up just to vote. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 18:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Put this in wiki news box?

Should we put this in the wiki news box? It is, after all, a discussion of possible major reforms to the wiki. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 08:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ill put it there for now as its a possible prelude to a policy change, and thus should be there. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"sees this on the news" the hell? The man 11:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't know if this is in any way feasible... but what about this? You're not allowed to vote until you've been registered on the wiki for a certain amount of time and/or made a certain number of contributions or edits (talk page yakking prob. not included). This won't solve all the problems, but it moves in the direction of helping to ensure that people have a certain basis of knowledge and experience before they start voting and influencing major -- or trivial yet essential -- decisions. At least apply this on the admin-type stuff... Again, just tossing an idea out here... All said and done, I don't really agree that a lot of the alleged problems you point out are really as serious as you make out or perceive them to be; therefore I am skeptical it needs fixing. But perhaps I'm just not aware of everything... --WanYao 07:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

A consensus based system? So who decides what the consensus is where it isn't clear? I think that type of system will just favour strong personalities, loud mouths or the bull headed who ignore any contrary opinion and wont shut up until they get their own way -- boxy • talk • 07:32 1 November 2007 (BST)

Well, that would be just one topic for discussion. It would be pretty darn stupid for me to advocate concensus, then start calling all the shots. There are several things we can examine from wikipedia to model our own system on (As opposed to just ripping them off), such as WP:CONCENSUS. There are numerous other guidelines there that would assist as well, not limited to that, such as WP:POINT and WP:IAR. If done correctly we get rid of wikilawyering too. Personally, im in favour of creating another group of users appointed whos purpose is to agree on a case if it has or hasnt reached a concensus, and for the system operators to then go around and serve these cases. Its different to wikipedia where the adminsitrators are judge, jury, and executioner, but given the nature of this community i think its a possibility worth examining, at the very least. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 08:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

To elaborate here is an example: On wikipedia they are having some problems regarding overzealous deletion of articles by their administrators under the heading of notability. They are purging an awful lot of the stuff thats up there from internet culture, such as webcomics and MMORPG's because they dont have real world dead tree sourcing. Abuses like this would be minimised by having the system operators seperate to a new group of moderators, or perhaps call them something like analyst or concensus finder. Hell, put the position up for appointment only under nomination and merge the task with the arbitrators. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 17:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This would be a monumental task... but worth it if it could be pulled off properly. I've long deplored the power of the clique and the grudge; this would go a long way towards neutralising it. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 07:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, this does sound interesting, though I have to say that I haven't read much about a consensus based system. I'll have to go read the links that are provided, as well as think on this stuff, before formulating an opinion. --Ryiis 16:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Grim, would it be fair of me to assume that you would want to be one of those deciding what the consensus was? I agree with a lot of what this policy seems to be aiming at and will read it more thoroughly before making any real comment but I can already see problems with implementing this! --Honestmistake 17:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it would be permissible to be both a sysop and one of those people at the same time... --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 20:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it relevant? Nope. We are discussing an idea here, examining the pros and cons. What does who or what have to do with it? --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It would have to be a completely seperate role open to no confidence voting. --Karek^maps?! 02:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Who or what has a lot to do with it... You can build very good arguments for and against things you care about and those would be very valuable in a panel working to find a consencus, you show less evidence of being willing to accept other peoples opinion if you believe them to be wrong which is the antipathy of consencus, if too many people like that become involved the whole thing will not work... you cannot simply agree to disagree? More importantly I would expect this role to take up a fair bit of time, if too many of the existing mods/crats get directly involved it would affect their ability to do the essential mainanance work that keeps the whole place running! --Honestmistake 14:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Remember, Sysops aren't mods, these would actually be mods. For that reason it obviously can not be sysops who are and were elected for very different reasons. --Karek^maps?! 15:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

For anyone else, like me, who didn't really have a clue what a consensus form of administration was until today, here's a link to 'Concensus' on wikipedia. --Funt Solo-QT- 22:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a big functional difference IMNSHO between the consensus as described in that article vs. the pseudo-consensus driven administration that seems to be being proposed here. The article describes consensus driven EDITING, not administration. We already have consensus-driven editing here. Well, sorta. :) But keep that in mind. It is an important distinction. --WanYao 12:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Referring to wikipedia consensus article somehere at the top, not the one FS cited. WanYao 12:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC

