RationalWiki talk:Proposed bylaws/Lumenos/even stupider

What is "voting" and "election" anyway?

Quoted from above, "[The voting qualifications] will likely follow WP standards making eligibility a function of both time on site and number of edits (1 year, 500 edits something like that)... tmtoulouse 16:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)" ~ Lumenaid - (the anarcho-librarian chattery) 10:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm so all those would get one vote of equal weight and talk page edits count as much as mainspace? That would be easy to measure, at least. ~ Lumenaid - (the anarcho-librarian chattery) 10:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

But when we look closer at Wikipedia's policies, you find that while the officials use seemingly ordinary English terms, they may employ some rather unique definitions. You may have read that Wikipedia is not a democracy, so what is all this about elections and voting? It appears that "vote" is yet another Wikipedia neologized term (like wp:"neutral point of view", wp:"reliable source", wp:notability, etc). They finally have employed the lumenist convention of renaming the neologism for clarity. There is not to be any "voting" only !voting. This is not some uuuh voting process we are talking about, it is more a way to help appointed officials make up their minds. One might wonder, why they don't call it "polling", but I think the "official" explanation reveals that !voting is a much more meaningful term: "The exclamation mark in '!vote' is the symbol for logical negation and can be read literally as 'not vote'." I'm tempted to throw a little snowball proposal for one of those explanatory "guideline" things, which would be entitled, "Wikipedia policy is not doublespeak". See, i.i.i.it's just you gotta understand the m.m.m.map-territory realashunship. : ) ~ Lumenaid - (the anarcho-librarian chattery) 10:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

We're talking about voting, for the RW Foundation board of trustees, and nothing else. The only part of what we are discussing that bears any relationship to WP at all is having a way to limit such voting to actual active individual editors. ħuman 11:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I propose we make the voting criteria too high for Lumenos to qualify, or be allowed to comment. - π 11:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not make it proportional to the amount of value one adds to our culture? Perhaps, the votes of real scientists should have greater weight than those of us who may lack the necessary critical thinking skills. ~ Lumenaid - (the anarcho-librarian chattery) 12:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If we took the number of edits you have made that added value to this wiki and divided by the total number of edits you have made, I suspect that it will be within rounding error of zero. - π 12:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

My orations should have negative value to any rouge lumenati. :P And I suspect my proposal on measuring consensus, and now all this talk of elections and voting, is just a big coincidence! =) ~ Lumenaid - (the anarcho-librarian chattery) 14:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes it is. Trent has been working on this for months before you reared you head again. - π 23:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

AhHAH! So you agree completely with my statement! Any allegations that I am the reason for all this debate over eventual democratic overthrow by actual scientists or-or-or critical thinkers of measurably equivalent caliber, are therefore without merit. ~ Lumenaid - (the anarcho-librarian chattery) 02:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Re to Human: I understand that. What we are not talking about is whether the board will be legally required to adhere to majority rule, or whether it will be a benevolent oligarchy of some sort. ~ Lumenaid - (the anarcho-librarian chattery) 12:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. The Board's only purpose is to manage the functions of the Foundation, not to run the wiki. Its members will be elected according to prescribed rules of suffrage, timing, potential impeachment, etc. @ Pi, lol... ħuman 12:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

S/he who owns the wiki, pwons the wiki. Who will ultimately decide what server the domain name is attached to and who gets server access? Who will ultimately decide who the crats will be? "Rough consensus" might become a little rougher, if Mohamed Trent becomes unavailable before RationalWiki does. ~ Lumenaid - (the anarcho-librarian chattery) 14:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Gawd you're an idiot... ħuman 15:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

How about everyone gets put on a list, and people vote for who's qualified to vote. Those that aren't in the top 50% have their votes discounted and we recount and repeat from there... ^pathetic 20:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

We were getting off the topic so I made new section. I would quote you there but I've apparently become very unpopular for things like "laying down block quotes" as Pi likes to call it. ;-) ~ Lumenaid - ("backup" chattery) 03:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)