User talk:Xeeron/policy

Note on The arguement against elections

The wording here is a bit strange. Don't you mean something more like "common trend" rather than "common thread", and something like "less well informed" or "less knowledgeble" rather than "less well known"? Backsword 12:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Might as well be. Using the correct connotation is hardest in foreign languages. --Xeeron 16:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Refuting the counter arguements (part III)

I'm quite certain this is some flawed math, but I don't have the knowledge of statistics to provide a correction. The probability of all 11 members being wrong is correct, but for the others, you have the probability of 10 out of 10, 9 out of 9, etc, which is rather different from 10 out of 11, 9 out of 11, etc. If you try to use the same math from the other direction, it gives an 11.2% chance of them being right, which leaves 88.1% of results conspicuously absent. To make the flaw more obvious, try the same assuming each person is right 81.3% of the time (so .813^11, .813^10, etc). This makes the group (roughly) 110% right which, outside certain figures of speech, is quite impossible. - Tanetris 20:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right, I was a bit hasty writing down the other lines after I had the one for 11 people. I'll get around to posting a correct example in bit. However the general point stays true: Due to the law of large numbers, the more people you ask, the less "knowledgable" each single person has to be. --Xeeron 21:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hrm, I wish we had math enabled now, lol. So what I should have been using while calculating is the Binomial distribution. Unfortunately that turns out to be a mess to calculate. For the case of 6 members being right, the formula reads:

C(11,6)*0.4^(6)*0.6^(5)

where the first part can be replaced:

((11*10*9*8*7)/(5*4*3*2*1))*0.4^(6)*0.6^(5)

As you can see, its a pain in the ass to calculate (unless you have your calculator at hands). I should not have tried my hands at an example, hehe. --Xeeron 22:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Refuting the counter arguements (part I)

I kinda disagree with some of the things you have said...Not that I think the current system is bad, nor that I think it should be changed; IMO, the current system is great, even if sometimes I disagree with the results. But I think some of the points you mentioned in counter argument I (and a bit on III) have been solved by the wiki through merging voting with discussions instead of using one or the other. For example, in the election in which Tanaric and (by coincidence) you were running for the bureaucrat position, we had voting, and after the votes were counted we had a discussion about who, among you two, would be the one chosen. The bureaucrat elections are also, in a way, restricted to the "elite"; although the term elite does not really apply, IMO, we have chosen to limit voters to only those with more than 100 edits.

Again, I think your main point is right, since elections like we have today are, IMO, the best possible system (and definitely better than the few alternatives that were proposed). But I'm fond of how the community took something that might have not been that great (just voting) and adapted into a procedure that not only works better, but also is more fitting for a wiki. Erasculio 22:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That election is probably what Xeeron had in mind. It clearly showed that even in exactly the situation the policy mention discussion being the thing that should decide (nearly equal support), the timelimit meant that no real discussion happened, since the even split showed everyone that no solution could be reached in the limited time. So that one extra vote was all that mattered. Backsword 13:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Refuting the counter arguements (part II)

I'd like to point out that you're giving this system less consideration than warranted. Dismissing it as crude is not an argument. While the problem of initial selction persists, once up and running it tends to work smoothly.

There is no need for a system. As only likeminded induviduals are invited into the circle of leaders, anyone can act unilaterally and still being in agreement with the group, without even asking, as long as they themself are confident that the new member also shares their views. This also prevents most conflicts and arguments, which can be said to create a more harmonious atmosphere, at least among the leaders. Backsword 13:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)