Forum:Proposal to require voting rationales

This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.

Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Proposal to require voting rationales

This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.

Proposal

“All users who take part in any formal wiki vote must always post an at-least-basic rationale explaining why their vote was cast the way it is. Failure to do so will render the vote stricken and disregarded.”— Suggested proposal

Over time, I have seen many wiki votes and applications come and go, whether it be policy changes or user rights requests. Although our wiki is a meritocracy, each individual vote still carries a certain weight - a weight significant enough that a reason behind a vote should always be posted. This ensures that all votes have some basis and are not mere "popularity" votes, as they have been dubbed in the past.

There is no restriction on length, but the rationale must be substantial and clearly state the viewpoint and reason(s) behind the vote cast. Saying completely superfluous things like "You got my vote!" etc. does not count.

In this way, I believe we can improve the voting process, and it is not a huge change or something that could significantly hinder someone from fully enjoying the wiki.

So what do you say? Please discuss and perhaps we'll go to a short vote after some input. --Skire (talk) 20:23, September 14, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion/Comments

I get your idea, but it is just simply hard at by what criteria to vote. I certainly would lke to see improvement, but I am skpetical on how to do it. Energy X ∞ 20:37, September 14, 2012 (UTC)

If a voter doesn't know exactly why he's voting for or against something, then by all means his vote is worthless. --Skire (talk) 21:34, September 15, 2012 (UTC)

In theory I like it as uninformed voting annoys me - if you don't care don't vote, if you don't understand hold voting until soneone makes it clearer for you; but I can already see arguments happening after its in place. Who's going to decide what substantial is, what's going to happen with new people who aren't used to it. The execution of this rule is perhaps more important than the rule itself. Agent c (talk) 21:25, September 16, 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point - there's plenty of nitpicking that could result from this rule being implemented. To me, a "substantial" rationale is simply one that clearly states why the vote was cast. It does not have to be super-eloquent or argumentative, but it's at least something. In addition, a notice can be posted on top of future votes reminding them to add a rationale, should this rule be passed. --Skire (talk) 21:28, September 16, 2012 (UTC)

I didn't really know where to throw my input, but I feel like it would be unfair if someone is voted against by others, purely because of personal reason. Personal things should be thrown out of the book. My personal opinion is that this is not needed, but someone who provides input vs. someone who does not should be considered on what they are saying more than someone who doesn't give reason to their words. Who would you trust more, someone who gave reasons to why they said no, or the person who just put an "X"? ^{"Respect and Honor"} 22:31, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with what Danny is saying. I have no problems with this. Even if only a sentence sums up your feelings, it will do just fine. It shows that you understand your vote.-- 21:36, September 16, 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, making someone explain to you why they cast their vote is making them put their reasoning out there to be attacked as we have seen on many upon many of proposals. Again this is yet another way of controlling how people vote and I am completely against this. If someone wants to vote and does not want to explain their rational behind it for fear of getting verbally attacked (at least on the forum) over it they shouldn't have to leave it. No one should have to explain themselves for why they voted a certain way. This is absolutely absurd.--Kingclyde (talk) 21:23, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. It contradicts the freedom to vote and turns it into 'the freedom to vote... with a reason!'.-- 01:40, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

Excactly what King Clyde said Topple101 (talk) 21:37, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

I had even explicitly mentioned that this rationale did not have to be an argumentative one, but merely one that shares the view of the voter. Considering we are a wiki, every vote is significant and it is a duty to ensure the authenticity of every single vote. I'm not sure what kind of perception you have thinking that posting a few minimal sentences of a voting rationale would open the person up to be attacked. That is actually quite absurd. If anything, voting without leaving a single reason, especially on more controversial votes, should elicit more of a response. When I put this up for a vote, you are welcome to vote against it, but in doing so you will have nullified your role in making the final decision. --Skire (talk) 22:02, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

role in making the final decision. --Skire (talk) 22:02, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

I'm using actual history of our votes as fact. Some people have left a few sentences and have been attacked or counter argued to the ground. People should not have to leave a reason why the voted. Period. The "duty" to ensure the authenticity of their vote is by reading their signature. These are not ballot box elections. Everyone knows who voted for what. The comments section is for people who want to put comments down, they should NOT be forced to do so. PERIOD. And who exactly are you to tell me that I have nullified my role in the final decision? Who exactly are you to make such a decision?--Kingclyde (talk) 22:21, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