How many people would fill the role of "consensus finder" or whatever we call them? Would they be allowed to hold mod or crat positions too? What would happen if they made a controversial decision? How would they be chosen? Lots of questions would need answers before this could be seriously considered but i think it could work. --Honestmistake 14:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I dont know, how about instead of asking me questions all the tiome as though this was a policy discussion, we have an open discussion instead? (No offense intended, but im getting tired of being asked all these questions when its supposed to be everyone throwing ideas around)

Since you asked, however, i dont know how many, but i think that there should be at least three examining each issue at the time so that any bias one might have can be overruled by the other two. As for the other question, IMO, id rather them be seperate, but as long as they act as either one or the other in a proposal, and not both, im ok with it. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay. The key problem I see with a consensus style debate, where contributers are asked to explain their opinion, sometimes over and over again, is that many voters simply don't want to spend the time doing that. There's a small minority of wiki contributers that take part in stuff like this discussion, for example. UD is a game played partially because it takes up so little of a player's precious time. So, there's a danger that consensus would result in the loudest, most prolific posters deciding on all the policys of the wiki, as they become the only ones who care enough to sit through a two week debate. Take the suggestions page as an example - people pop in for two minutes, read it, make up their mind and leave. End of story. They don't come back two weeks later to see how it's doing, or to see if it was Reviewed, or implemented, even. I don't know how to alleviate these concerns. I suppose at the moment I'm just playing Devil's Advocate. --Funt Solo-QT- 16:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Grim, wasn't really asking you specifically, just putting the things we would need to sort through down. Personally I would think that 3 would be too few and 7 would be a better target. Given things like wiki holidays and R/L issues we would probably need a pool of at least 10! How to choose them might be a fun one to deal with though. Vote? well thats democracy, chosen by the current mods very likely to cause drama, current sysops given these posts thats never gonna work! .... guess funts not the only one playing devils advocate here --Honestmistake 17:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Honest, I think the best way to fill those positions is a simple democratic vote of 3 people which the community trusts. From there these 3 people chose 4 more to make up the census.

Funt, I don't see that as an issue. The people you are talking about probably won't be affected in their day to day operations of the wiki. The people who are ready to last the 2 week debate will most likely be the ones most affected. In democratic voting if people can't explain why an idea is bad then how will they sway the votes so that a policy won't pass? So how would this differ from a census? - If Jedaz = 04:14, 5 November 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1

So, there would be four types of UD wikizen, with clearly defined responsibilities:

• Beurocrat - ..?
• Sysop - Vandal Banning, Page Protection, Page Deletion ..?
• Moderator - Policy Making, Suggestion Ratification..?
• Pleb - general editing, potential arbitrator of disputes..?

--Funt Solo-QT- 18:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC) (?) - am I on the right lines of what's being suggested / what exists already?

