Talk:Voting is a tool

Consensus is not a supermajority.

Consensus is where you BE BOLD and edit something, and no one reverts it.

If someone does revert it, you negotiate with them, and come to some kind of accord.

Then you BE BOLD and implement the new accord.

Voila, consensus.

A couple of weeks later, someone comes by, and he is BOLD and edits some more. But you disagree with his edits, and revert him, (or edit his work)

Now he comes and discusses with you, and you come to an agreement

and then you're both BOLD , and implement this new accord.

Several weeks later ...

80.126.238.189 02:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You did read the disclaimer at the beginning, right? Andre (talk) 02:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I tend to speedread at times. ^^;;

Okay, in that case you've done an excellent job of "writing for the enemy" excellent :-)

Thanks :)

I still want to provide my take though... can't... resist ... ;-P

We have an entire wiki mechanism designed to support consensus. Or the other way around: consensus is what comes naturally when you use the wiki mecahnisms. The wiki mecahnism is not support and oppose votes on random polls all over the place. Rather it's the use of the editing of pages, page history, reverting, and talk pages.

Instead of holding a poll, consider just changing the page, and see what happens. If people make a mess, you can revert; If people get it right, you can leave it; if people get it *almost* right, you can edit, or take it to talk. 80.126.238.189 03:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What about admin promotions and that sort of thing? Andre (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I was just browsing meta, found this and thought it seemed very relevant to the current discussions on WP:RFA and bureaucrats. Now I know why, it was written this morning! Some interesting thoughts certainly. The wub 09:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it was written in response to that. Thanks. Andre (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The start of voting ends meaningfull discussion[edit]

Hoi, if you can only win an argument by voting .. then you have lost respect in many eyes. I typically do not vote.. my observation is that when voting starts meaningful discussion has ended. Polorisation is then the name of the game.. so vote to your hearts content .. I dislike it. GerardM 01:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The message is in the tool[edit]

I disagree with the essay, because a tool in contrast with a principle should not be allowed. Voting is the opposite of discussing and negotiating, by which we get consensus, that is a fundamental principle of wiki projects. Above all, imho voting should be expressly prohibited as far as concern the contents of projects, like for istance ns0 on wikipedia, and only allowed as a last resort to elect people or adopt policies and guidelines.--Plink (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I also disagree with the essay, I do so for a rather different reason. The primary point of consensus in voting systems the group agrees to be bound by the outcome of the vote. That is, we may never reach a consensus on the topic in question, but we do have consensus to abide by the outcome of a poll. This is quite useful in cases where failure to achieve consensus through other means results in a de facto veto power for any minority viewpoint group or even a single individual. If one person, or a small minority viewpoint group opposes abortion, it could be impossible to enact policy which provides abortion.

However, the tool is broken unless the vast majority of the electorate is involved in decision-making.

Compulsory involvement in a group's decision-making process should be an element of membership. What degree of involvement, and how that should be measured, are something the group would need to decide. Likely the measurement should be objectively quantifiable. - Amgine/^{meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news} 01:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]