@Kingclyde: Um, considering you have expressed your clear resentment for this, you are no longer neutral. That being said, allowing you to make the final decision would not make any sense, as it essentially makes your spoken opinion superior to others'. And this wiki has changed, I have not seen much of your "actual history" when it comes to people being harassed for leaving a few lines of their views. Not leaving a reason is ridiculous, especially when there are only that many voters. When a voter leaves a rationale, even a basic one, it shows that he/she has at least considered the basis of the vote and has an at-least minimal knowledge of the subject. The action of voting is expressing opinion in itself; I'm only asking that this expression be more defined and have more merit. And we all know by now that if you are to express your opinion, others will be allowed to express theirs, including if it is in response. --Skire (talk) 22:30, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

@Topple: What? --Skire (talk) 22:30, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

Topple, I haven't seen him in force this, nor did I see an attack on you, or your points, but Clydes. As a discussion any opinion expressed here is opened to be discussed and countered, it is after all the point of a discussion rather than a series of lectures. Agent c (talk) 22:36, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, Topple, you have not really left any of your viewpoints except stating that you agree with Clyde, which is fine. In other words, you have not said anything I could possibly attack. --Skire (talk) 22:39, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

then what was that giant paragraph saying my point of view is quite absurd also I get it now that last 2 sentences made no sense " When I put this up for a vote, you are welcome to vote against it, but in doing so you will have nullified your role in making the final decision" I dont understand it.Topple101 (talk) 22:46, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

I really hope I won't have to explain to you everything I write. I was discussing/arguing with Clyde, not you. --Skire (talk) 22:48, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

OOOOOOHHHHHHH... But still what does that last sentence mean?Topple101 (talk) 23:02, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

I reckon I'll hang my hat on "Assume Good Faith". We are supposed to do that, and I would say that must apply to votes also. We are beholden to "assume" that each vote is made in "good faith", lacking proof of the opposite. Personally, I suppose that if I don't have to give an edit summary to vote in the upcoming Presidential election, that's good enough for me here, too. The Gunny   23:10, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

How many people vote in a presidential election compared to how many people vote on a Nukapedia policy proposal or user rights request? --Skire (talk) 23:21, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me. Each person gets their vote, yea, nae or other. How they vote, IMO, is completely up to them. The Gunny   23:40, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

Gunny does bring up a good point that I didn't consider, the "assume good faith" part. Assume good faith applies wiki wide, always has always will. I also thought things over while playing a game of AoE and decided to look for "proof". One example is this Forum:User talk page blanking policy (Vote), even though I voted neutral I still got attacked on my position. There are instances where others had issues as well. I just think this is a bad idea. And to be honest Sig, I came here originally to leave my opinion, I didn't expect to get jumped on by you the way I did. This is a discussion forum and I left my thoughts. In almost every vote we have had, most of the voters almost always leave comments. And if this does get enacted, who decides what is a good enough reason for a person to vote? Nothing against you Sig, but how you responded to me got my riled up and thus the responses above. --Kingclyde (talk) 04:48, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

Shocking example, indeed. I suggest a rewriting of this proposal, to make an exception for everyone, who is scared of Limmiegirl. --Theodorico (talk) 20:35, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

This forum is for useful input not for you to make snide insults. It was one of several examples. Yours is another example of how I cannot say anything without a snide comment being added. You need to check yourself and how you act towards others. No one said anything snide to you.--Kingclyde (talk) 21:35, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

Whom are you referring to about that, Clyde? And you do bring up excellent points, as this proposal is very rudimentary and needs much discussion indeed. No one determines what rationale is considered good enough, as long as it is any rationale (i.e. a reason or logical basis for a course of action or a particular belief). Harassing or bullying others over votes has already been discussed in the past and I believe the administrators can take action on a case-by-case basis. The only sure way to ensure you will not be argued against is not voting. And also, I sincerely apologise for frustrating your earlier, as it was certainly not my intention. My only intention here is to discuss the details leading up to its hopeful enactment. --Skire (talk) 22:40, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to Theodorico's snide comments that were obviously directed in my direction. This forum is for useful comments, which his was not.--Kingclyde (talk) 23:32, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

Those are pretty heavy accusations, mixed up with personal insults. And i expect that you'll either take formal actions against me, either I'm going to ask you to take them back. --Theodorico (talk) 03:17, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

Devil's advocate

OK, a little reductio ad absurdum time, I think, to play a little devil's advocate and test the premiss. If any rationale is the exstablished threshold for comments, what do you do about these comments:

• I like cheese, she likes cheese, so I'm voting for her to become admin. That's my reason.
• I can't stand his avatar, so I'm voting no on all policies he creates.
• I always vote for the best looking candidate.

