This is a proposed policy. Any additions or changes to the policy should be made through discussion so as to prevent any nasty edit wars. Since this is not yet a policy, it's going to be a bit difficult to actually establish a consensus on consensus :-). However, let's assume it's a policy for this discussion. Debate may occur on any or all parts of the policy, but I do ask that any changes you believe should be made be discussed here, unless of course they are grammatical, aesthetical, or for sake of clarity. Since this is a policy, I believe a vote is obligatory. However, free discussion and tweaking of the current model should occur first before we put the final version to a vote. -Catalyst 06:09:33, 2006-04-03 (UTC)
I suggested adding one more voting option: "Semi-open." All registered users, but no unregistered users, could vote.
Btw, I'm a little unsure what's supposed to be going on with our two projects pages right now? Should we arguing for/against? Proposing edits?
PS, My vote for consensus is the "limited vote." Only users who have spent time in the Wiki could really understand what's best for the Wiki as a whole.--septimusjm 20:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Basically the point of this is to discuss the policy and do whatever we can to get it to a "final version" which we will vote on (starting May 21st). So yes, proposing edits mostly. The argument for and against should be reserved for the voting period. -Catalyst 02:48:04, 2006-04-07 (UTC)
- Then ignore everything I said except the part about adding one more type of voting--where all registered users but no unregistered users can vote. Not sure why that was left out. --septimusjm 03:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- It was left out because no such voting procedure exists on the wikipedia. When there are partially closed votes the restriction is always not only that the user must be registered, but also that they must be established. Basically having a vote without the establishment restriction would be an open vote anyway, since people can create an infinite number of clone accounts. Only having the stipulation of being a registered user (without the stipulation of also being an established user, that is) would be the same as holding an open vote except with added encouragement for people to make clone accounts. Plus, the wikipedia (and, I think, this site as well) are built around the idea that, yes, it's more convenient to make an account, but you can also get by without one, and by making an account you gain no added freedom, other than being able to create new articles on the wikipedia.
- That said, if the problem is with the number of 50 edits, that number is purely arbitrary. We could take that as low as 10 or even less. Ultimately there is no arbitrary number, it's just up for the vote-counter to decide whether or not the user is legitimate and not a clone account. The number just helps users to know when they will be definitely considered established (which, for the wikipedia, is 50 edits). But if there is enough support in favor of adding the Semi-open vote, we definitely could add that as an option. -Catalyst 22:13:18, 2006-04-07 (UTC)
I also think that open votes will not be the best option in most cases. --Mr Wednesday 22:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, but considering the userbase it might be a bit more viable than a limited vote. Plus, there are certain matters of wiki that require input from the vast userbase, not just established users. Those debates generally take place in Straw Poll form... perhaps it is a bit redundant to have the option of an open vote. -Catalyst 22:17:29, 2006-04-07 (UTC)