Problem: It is not possible to poll on Wikipedia talk pages for quick approval or disapproval, the purpose of the poll is to remove or add text to the article page or to move the article.
Proposed solution:
Who would benefit: All users will benefit from it
More comments: This feature is available on other social media such as liking or disliking a video on YouTube or a post on Instagram or a message on Telegram. The principle is to provide a quick way to agree or disagree so that the results can be quickly compared and concluded. You can even use this suggested tool and feature to disagree / agree with the latest edit in the article history section.
Comment definitely an interesting idea. Maybe have voting for a limited amount of time?🤔 Also there are the templates support, and oppose so it’s possible to have polls that way as well. Its also possible to implement your idea than have below a discussion with arguments. -Gifnk dlm 2020Happy New Year 🎄❄️⛄️🎇 (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gifnk dlm 2020: The problem with other templates is that they do not display results automatically and do not have the simplicity to vote on an issue, and must have the least amount of time to agree to an action.
@Pppery: It is not going to be like social media, it is just going to emulate the good features of other digital and online media; In addition, the name of liking / disliking should not be put on it, for example, you can also agree / disagree (it is the only example to understand the subject) Mohammad ebz (talk) 09:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we had this then another positive consequence would be structured data for all of the many polls which we routinely have, and easy access to past discussions. Blue Rasberry (talk)21:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mohammad ebz: this is sort of vague, can you be a bit more specific about what type of constraints you are looking for in a polling system? Some noteworthy features (some of which may be technologically exclusive, and some of which could be 'partially' supported or 'best effort' supported).
Should it be anonymous?
Should it require authenticated participants? (Can "IP users" poll?)
Should non-repudiation be present?
Should it prevent someone from making multiple entries?
The principles that I follow in this survey model are as follows:
- Simplicity in the poll (for both the organizer and the commenter)
- Speed in voting (for both organizer and commentator)
- Use to agree / disagree with a comment or edit or act or move the article on discussion pages
- Poll on a public topic on talk pages
- Put this tool in the wiki editing environment
Note that this proposal is a prototype and requires more brainstorming (it may even be an improved version of previous tools)
In important cases where an action is to be taken, it must be anonymous, and in cases where it is not of significant importance, it can be anonymous.
Based on what I had in mind, it is better to do the survey only on the basis of registered users, although in cases where it is only a non-action and personal survey, I do not see the need to restrict IP users.
It is not mandatory, but it is better in the form of non-repudiation
The poll I had in mind was two-choice or three-choice and you have to choose one choice, but having a multi-choice poll can be a positive point of this tool (unlike the name of the suggested tool)
Have the right to change the choice in the poll within the specified time (during the discussion on the subject and achieve the results)
In non-private or non-action cases, it is necessary for the results to be accurate and reliable
Finally, it is important to add a simple yet effective poll tool to the Wikipedia environment or other projects. At present, a tool that has the basic conditions in a simple and accessible way for everyone has not been implemented. (Although there are tools, they do not have good access and simplicity) Mohammad ebz (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For that to be useful, you should be able to set a condition on who can vote, for example, on the hebrew wikipedia there is a rule that you need to have 100 edits during the last 90 days to vote, so for wikis like this one you need a way to set a limit. Maybe on the mediawiki space that has a code which makes some people unable to vote... Omer abcd (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't think wikipedia editing decision should be made by simple votes. Reason and rationale behind should be the more important factor.C933103 (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose an extremely bad idea. This is the direction we should be moving away from. The goal of a discussion is to reach consensus, not and voting aligns people on opposite sides, with a losing position and a winning position. This already happens a great deal too much. The only processes that need voting is when there is an actual competition, as in elections to arb com, and a specific decision of some definite sort must be reached. We've ben struggling for years to keep established the principle that AfD discussions, for example, must reach consensus, not count votes, and that's true for most AfCs also. We don't decide content by voting, but consensus. DGG (talk) 06:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Consensus is a laudable goal, a founding principle of Wikipedia, not to be abandoned. In practice things are more complex. Just as polls are subject to abuse by majorities, consensus is subject to abuse by the loud, the persistent, the well-connected. In practice, true consensus here is surely a rare thing. Minorities are overruled and silenced, as well as persuaded. If used properly, a poll is just a tool to gauge temperature - transparently. If consensus is really the objective, then we should not fear transparency. Rollo (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
unfortunately in practice I fear that this will tend to over-ride minoritiesand diminish the chance for a full discussion. DGG (talk) 02:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Vote counting instead of reaching consensus is a very bad idea. On hiwiki we have been trying to discourage use of those 'support' and 'oppose' templates in such discussions where consensus is very crucial in discussion-and-decision making process. --SM7--talk--14:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting
Weak support This suggestion definitely isn’t harmful but I don’t think it’s very useful. It can be useful in certain situations. -Gifnk dlm 2020From Middle English Wikipedia 📜📖💻 (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per DGG. There are some uses for out-and-out polling within Wikimedia, like ArbCom, Steward and community board member elections. But a lot of our discussions are not about who gets what position, but about actions to take or not take. In that case our present system, which strongly encourages people explaining themselves, even it's just like, well, "per DGG", not only rewards thoughtful and collegial contributors regardless of whether their position prevails, it acts as a barrier to outside efforts to hijack the site for third-party purposes. Daniel Case (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What would happen if a small organization with extremist views decided to all start voting via their phones one evening, but none of them naturally contributed through comments, Wiki needs to be governed by those that contribute to it, not those that view it or wish to hijack it, by making a comment you are voting and participating, the views of those that choose not to participate should be taken into consideration but not control where wiki goes. Is123Biblio (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: on the English Wikipedia, we have no problems with straw polls. Rather, our issue is the opposite: too much straw polling (or discussions treated as straw polls) rather than discussion. — Bilorv (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose First, there are already securepoll, second, wikipedia aren't democracy, decision should be argument-based, third, it is already achievable by simply asking people to type # {{yes}} or # {{no}}.C933103 (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment definitely an interesting idea. Maybe have voting for a limited amount of time?🤔 Also there are the templates support, and oppose so it’s possible to have polls that way as well. Its also possible to implement your idea than have below a discussion with arguments. -Gifnk dlm 2020 Happy New Year 🎄❄️⛄️🎇 (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Weak support This suggestion definitely isn’t harmful but I don’t think it’s very useful. It can be useful in certain situations. -Gifnk dlm 2020 From Middle English Wikipedia 📜📖💻 (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose — Wikipedia and most Wikimedia projects are based on consensus, not on polls (democracy). — Aca (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Support OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