A Question

Let me start by saying that I intend no offense to Grim. However, isn't what is described in detail on the project page pretty much the downside to REAL democracies everywhere? Hasn't history proved time and again that however flawed, however many cheaters, crackpots, or greedy bastards are able to take advantage of such a system, that the system that strives for the greatest level of freedom with the most checks and balances is always the best? This whole thing sounds like a democracy electing representatives to represent them, only to have their elected representatives determine that the hoi polloi are too stupid to deserve a voice. It’s a slippery slope! Freedom is a pain in the ass sometimes. I’m certain that some groups do make a hash of things here and there with ‘meat-puppets’ or whatever. Ultimately, if the greatest consequence is a little chaos that discomforts some of those who wish things conformed to their orderly worldview, I think the system is working. The alternative is to have the community shaped by the few, and to have dissent stifled. I think you could wind up debating this all day, and still not come up with a better system than a loosly governed Democracy.--Squid Boy 20:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly don't fix what aint broke. Sockem 20:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm with these guys. They should rule the wiki with an iron fist! --Funt Solo-QT- 23:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I Think it was Winston Churchill who said something like "Democracy is the very worst form of goverment, exept all the others that is." --Seventythree^Talk 09:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This isnt electing people to make the decisions for people. Its about attempting to get the best possible result, even if a sizable number of people either dont want it, or are too ignorant to care. While that may sound tyrannical, despotic even ("We know better than you") It isnt that. Everyone has the opportunity to have their say, and the decision is made based on all that is said. If one person says something like "WTF Centaurs" for example, as an excuse for or against something, and a lot of people say "YA!" or something along those lines, their opinions would, naturally, be disregarded simply because they havent attempted to justify why they are saying what they say, and showing how its in the communities best interests. One of the greatest failings of democracy is that an ignorant persons voice counts just as much as an informed persons voice. A Charismatic, but stupid, person who doesnt have the communities best interests at heart can sway a great many people who have not taken the time to understand the problem, and can run the system down a very bad path under pure democracy. Democracy works in theory, just like communism (Ill admit that communism fails far more spectacularly than democracy in our current world because of the centralisation of power). They both fail because they dont take into account the human condition: We are, generally speaking, lazy self interested jerks. They are both wonderful ideals to aspire to, true, but to put it bluntly, we arent ready for them, just as we arent ready for a cashless society. I just dont believe that a democratic system is one we can sustain. Im half tempted to ask SA to try and rally and push a hostile policy just to demonstrate the flaws of the system. Majority rule only works when the majority have the communities best interests at heart and are willing to put the time into understanding the problems and the proposals brought forward. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 10:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait, by SA, do you mean me? And if you are, are you calling me charismatic, yet stoopit? Dat hurtzes mai feewings...*sniff, sniff* I'm gonna cri....-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 18:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, don't worry SA, you're not charismatic, ok? ;)--Seventythree^Talk 19:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thank god! For a second there, I was worried Grim was going to use me for one of his evil plans! Looks like I'm safe for now!-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 19:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless it's a bluff....... Run!--Seventythree^Talk 19:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm screwed if it is a bluff, because if this is my idea of a bomb sheltor, what would I use to hide from Grim?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 20:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

A bigger box, clearly. With a big sign on the side saying "Suicidal angel isn't here! Honest!"--Seventythree^Talk 20:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, looks like my only choice is to ask Grim if he'd notice or not. So, Grim. Would you notice if I was hiding in a box that said "Suicidal Angel is not a resident of this box"?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 20:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I personaly don't buy the entire "Lazy, self-interested Jerks" Hobbs-style argument. Personaly I think that the majority of people here actualy have the best interests of the community at heart, and (in my opinion) the fact that the wiki continues to be relevent and of great support to the game, with only a few bruised egos and the occasional banned vandal along the way is a testament to the fact that most editors are actualy mature, decent people. Having said that I do agree that a greater justification (in some cases) of votes may be a good thing. I am a little annoyed by the use of spam votes as "super-kill" votes, but that's a very tricky one to pin down, isn't it? It's all about opinion. And with the rally question, where does making people with interests similar to yours aware of a policy for voting end, and rallying for support begin? I'm not criticisng you here, Grim_s, I don't know what the awnser is either. Maybe a "senate" of elected, proven users to vote on certain issues, and suggestions? God that would be tricky....--Seventythree^Talk 10:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Where's the policy?

Currently this policy just claims "democracy is bad because of insert 60 lines of reasoning here and we should replace all the policies on the wiki with something along these lines: insert 2 lines of reasoning here". It's 95% a rant about "what's wrong about democracy" and a 5% very short comment about what will this policy do. This makes it very hard to actually discuss the policy when the only argument that is made in the policy itself is why the current system is wrong, and not a real alternative for it, making an effective argument from ignorance more than a policy discussion, and basically endangering the wiki if approved, making it vulnerable to Grim's "best judgement" of what should cover the gaps he mentions on wiki policies themselves.

That said, I can't help to agree with all the negative criticism that has been made by now, but I suppose it's because I'm one of these very biased guys the policy mentions, and not because the arguments are valid at all. Sarcasm off =), I'm saying this becausae I really want to start discussing a policy, and this still isn't one at all. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 02:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You obviously didnt read this whole page, where ive been saying it shouldnt be sysops making the decisions on concensus. What i did to open the discussion was go through democracy as a system, demonstrate how badly flawed it is, and propose switching to a new one. I offered several examples. Also, i never once used my own incredulity to support an argument, so your attempt to label my post as fallacious fails. Please read and contrribute to this open discussion (NOT a policy discussion). --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the policy discussion bit, but I assumed that it was as it was presented on the main's page link. About everything else, your assumption that I tought "sysops would be the consensus seekers" is wrong. Never tought that, merely mentioned that the discussion pointing to your best ideas (being 3 hollow examples of superficial reasoning presented as "better ideas than democracy" but with no content) was disastrous at best. Stop assmunig I want to have an argument with you and faking that that you catch people CNR all the time, but I really consider calling the current democratic system flawed and bad just because it has dumped some of your ideas or ideas you considered good really insulting as well. My ideas and ideas I tought cool had been dumped as well, and I don't remember making such a fuss for that. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 02:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

