Wiktionary:Votes/2007-07/Best pet demonstration

Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary:Votes/2007-07/Best pet demonstration. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary:Votes/2007-07/Best pet demonstration, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary:Votes/2007-07/Best pet demonstration in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary:Votes/2007-07/Best pet demonstration you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary:Votes/2007-07/Best pet demonstration will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary:Votes/2007-07/Best pet demonstration, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.

Best pet demonstration

  • Voting on: Which is Wiktionary's current choice of the best most widely acceptable aquarium pet? Note that this example vote is non-binding. It is intended as a demonstration of a variation on approval voting.
    Edited. DAVilla 19:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


Instructions

This vote is being conducted as a variation of approval voting. You may vote in either full or partial support of each of as many options as you would agree with. Votes for each option are counted as points toward that option, and the option with the most points wins, provided there is consensus.
  • Use {{subst:fullsupport|}} to cast a positive vote of Full support for the option or options that you fully support. A vote of full support counts as two points. Notice that it will therefore occupy two lines in keeping a tally of the points.
  • Use {{subst:partsupport|}} to cast a neutral vote of Partial support for any option which you do not fully support, but which you do not wish to oppose. A vote of partial support counts as one point. Voting in partial support of every option is numerically equivalent to abstaining from the vote, aside from issues of quorum.
  • It is not necessary to a cast a negative vote of no support since this counts as zero points and is implicit: it is assumed that you do not support any option for which you do not vote. However, you may use {{subst:nosupport|}} to cast a vote of No support in the Overall vote section if you do not agree with any option.
Selections may be changed by the voter at any time before the vote ends. Note that the indenentation serves to tally the points for each option, so please try to preserve this intention.

Option 1

  • Fish are the best aquarium pet.


  1. Partial support: I like fish in fancy restaurants and hotels. They're a pain to maintain though. Mine always die. DAVilla 19:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Partial support: —RuakhTALK 20:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Option 2

  • The frog is the best aquarium pet.


  1. This is my second preference, but I'm giving it full
  2. support. Frogs are kinda cool. DAVilla 19:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Full
  4. support: —RuakhTALK 20:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Option 3

  • The lizard is the best aquarium pet.


  1. Partial support: Lizards are cool, but they're not so much fun. DAVilla 19:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Partial support: —RuakhTALK 20:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Option 4

  • The turtle is the best aquarium pet.


  1. Full
  2. support: Some turtles are beautiful. I like how they stick their necks out of the water. DAVilla 19:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Full
  4. support: Turtles rule over all other pets. They are very polite. bd2412 T 19:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Partial support: —RuakhTALK 20:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Option 5

  • The snake is the best aquarium pet.


Option 6

  • The spider is the best aquarium pet.


