Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-07/Editing "Flexibility"

Voting on: Editing WT:EL#Flexibility. (diff)

Current text:

Proposed text:

Removed sentences:

• "may represent some kind of “standard” form"
• "They have just as much right to do that as you have to make them."
• "If you want your way accepted, you have to make the case for that."
• "Refusing to discuss, or engaging in edit wars may also affect your credibility in other unrelated areas."

Rationale:

• In Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-02/Removing "Flexibility", it was proposed removing the Flexibility section entirely, but the vote ended as "no consensus" (6-4-1), with some voters supporting the existence of a flexibility section.
• Shortening the text. Removing explanations and leaving only the actual regulations about the flexibility of WT:EL.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Extended: 23:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:

• Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-02/Removing "Flexibility" (see the whole vote page, for the opinions of the voters)
• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/June#Editing WT:EL#Flexibility
• Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2016-07/Editing "Flexibility"

1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support -Xbony2 (talk) 21:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Support —Enosh (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
4. Support --WikiTiki89 14:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
5. Support. A more honest assessment of how we approach this aspect of Wiktionary. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
6. Support - DonnanZ (talk) 12:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
7. Support Philmonte101 (talk) 04:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

   SupportElchsntre (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

   Ineligible to vote. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 17:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

8. Support -- Too much flexibility is IMHO bad for wiktionary. It will likely confuse new editors and impede easy machine readability. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

1. Oppose I miss this: "Be ready to discuss those changes. If you want your way accepted, you have to make the case for that." It makes it express that he who deviates has to be able to explain the benefits or rationale of their deviation. This might seem implied in "Unless there is a good reason for deviating, the standard should be presumed correct", but is not really there; the sentence only speaks of existence of a good reason, not of the deviator's ability to articulate that reason. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

   I support removing the following statement: "Refusing to discuss, or engaging in edit wars may also affect your credibility in other unrelated areas." --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

   I think that's implied and doesn't need to be stated explicitly. --WikiTiki89 17:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

2. Oppose As Dan observes, the new text lacks any mention of discussion. To me, it sounds like "if established editors don't like your changes, they'll be reverted, and that's the end of the story". The text needs to acknowledge the critical role of discussion on a wiki like this one. This, that and the other (talk) 06:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose per This, that and the other. --Droigheann (talk) 12:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose I like flexibility because most designs are likely to be faulty, given the amateur nature of the project. Among other things we lack data on existing practices to inform the design decisions. Many important design decisions are made without meaningful discussion in advance of the design. The lack of pre-design discussion risks having developers be overcommitted to their ideas and unable to see or take seriously other points of view. DCDuring TALK 00:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Dan Polansky, et al. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
6. Oppose per This, that and the other. I think the wording should explicitly encourage articulation of reasoning and discussion of possible improvements. (I agree with Dan that the last sentence about credibility is unnecessary.) — Eru·tuon 07:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

1. Abstain — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
2. Abstain --Octahedron80 (talk) 07:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• I propose to extend this vote by one month to yield a more unequivocal result. Note that I am an opposing party, and that currently, this is a no consensus by a narrow margin where it could be a pass if more people arrive. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

  I would support that. --WikiTiki89 18:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

  Extended. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

  For the record, when Dan Polansky proposed the vote extension, the results were: 7–4–1 (63.63%–36.36%). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

  For the record, I support the vote extension. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

No consensus. 8-6-2 (57.14%-42.86%) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)