What the fuck? You assuming my motives? Most of my stuff gets through. So far only one policy and three suggestions have failed (One of which was a joke), as opposed to 8 suggestions through, two of which have been implmented. Seriously, i have been thinking about this for a very long time, and recently spent some time on one of wikipedias sister projects that led me to the conclusion that concensus based decision making provides better solutions that simple numbers based decision making. And i didnt fake anything, you expressly said that i was attempting to make the wiki vulnerable to my "best judgement", when earlier i has expressly states that it was my opinion that concensus finding be done by another group of users who are not sysops, which by fucking definition means it cant fucking be me. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I was expecting to have a constructive discussion, so I'll have to ask you to respect your own request. That said, I still find that your proposition is really sinister, replacing the concerns you have (and we all have in minor proportions) about democracy flaws with other such as bias, fiability and idoneity from the elected "consensus seekers", whoever they might be. Current concerns about bias within special user's groupos (only Sysops for now) grow sporadically reaching high enough levels to affirm that we don't need anymore. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 03:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Strike out votes?

I understand Grim s' reasoning against democracy, especially meatpuppets, but I don't think we should switch to consesus, judging from the fact that we already have a check against mob rule (2/3 majority for policies, sysops chosen by the current staff with votes seen as a gague of community support). But I do think maybe a more fine-tune apporach may be considered...Striking out votes that are done by meatpuppets or really have no justification. However, the policy may cause more drama than really necessary, and it is hard to decide what votes are 'valid' and what are not. I rather prefer this than consensus, if you believe some votes are wasteful, then you might as well point out the invalid votes right then and there.--ShadowScope 04:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we should remove the Spam justification and require, actually enforce, the justiification rule. Also banning cursing/bad mouthing on the vote sections. I think this would greatly improve the voting process. Sockem 04:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockem, I'm not having a go here - in fact, in the past I've supported the idea of enforcing vote justification. However, someone pointed out to me that justification is a judgement call, often in the eye of the beholder. In other words, what is justification? Is "I hate this idea?" justification? Well, yes it is. So is "I don't want this in the game". Therefore, why force someone to say that? All that enforcement does is spread bad feeling. I mean - does anyone think that someone forced to provide justification would pull their vote? It's far more likely that they change it, and are thereafter annoyed with the person with that forced them to change "la la la" to "I hate this suggestion". And Spam really does have a use. It's a strong kill. (I know what the rule says, but that doesn't change reality.) Honestly, I could live without Spam votes, but the justification thing is just a slippery slope of drama. (And trying to police 'bad mouthing' will be similarly troublesome.) --Funt Solo-QT- 08:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand this, but the wiki is a serious place with many rules and regulations. The wiki represents buracracy don't like the many rules you leave. Im not talking about votes that say Ï don't like this" because those are valid. I'm talking about votes like "HAR HAR I LOVE CHRESESESE". I'm just trying to keep the votes on topic. Any vote not in volving "Yes" "I like this""No" "I don't like" "This is terrible" "Dupe". It would require people to actually state a purpose not just sign spam and move on. Sockem 14:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The difficulty you guys are having in trying to figure this out is typical of any system trying to justify limiting some freedoms while preserving others. Any time one subset of a community decides to restrict the freedoms of others, you get this kind of debate. All the downsides you guys are listing seem to me minor side effects of a less restrictive wiki experience. I may not understand something you mentioned that's particularly dire here - but I have read no example yet proffered that makes me think: "SHIT! We really gotta put a stop to THAT! Freedoms be damned!" Show me the "We shouldn't let people be free to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater because folks get trampled in the ensuing panic..." example here... Even then - shouldn't it be case by case as in that example, rather than a grand political philosophy realignment?--Squid Boy 14:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Not because folks will get trampled in the ensuing panic, it's because people are too stupid to say, "Fire? I don't smell smoke, do you? Are you lying to us?" and instead say, "OH SHIT FIRE!!!". Yes, it would be reasonable to strike out the votes of meatpuppets, however, you run the risk of causing large amounts of drama. Remember Vista killing the voting in A/SD over a copyrighted image/page? Yeah, that stirred up huge amounts of drama. Instead of trying to limit the voting power, we should acknowledge the inefficiency of the system, and work to reduce them instead of trying to draw up a whole new system with unforeseen problems. --User:Axe27/Sig 15:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockem - can you please tell me the difference between "Kill: I hate this" and "Kill : banana pancakes". I'll help you out: the difference is sweet fuck all. The clue is in the word "kill". That's the nub of the problem with policing the justification rule - it's impossible to police, and when it is policed, it just wastes everyone's time, annoys the voter and generates unwanted drama - none of which actually benefits the suggestion being voted upon. --Funt Solo-QT- 17:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thats the thing, we have been trying to fix this system for two years and we are pretty much where we started. I am of the opinion its time for a change. Of course, a massive project would be needed to construct and write all the guidelines for valid reasoning against a proposal (As well as an ignore the rules where its deemed neccessary one). As it stands, its pretty clear to some people at least that the solution isnt more rules, but a different administrative structure. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Either this place is a democracy, of sorts, with all its ensuing problems... or else a "management team" is appointed to run the wiki. I do not really see any halfway compromise between the two. --WanYao 16:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