Overall vote

Comment: I had forgotten to update the templates for no and partial support to use the images corresponding to the point values. (The colors have not changed.) Given that that was the original intent, and that this is only an example/demonstration vote, I have updated the images in others' votes to what they would be if the template system had been correctly set up to begin with. Please don't de-sysop me. ;-) I won't didn't correct BD2412's vote above though, as he might be trying to make a point about the complexity of this voting system. DAVilla 00:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. No support: Connel MacKenzie 01:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC) I've started WT:VOTE#Best ice cream example vote in protest of this (in my opinion; deficient) voting style.
    Thank you for participating and for following the rules of the vote. DAVilla 11:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    It was painful - I had to read the 'pedia pages on several of the voting systems before I could bring myself to do so. Your implementation of AV here might work better if you limit the choices to "Yes/No" instead of "Support/Abstain." But that's just my two cents. --Connel MacKenzie 15:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    Comment. If we're going to have separate templates for this voting style anyway, can we maybe use bullets instead of numbers? The numbers don't really make sense when we're mixing different types of votes in the same list. (That said, I agree with Connel MacKenzie that it makes more sense to use the regular support-abstain-oppose system, if only because if we use this system, I'm sure there would still be people voting opposition to certain options.) —RuakhTALK 05:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    The templates for this vote are designed such that the numbers tally the points. Actually, because of the indentation, it's okay if you explicitly vote "no support" on the options (except that it couldn't be the first vote because that kinda screws up the numbering, which is a bug I'd like to see fixed). I've tried to make it very clear in the instructions that it is not necessary, as that's the more important point. DAVilla 11:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    Is there any reason to use the auto-numbering? It is more trouble than simply having a tally up top. Replacing "#" with ":" or "*"... --Connel MacKenzie 14:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    With less than 50 people participating on every vote here, a visual scan is sufficient (with one official count when it is closed.) Encouraging further discussion is more important that having a "perfect" tally system during the vote. --Connel MacKenzie 14:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    Am I not encouraging discussion?
    Okay, I can see your objection now, as per your comments in the flawed vote above. However, in this vote it is acceptable to use {{nosupport|}} due to indentation of the new template, and it is always acceptable to make comments. I just don't see the reason why one should be required to register a vote of disapproval for an option that doesn't look likely to win anyway. DAVilla 12:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    The tally is important for approval voting because, as I wrote on my talk page, a better outcome has a better chance of being determined if voters have more complete information. Approval voting is somewhat unique in that its shortcomings (which all voting systems for three or more choices must inherently have) are overcome to a degree by openness, since the strategy that individual voters employ in selecting options is actually beneficial to not only themselves but to the overall outcome. DAVilla 11:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    Our big sister Wikipedia tallys votes atop the vote section manually which I think would be a "better" approach than trying to manhandle wikisyntax to count it for us. --Connel MacKenzie 22:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    No support: — Beobach972 00:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC) This voting style has some innovations (I am intrigued by the concept of officially differentiating weak vs strong support), but I generally prefer to be able to vote support, abstain, or oppose on each option in a vote. Out of the two, I prefer Connel MacKenzie's ice-cream voting style to this one (but, as I said, I like the full/partial support idea). — Beobach972 00:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    Support = full support; abstain = partial support; oppose = no suppose. In terms of one's range of expression, this style is exactly equivalent to Connel's, with different labels for the options, and the sum offset by the number of voters. The outcome would be the same. Come on people, you're barely giving it a try! Participation in this vote does not imply its approval in any way. Connel is just being grumpy. A little grumpy. I'm satisfied he didn't outright {{subst:oppose}} it, which is prohibitted in the rules. DAVilla 01:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    Am I? Really now, please. I think having 'opposition' comments in-line with where they apply is very, very relevant to the style of voting we have here. Interspersing reactive comments amidst other people's votes is just poor form. And the "nosupport" thing comes close, but if forgotten, can mean a very different thing. From the looks of this vote, it seems that a clear "best pet" could actually be selected. Imagine! An "official" pet of en.wiktionary. I think the approval vote, by its very nature, encourages overly-positive votes that don't accurately reflect what option has consensus (rather, it biases the vote in favor of reaching a decision, even if that "best" decision doesn't have support.) Having read-up on the various "big" voting styles, I think MCA was pretty close to what my ice cream example was (or should have been.) --Connel MacKenzie 22:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    By the way, both your vote and mine are examples of range voting. The major differences are (1) whether adding extra choices is allowed and (2) how to count blank votes. You think that an implicit vote of no support encourages overly positive votes? Positive comments perhaps.
    So what if Wiktionary picks a best aquarium pet? It's an example vote, and the selection doesn't mean anything. It's a shame that people are so opposed to the voting method from the offset that they won't even consider testing it. In fact, given all the opposition in this section, there is currently no best pet. With six voters, an option needs six points just to pass a simple majority. If the veto rule I had suggested for supermajorities were in place, the outlook would be even bleaker.
    Is there anything you need to clarify in your vote with regard to what constitutes a majority? DAVilla 23:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    What do you mean? The fact that the ice cream vote is completely invalid and irrelevant because it didn't describe any rules up front? By the way, I hope you recall that I was pretty gung-ho about approval voting some time ago. It is the implementation details of it, that have made me "grumpy." I've come to realize that it works for some things, but doesn't seem workable here. --Connel MacKenzie 00:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    I don't actually understand what it means to have an approval vote (or modified approval vote) on what the best something is. The point of an approval vote is to identify what the most widely acceptable somethings are. —RuakhTALK 04:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    Good point. But I think that was just "cutesy" wording to try and get people to vote. --Connel MacKenzie 00:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    Partial support is not the same as abstention! A better equivalent would be no support = abstain, but partial support implies, well, partial support. This voting arrangement, as you explain it, is counter-intuitive. Perhaps a method of full support = 2, partial support or simply support = 1, abstain = 0, oppose = -1, strongly oppose = -2 would work better. — Beobach972 20:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    Well, partial support here is equivalent to an abstention numerically. What do the names of the labels contribute to the mathematics in tallying the votes?
    No offense, but I'm not interested in a +2 to -2 system. The ones under consideration now are already complex enough. I would like to know what you would call +2, +1, and 0 under the current system, if you think the labels aren't fitting. I would say "support", "abstain", and "oppose" except those template names are already taken. DAVilla 23:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    Alright, here's my understanding : under the +1, 0, -1 system, if there is a vote on whether to use {{en-noun-pretty}} or {{en-noun-practical}} to format the ===Noun=== '''word''' lines, and I didn't care, I could not vote. If I was interested in the outcome of the vote, but didn't understand the issue well enough to cast a vote, I could abstain. (These actions are equal. In contrast, the +2, +1, 0 system would count my thus-misnamed 'abstention' as a +1 vote of support, and I'd have to vote thusly on each item so as not to create an imbalance.) In addition, if both templates had one vote of support, and I felt that {{en-noun-pretty}} would be a poor choice, for technical reasons, I could vote oppose, thus nullifying one support vote : the tally (+1 and -1 equal 0) would then nicely reflect the discussion, ie, one person supports the pretty template, but another contributor brings up valid technical concerns. (Under the +2, +1, 0 system, there's no way to do this. There's no way to actually oppose an option, to hinder it.) You say that opposition is implicit, and I take issue with that alone — abstention should perhaps be implicit, but not opposition (although that isn't a 'numerical' concept/issue). — Beobach972 05:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    No support: H. (talk) 09:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC) This is too complex. It is difficult to enforce that people do not both oppose and support, and why would people suddenly get two votes?
    Not sure what you mean. You can support one option and oppose the others. It's not necessary to state opposition because it's implicit—no support counts as zero points—but you can do so if you wish. I agree with you that it's a bit complex. I much prefer the simple approval voting. But there was objection that, essentially, the simple approval voting ballot has a too limited range of expression.
    People don't get two votes, they get to cast up to two points toward any option they support. Would not substituting templates make it any more clear that each person were only casting a single vote?
    By the way, you can oppose the vote if you object to the voting method, but it only counts towards Wiktionary's choice of the most acceptable aquarium pet. We're not yet voting on the method itself. Given that it was intended to appease Connel and EncycloPetey, this particular variation may never be adopted. But regardless it's a good exercise, I think, to hash out the difficulties. DAVilla 20:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    Well, the "appeasing" was the whole "you're changing my vote" thing, but I strongly agree this is a good exercise. --Connel MacKenzie 05:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Decision

Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia