Talk:Edits, votes and bets: Difference between revisions
last chance to save good material about voting from Wikimedia: now that they've started actually voting, they'll distort and destroy everything about voting itself to cover their tracks
(why this is a better name for this debate) |
(last chance to save good material about voting from Wikimedia: now that they've started actually voting, they'll distort and destroy everything about voting itself to cover their tracks) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
5. It's not at all clear that ONE facility will solve ALL these problems - there may need to be a way to associate edits and votes, edits and bets, and bets and votes, and some of these will be so [[factionally defined]] as to be incompatible, or considered useless, or even dangerous, by another [[faction]]. For instance, a [[faction]] that wants to bet on edits and only make changes to the [[Content Wiki]] that its members are willing to bet on, is not going to be able to share a communications medium with a [[faction]] that wants to do this by one-member-one-vote, or, some combination of all three... a lot of the good old [[left-right issues]] are going to re-appear at Consumerium! | 5. It's not at all clear that ONE facility will solve ALL these problems - there may need to be a way to associate edits and votes, edits and bets, and bets and votes, and some of these will be so [[factionally defined]] as to be incompatible, or considered useless, or even dangerous, by another [[faction]]. For instance, a [[faction]] that wants to bet on edits and only make changes to the [[Content Wiki]] that its members are willing to bet on, is not going to be able to share a communications medium with a [[faction]] that wants to do this by one-member-one-vote, or, some combination of all three... a lot of the good old [[left-right issues]] are going to re-appear at Consumerium! | ||
More arguments: | |||
6. The words "content" and "opinion" are not used anywhere else, but there is not going to be any way to avoid the words "signal" (as in [[Consumerium buying signal]] or [[healthy signal infrastructure]]) or "research" (as in [[research]]), so rather than add new words that mean nothing, let's use the words that apply that mean something. Likewise for "development" which has a meaning everywhere [[wiki]]s are used for design purposes before creating some new code, which is everywhere. Never mind even the ampersand (&) which has to go, "R&D" is just not a good name, period. | |||
So, there's going to be a general copying over of useful content into the new name scheme unless some countering for these and the arguments at [[Talk:Development Wiki]] appears pretty soon. The name "[[R&D Wiki]]" can stay for now as this [[mediawiki]] is in fact doing both [[Research Wiki]], e.g. [[Consumerium:intermediate page format|intermediate pages]], and [[Development Wiki]], e.g. [[healthy buying infrastructure]] design, jobs. | |||
------------------ | |||
We should discuss [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Ballot&oldid=3323566 ballot] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Tolerances_versus_preferences&oldid=3329956 tolerances versus preferences] expression issues, before [[User:DanKeshet]] totally destroys the voting articles. Now that [[Wikimedia]] is using [[approval voting]], they'll likely damage the articles on that to reflect what they're actually doing, which will probably be something unjustifiable in any sane electoral regime. | |||