A Concensus system is neither. Its an alternative to both. Users have their voice, they can use it, but decisions are made based on the contents of those arguments, not how many people support them, or how loud people shout them. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Grim, I have actually worked in consensus-driven decision-making teams. And what you are proposing is not, in fact, a consensus-driven system -- it is more like an "open door management" policy. And "open door" management is a kind corporate doublespeak code for business as usual -- except now we know who the malcontents are, and who to keep tabs on when the union tries to set up shop... Meh. --WanYao 16:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh... and you know what happens in consensus-driven groups when they cannot reach a consensus? Either nothing gets done at all... or they follow the majority vote, whether an actual vote, or a de facto majority rules. WanYao 16:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the TRIPLE post here... Anyway... Don't get me wrong, I am all in favour of the principle of the idea... but there are realities to be faced. Even this article -- written by someone whose whole ideology revolves around consensus decision making -- notes that it does not work well in large groups. And, funny thing is, the arbitration process actually works a lot like this process as described! And, you may think it is some inappropriate that I am citing an anarchist website, but consensus-driven decision-making is actually very much linked historically and concretely to anarchist practice, that is where it gets most of power and cachet from, and it is the community in which it is most often practiced... So it is actually quite appropriate to bring this up, I think. WanYao 17:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

These are all weighty concepts to be thrown about for a zombie game! The fact is, we did notice an awful lot of likely alts being generated on the wiki recently during the Extinction war, particularly dodgily those spouting "give up this suburb, survivors! I'm a survivor, and I'm outa here! Leave this suburb to the zombies!" posts - doubtless half of these were establised zombie player's alts developed to spam pro-zombie views. Even if this were policed, many people have access to multiple computers (work/home/education - maybe all three!), and there are programs to randomise IP to dodge multi-voting etc, etc. There is NO WAY to properly police networked democracy, beyond a basic IP monitoring, which is in place for voting (as we understand it) already, and as about as effective as it gets. This consensus decision making sounds very wishy washy - best stick to a straight forward vote. The system isn't perfect, but it could easily get a lot worse. This so-called consensus bollocks isn't what it says it is - who decides which arguments/votes are 'reasonable'? Such judgements are subjective, resulting in the system being readily open to abuse.....Anarchy promote effective solutions? Unlikely.... The only way to avoid meat-pupetry effectively is to get the players to meet together, and register votes using fingerprints or DNA samples.... this isn't a reasonable solution, not least accoring to geographic difficulties. "One man, one vote", even if it is impossible to determine if some of those 'men' are secretly the same man (or woman, or other, (and who can tell multi-IP abusers?)) is as good as it gets.--Crabappleslegalteam 03:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Links

We're not the first wiki to think about these things, which helpfully means there's already some essays out there that lay out the pros and cons of democracy on a wiki. These are from various sources:

• Voting is a tool
• Polls are evil, Voting is not evil
• VotingIsGood, VotingIsEvil
• Don't vote on everything
• Polling is not a substitute for discussion

I would encourage people to read some of the talk pages as well, as they have additional opinions. As with more or less everything there's both advantages and disadvantages. --Toejam 17:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC) PS Is there a shortcut for inter-wiki links like this?

