Discussion Wikiversité:Prise de décision/Critères d'éligibilité des votants

Enjeu de la prise de décision

This was written by User:JackPotte, starting this Project page:

Lors du dernier vote d'une page à la suppression, plusieurs votants ont exprimé leurs voix sans tenir compte de l'encadré d'en-tête stipulant qu’ils n'étaient pas éligibles pour y voter. Comme personne ne leur a fait remarquer après plusieurs jours, peut-être par non adhérence ou ignorance desdits critères, il conviendrait de les éclaircir.

En effet, ceux-ci n'avaient pas été mis en place par une prise de décision, et pourraient donc légitimement être contestés. Le but de ce vote est donc de cimenter ces critères, pour tous les types de votes, et éventuellement de les simplifier pour qu’ils soient simples à retenir et à consulter.

The problem here is the statement, found in Wikiversité:Pages à supprimer/preload, as of the start of that page, Les avis d’IP, non signés, non motivés, de comptes créés après cette page ou de comptes comptant moins de 50 contributions dans l’espace encyclopédique sont rassemblés dans « avis divers » et ne sont en principe pas décomptés, exception faite du créateur de la page.

Where did that come from? It came from a template that was created here by a user.[[[Spécial:diff/101445]]] This change introduced the fr.wikiversity voting rule. As JackPotte points out, there was no discussion.

On en.wikiversity, we have had many policies that were written in the very early days. Sometimes they were not discussed, but the fundamental questions are twofold: were they accepted by the community in a considered manner (i.e., realizing that things could be different), and, if they require work, were they followed. A policy that requires some kind of work but nobody does the work, or it is done rarely, is not a real policy, it is more like a proposed policy that was never actually accepted. We have some policies written back then that are completely ignored. Eventually, they will be revised, but it has low priority.

The deletion discussion preload stood for 8 years without very little question or editing, apparently. It was written for an encyclopedia project, Jack just fixed the language,[[[Spécial:diff/493214]]] but he translated " l’espace encyclopédique" to "l'espace principal." I'm not yet familiar with how fr.wikiversity is organized, but on en.wikiversity, active educational work takes place in many namespaces. Here, there is, at least, the Recherche namespace.

So, here, there is a deletion discussion, Wikiversité:Pages à supprimer/Recherche:Polynômes de Boubaker, and there are some "irregular votes," by the standard stated. How many? To know, we need to do some research. From a history display, we can one-click access user contributions. And then we may need to distinguish what space the contributions are in. There are tools for that, but ... what value is brought by this work? I see, in the discussion, only confusion. A user pointed out the "violations," and accused them of sock puppetry, then accused me of being another sock. Very confused indeed. We simply ignore all this on en.wikiversity. The most that may happen is that someone points out a new acccount. And administrators enforce civility policy. What I saw on that page would not be tolerated on en.wikiversity.

So, we are worried about voting qualifications, which is of little importance in the long run, and remain unconcerned about incivility, which is destructive of the community on which the projects depend?

Looking at contributions, by the rules, the disqualified voters would be me and User:Tweety-frwikiversity, with about 24 edits to mainspace or Recherche, editing since August 2011. Both Tweety and I voted in the 2011 suppression discussion. Nobody mentioned the lack of qualifications then, to me. Looking at history, there was a brief flap about it, Tweety made what I consider a disruptive edit, and an IP then reverted it, Tweety reverted, David removed it,[1] Tweety then left a modest vote, and it was left.[2] The error of "encyclopedic" obvious, and was not fixed. That could have required discussion, because the purpose of Wikiversity is education, and we use much more than mainspace for it.

Tweety was not warned. In fact, the edit reverted was a problem, entirely aside from the ineligibility. The ineligibility diverted attention from the actual problem. Tweety's incivility in 2011 was matched by that of the nominator. Now, the nominator was a Wikipedia administrator. His first edits to Wikiversity were filing the deletion request. Did anyone notice? Not eligible to vote, but eligible to nominate, which causes much more disruption than a vote. That administrator's focus was on faux-nez, sock puppetry, and this is a pattern I have seen cross-wiki in this affair. I know the Boubaker socks and alleged socks, I've spent a week studying them and documenting the history. Boubaker did create many accounts, apparently. However, there were also other users, supporting Boubaker, that were accused of and often blocked as sock puppets.

Here, there are two possible socks, though others have been alleged by incautious users. However, my sense is that they are not socks. They have different behaviors. In 2011, the nominator claimed he would provide evidence. Apparently he never did.