 The Gunny   23:22, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

They're fine in my book. If a voter wishes to make himself look so blatantly stupid in front of the entire wiki, then that is his wish. I'm not controlling what people should vote by: that is their own standard. --Skire (talk) 23:37, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

Then if nonsensical reasons are fine, why mandate reasons at all? What does that benefit any of us? Also, the last one was a red herring. My wife actually does vote for the best looking Presidential candidate. The Gunny   23:41, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Gunny here. If the rule wouldnt be enforced in these cases, then I can't see any value in it as it doesnt seem to encourage informed voting... Agent c (talk) 00:16, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

Let me rephrase then. Either it is informed voting, or it makes you look like an idiot. Which one would the average voter take? This provides closure, not necessarily always towards the good side. If a voter really votes for those reasons that are nonsensical, it does them no good. --Skire (talk) 00:30, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

Because a nonsensical reason is greater than no reason. If the user leaves no reason, then we have but to wonder what that reason could possibly be, which can be a range of things. Once they insert a reason, even if it is nonsensical, it becomes clear to everyone on what basis they vote and also so bureaucrats have more to go on when assessing the vote to produce a final result. --Skire (talk) 00:04, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

(←)  Seems all a bit too formal to me. We could scare people away from voting with this 'demand' and who's to define what is a basic reason? If we need to implement a rule like this I was thinking more of a sort inbetween solution, like:

“All users who take part in any formal wiki vote are encouraged to post an at-least-basic rationale explaining why their vote was cast the way it is.”

That is lowering the bar for participating considerably (so not forcing an explananation but merely encouraging it) and do away with the stricken part. If a bureaucrat sees a vote with just a yes or with something added like 'You're the best man for the job!' he will know to judge the vote for its merit anyway. If a formal vote comes up, we can add to a thread: "Please leave a (basic) reason a for your vote". Jspoel 14:50, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

Degrees

Just like the title suggests, I believe we need to have degrees of importance for our votes. Let me give you a few examples:

• Small policy/guideline changes and patroller/chat moderator requests - No expectations aside from following our current policies to not inappropriate with your vote. (Insulting, abusive language, etc.)
• Larger policy/guideline changes that affect the entire wiki on a daily basis, Administrator/Bureaucrat requests - Still don't require a rationale, but votes that do provide a rationale that have nothing to do with what they're voting for will be stuck out, along with overly stupid claims like I'm not voting for Jspoel because he doesn't like the colour orange. Sorry to say, that's essentially the same thing as trolling, and I don't condone it.
• And in extreme cases, we can make votes where you are required to give your rationale for voting. A perfect example would be my most recent petition, which would be hurt in the process if I forwarded it along with a bunch of votes that have no reasons attached to them. Or a re-confirmation process, where we absolutely need to know which votes are bias, and which ones are actually legitimate so we can make a proper decision from community consensus. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 15:06, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

I think Jspoel and Garoux both present good alternatives or variations of my original proposal. If we can get anything out of this, perhaps we could combine all 3 for a final wording? --Skire (talk) 19:02, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

Topple's wording

“All users have to give a statment of why they voted this why on major votes like banning, Adminstrator requests\Bureacruet requests and rules if an Adminstrator\Buereacruet requests.”

Topple101 (talk) 12:43, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

Final wording

After hearing much good feedback from the community, I have decided that the following wording may be better-accepted. Please discuss.

“All users who take part in any formal wiki vote are encouraged to post an at-least-basic rationale explaining why their vote was cast the way it is. In addition, administrators reserve the right to require voters' rationales for voting on certain polls, if and only if they feel a necessity.”

My plan is to have the first part of the above rewording posted on top of polls to serve as a reminder. Hopefully this is a significant improvement over the original proposal. --Skire (talk) 20:47, September 23, 2012 (UTC)

If there is no opposition soon I will go to the vote. --Skire (talk) 18:37, September 24, 2012 (UTC)

This is all getting just a bit too official for me. Leave away the strongly part and I guess we can add it, but just as a reference for voting threads. On a thread itself it should be reworded in simpler lines like "Please leave a reason why your vote is cast the way it is." I don't really see a need to make a big change here, the voting has always gone well and fair in my recollection. Jspoel 19:32, September 24, 2012 (UTC)

Changed. As I said, only the first sentence (exactly what you proposed earlier) will be displayed on top of votes as a reminder. The rest will not. --Skire (talk) 19:34, September 24, 2012 (UTC)