Thanks for the heads-up Toejam.--Seventythree^Talk 11:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions Trial?

Okay, here's an idea, based on the discussions above, to test out a consensus voting system. It's just an idea - so don't panic! (Oh noes!)

We could try out consensus voting on the Suggestions page. That's one place where two things are true:

• A lot of contributers get frustrated with votes such as "la la la", "pah" or "fribble", in place of an explanation.
• It's true that suggestions which never get Peer Reviewed still end up in the game.

Therefore, it's ripe for a bit of experimentation. If we get it wrong, it doesn't mean that a wonderful suggestion will necessarily have been lost to the game.

I think we should keep the popular (pure democratic) vote that already exists. Something to guage the census on, and everyone still gets to play Kill/Keep/Spam/Dupe - which is quite a popular sport, I'm sure you'll agree. Also, everyone gets to make their argument for or against the suggestion, or for change.

On top of what we have, we add a 3, 5 or 7 person consensus team to oversee each suggestion. I don't know which number is best - what does everyone else think? Those people collate all the information from the votes and come to a final decision about the suggestion (Reviewed / Rejected) after two weeks of voting has transpired.

One of the advantages of this system would be that there would be far less need to pull a suggestion for revision. If it was clear that any calls for change would be weighed up and included in the suggestion, by the consensus team at the end, there'd be no need to pull it out for revision - because 12 Kill votes saying "change 1 to 2 and you've got a Keep" would only really count as one (strong) request to change 1 to 2. Easily done without a full "pull & revision".

Now - who makes up the consensus team? Jedaz suggested something like you have 3 people who are voted in by the community, who select 4 more to make up the consensus for each new suggestion. Honestly, I'm not sure exactly what he means. Three people that are permanent "suggestion moderators"? From a pool of more?

Do we create a new type of (democratically elected) wiki user called a "suggestion moderator", whose only extra duty is to mod suggestions in this way?

--Funt Solo ^QT 16:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion ;) I would think making it a 1 month trial with the consensus teams results compared to the vote result at the end. A brief overview could thus be seen of how things might work.--Honestmistake 16:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Funt. Lets just try it out and see how it works, instead of just disregarding the whole concept out of hand. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Trial seems fitting, but what about suggesteions that have already started their two weeks under the old system?--Karek^maps?! 17:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well as we don't have a team in place to oversee them anyway its a moot point! I would think that sorting out a voting period for the consensus overseers will be the first step with them taking over a day or so after they are selected! I think to avoid drama we should not actually have their decision actually mean anything until we see how it works. Instead it should just run alongside for comparison... --Honestmistake 17:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, couldn't we just let them work their way through, using the old system? I'd like to voulenteer for being a "suggestion moderator" or whatever!--Seventythree^Talk 17:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I did think that but i feel getting them to work on the new suggestions as they come in would give a better feel of how it works rather then possibly cherry picking from the past mounds! --Honestmistake 17:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The two weeks thing will be an issue no matter when the "trial" is implemented, if ever.--Karek^maps?! 17:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Er, let em go on for two weeks, then during the second of the two weeks open it up for the consensus teams?--Seventythree^Talk 17:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting lost again - is the idea that voting would be as it is now for 1 week, then normal voting would stop and the consensus group would go at it for a further week? Or would voting continue as normal also in the second week, with the consensus group still starting one-week in, just due to their being not much to go on in the first week? You know, we could just get some people together and go and play at this (sandpit!) on a real suggestion's discussion page. Just to see how it might work. Also, do 3 con-mods volunteer for each new suggestion, or how else could that work? Or 5? And, if it's 3, and they want to select other people for the discussion, do they select normal users or other con-mods? Oh, and could a sysop be a con-mod? I'm full of questions, me. --Funt Solo ^QT 19:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I say one of us picks a suggestion, we create a little sandbox and go nuts. I would say maybe 10 or so "permenant" suggestions (don't want to call em mods, but) mods, three suggestion mods per suggestion (first come, first serve) each of whom elects another user (could be a sysop, could not be) who also helps with the discussion. (this should all be sorted out in the first week of voting, in a template below the voting template). Having a week of "normal" voting should also help with weeding out the patently ludicrus suggestions. Any Suggestion mods who wish to be part of the consensus second week process may not vote during the first week.--Seventythree^Talk 20:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You guys pick the one area where voting is working best, and decide to swap that over to a consensus based system? Blah. We've already got a consensus based system everywhere where it's appropriate, voting is only used where a black/white decision is needed to avoid constant bitching about the decision from those who disagree. If I were you guys, I'd try implementing this on A/D... there is a growing trend to vote move/merge rather than the "valid" keep/kill votes, indicating that the community wants more input, and greater flexibility in the decided outcome -- boxy • talk • 23:54 7 November 2007 (BST)