The rule did nothing but increase disruption. True sock puppetry is disruptive and can and should be handled directly. To my mind, the possible harm here is so small that it is not worth filing a request for checkuser. I warned the two accounts in question that if they were the same, that it should be immediately disclosed and the double voting removed. However, I do not know if they saw that warning, because these are not sophisticated accounts and do not have email enabled. --Abd (discussion) 11 juillet 2015 à 22:02 (UTC)

Personally I would be pleased to let the newbies nominate some pages for deletion, for example in case of interwiki reasons.

Moreover, the "main" versus "main + research" namespaces criterion is something I had chosen very quickly. If anyone would change it in the poll, I wouldn't modify my vote. JackPotte ($♠) 11 juillet 2015 à 23:32 (UTC)

Thanks, Jack. On the encyclopedia projects, mainspace is clearly the core, the most important part of the project, and the idea of mainspace edits on an encyclopedia project, especially for Articles for Deletion (mainspace!) is that people should have experience. 50 edits is kind of a dumb way to measure that, editors typically remain relatively clueless long beyond that. However, the Wikiversity mission was more than "educational materials," thinking in terms of, say, supplemental classroom material or "lessons." It was also learning by doing, and it was understood that research, done at every university in many ways, is also important. Further, a user may develop a resource in user space, making hundreds of edits, and then move it to mainspace. One edit. Another user develops a resource in mainspace and makes fifty or a hundred edits in one day, as I've mentioned. The user has not learned to use prevue.

We don't have a special Research namespace in en.wikiversity, rather, resources with original research, when anyone cares, are tagged as containing it. The policies are mostly gathering dust. This is what the early Wikiversitans largely did not understand in their enthusiasm: what it takes to maintain policies. However, we have developed actual practices that work. We delete very little, mostly spam and vandalism. If something doesn't seem like it will be useful to others, but if there is any chance it might be useful to the user, we move it to user space. Now, those edits were made in mainspace, but will now show up in contributions as being made in user space. On en.wikiversity, we readily organize resources, and nobody suffers a loss because we decide that a resource belongs in user space, say. It turns out that people hate having their stuff be deleted, but don't get upset if the librarian asks us to keep our writings in our university dorm room.

There is an elite group of users who are enable to make decisions about user rights: bureaucrats. What is called voting is not controlling them, but merely advising them. There is no harm in their being advised by even IP users. My own preference would be that any elite user, with special privileges, could not be anonymous, but this, of course, is a minority position. I consider that some of the wiki problems arise due to lack of responsibility, made easier by anonymity. We tend to draw bureaucrats from admin ranks, which is a bit analogous to having custodians (en.wikiversity) or librarians (fr.wikiversity) choose administrative staff. --Abd (discussion) 12 juillet 2015 à 00:57 (UTC)

Exprimé leur ou leurs voix

Normalement, en anglais, on met voix au pluriel parce qu'on considère que, comme il y a plusieurs votants, ça donne donc plusieurs voix au total, alors qu'en français (toujours normalement), on met voix au singulier car on considère que chaque votant a une seule voix.

En même temps, ya pas mort d'homme...

--Thierry613 (discussion) 12 juillet 2015 à 16:44 (UTC)

Remarquer

Pour "remarquer", ma source favorite http://www.cnrtl.fr/lexicographie/remarquer? indique transitif, mais peut-être que d'autres sources indiquent le contraire ? --Thierry613 (discussion) 12 juillet 2015 à 16:51 (UTC)

A la réflexion je voulais écrire que le COD était sous-entendu. JackPotte ($♠) 12 juillet 2015 à 17:31 (UTC)

Oky. --Thierry613 (discussion) 12 juillet 2015 à 17:39 (UTC)

Mise à jour du lien bibliothécaire

Merci de remplacer "Critères_d'éligibilité_d'un_bibliothécaire" par "Critères_d'éligibilité_d'un_administrateur" nous souhaitons supprimer la redirection pour une meilleur lisibilité. Amicalement. --Youni Verciti (discussion) 19 juillet 2016 à 13:42 (UTC)

Dans un deuxième temps je m’aperçois qu’il s’agit d’une "prise de décision", désormais dans l’espace Projet qui pointe vers l’unique "Prise de décision" restée sous forme de redirection dans l’espace Wikiversité ; et comme l’espace de noms Wikiversité est l’emplacement légitime des pages de "prise de déçision"… je ne sais plus quoi penser! --Youni Verciti (discussion) 19 juillet 2016 à 13:58 (UTC)