O.K then. Reckon that owuld work better boxy? How does everyone else feel?--Seventythree^Talk 23:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, boxy makes a very valid point, I must admit. Targeting areas where it seems wanted, would make more sense. And, yeah, suggestions - a hotbed of drama just waiting to erupt. Good call. --Funt Solo ^QT 12:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletions was what i had in mind when i opened this discussion, well, it and policy discussion. Id just like it tried out, i dont mind where. The problem is starting such a trial out. We would either need a policy discussion which would take a minimum of seventeen days (Three days discussion as mandated in the guidelines, then fourteen more of voting) or we could try to get kevan to use his owners privelege to fire it up, but i just dont see him interfering, one way or the other. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 13:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but you are forgetting the one ultimate privilege that every editor has. We can alter the rules whenever we want. There are no rules stating that you *must* put up a policy for changing the rules. What keeps this in check is that if someone disagrees they can easily change it back. The reason that most people go through policy discussion is that no one is going to be brave enough to go against popular opinion, and thus a successful policy won't be removed.

Up until now most of the changes to the rules without a policy have been fairly minor, but I can point out a handful. So then, lets agree on how we want to word up the page and who we want to be in the census. Remember, Vandalism is by definition an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki. As long as you are working in good faith then it will be all ok. - If Jedaz = 14:02, 8 November 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1

How about we put up a notice to say an informal pannel are being selected for a trial of this system... 1 week for nominees/volunteers then 1 week of voting on them. You can vote on as many of the candidates as you wish but only once for each of them (obviously!) the 4 who get the most YES votes (after NO's have been subtracted) can then decide on an extra 3 to complete the team. Any sysops filling the role must lay down their other duties for the month (2 week?) trial. The normal procedure carries on as normal while the team discus each issue on a seperate page. At the end of the trial the results they have can be compared to the actual results and an evaluation of whether we think it works can be made based on some sort of actual evidence!--Honestmistake 14:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I would be fully against getting rid of democracy on Suggestions. It is prehaps the only real page that matters in-game, and changing it so that only "valid" arguments are made...egad! What if we get biased people onto that Council? Then, in a divided division, then the Council, who is tilted one way or another, will say, "Oh, their side comes up with moronic arguments, but my side is perfectly Sane. Peer-Reviewed!" I am against this thing, better to test out consesus over at A/D.

Also realize that while Kevan implements Peer-Rejected suggestion, he does so because he want to. The whole game may be against him implementing bazzokas, but if Kevan wants to implement it, he can. Peer-Review and Peer-Reject are things to let us know to Kevan what we want, and Kevan can just say "la la la" in his ear and not care. If we switch over to Consesus, then we even lose that dynmanic, and it only becomes what a Council 'feels' is the will of the community, which may get clouded.--ShadowScope 22:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that if you want to try this out without actually going to A/PD or the Suggestions rule changing process, then you can make a pseudo-group page such as Signature Race and make it run with a good number of suggestions and voters, and a clear set of rules based on consensus. Then, in two-three weeks we shall see the results of this parallel Suggestions page. These results will, of course, just be a faint example of how consensus will work, without much of the actual controversy and everything that real policy discussion consensus systems will bring, but whatever... --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 18:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

So how would this work?

We've got this medium sized dramafest going at the moment about the suggestions system, and the rules concerning dupes and spams. Neither side is showing any sign of backing down. How would a consensus based system handle this? It's clear how it is handled under our current system. It gets sent to a vote -- boxy • talk • 11:10 17 November 2007 (BST)

Written before I saw there was a discussion page for this discussion page, so to speak

In response to "Most people do not read proposal before they vote" and "People often fail to understand proposals", I would say that these indicate that said proposals are probably poorly written. After all, if a proposal is either too long or too confusing to get its point across, it doesn't serve it's purpose. Perhaps we address the quality of proposals rather than the method of approving them. Similarly, with "People do not always understand valid reasons for rejection", this indicates that the reasons for rejection are not written in a way that everyone can clearly understand. As for your other points about why people vote, I would hope that enough people vote for valid reasons to make voting systems effective. Also, in the suggestions section, the voting process only serves as a screener, and not as a decider of what gets implemented. I'd say the voting system could use some improvement for sure, but it should not be thrown out entirely. (Also, that ballot stuffing thing is of some concern, but have we seen any recent examples of it?) I hope you find that constructive, as that was my intention. --Pdeq^Talk* 03:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That might make sense, if people actually read the discussion. Many users frequently state that they read the votes, not the proposal.--Karek^maps?! 04:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Until mediawiki comes up with a way to remotely whack users about the head, I don't know how to deal with those people. Would the alternative be selecting those who are trusted to read a proposal/suggestion and letting only them vote? But who would choose these people? --Pdeq^Talk* 05:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This problem has been a thorn in the wiki's collective side for the duration of its existence. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we give this another go?

I really like this idea, and hope we can model it off of Wikipedia to some extent. Although this would require a lot of work, I think the end result would be a easier, quicker way to come to a decision on policies and guidelines. People with opinions will be counted as more than someone who just leaves a blank, or minimal justification. As of now, a user who decides to put a lengthy reason to vote for/against a policy is counted the same as a user who puts none to minimal or irrelevant justification for voting. It just doesn't help if a user doesn't attempt to actually discuss the policy or throw in an opinion. This would also prevent meatpuppetry, something that can at times become quite a problem. You'll also notice that people don't read the discussion page/policy properly before voting, which can lead to justifications that are just plain wrong.

There are some other advantages to consensus. With the exception of NPOV, there's really no way to make a guideline (editing behavior). It's mostly a user or writing something without anyone else really getting much of an opinion on it. Consensus would allow people to determine how the guideline would work, or if one is even necessary or to make it into an enforcable policy. Changes to existing policies and guidelines can be made easier. In the current system, if someone wanted to tweak a policy, they probably would need to create an entire new one to get the change (requiring another two weeks and 3 days).

The main question is: how do we want to reach consensus? Do we want a group of people not acting in the discussion deciding on the consensus of the discussion, or just a general approval and/or lack of opposition? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:49, 30 April 2008 (BST)

Additionally, I think consensus would work best on policy voting and deletions. Suggestion voting works fine as is. No justification and inane votes can be struck and Kevan reads most suggestions, whether they pass or not. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:03, 30 April 2008 (BST)

The only place I can see this being of benefit is where the decision is obvious. Where-ever there is some sort of dispute as to whether a policy is the best way to go or not, this would only serve to give the advantage to belligerent debaters. How do you determine what the consensus is when it is disputed? -- boxy ^{talk • i} 13:06 1 May 2008 (BST)

I don't believe it would. It works on consensus. If 5 people love the idea and can put forth a resonable opinion(s), and only one can put forth an argument against it, then a compromise would be struck. We already have consensus in work on every other page on the wiki that doesn't have to do with voting. Person B adds content to Page 1, Person A reverts, Person B then disagrees and adds discussion to the talk page and it is discussed by Person A, B C, etc. A decision is made/compromise. This happened with the ALiM and suburbs/locations. Some content was added that a user (Karek) disagreed with and reverted, several other users agreed with Karek and a comprose was made. Can't the same be done with policies? Discuss and develop the idea, put it into practice. If a flaw emerges, someone/angry mob points it out and it is fixed. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:32, 1 May 2008 (BST)

Deletions are already ruled out based on consensus, or atleast is based on it that I rule on them... most of the policy guidelines were written by me, and i admit that they are flawed today. They worked out in the past, where the entire gaming community was involved with the wiki, but as it stands now, with only a few members of the bigger groups involved with it, it can be easily be manipulated by meat-puppetry. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 16:09, 1 May 2008 (BST)