Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Main: Difference between revisions

Line 1:

{{KidsIntro|Most of the time, a group does not need to vote. Someone tries something, and if it does not work, others can undo it or talk about it. But when a large group has to settle a big question for good, voting gives everyone a fair say. WikiDeal wants easy votes for simple yes-or-no questions, smarter votes when there are many choices, and no vote at all when doing and talking are enough. This page is the door to everything about voting at WikiDeal.}}

{{KidsIntro|Most of the time, a group does not need to vote. Someone tries something, and if it does not work, others can undo it or talk about it. But when a large group has to settle a big question for good, voting gives everyone a fair say. How do we know a question is big? One idea: when many people say it matters, a bit like in Switzerland, where citizens collect signatures to ask for a national vote. WikiDeal wants easy votes for simple yes-or-no questions, smarter votes when there are many choices, and no vote at all when doing and talking are enough. This page is the door to everything about voting at WikiDeal.}}

{{ExpertIntro|Entry page of the Voting portal. First point, stated upfront: formal voting is not intended for every decision. It is ~~reserved for decisions~~ that ~~require a large~~ consensus or a ~~clear, settled adoption~~, and it complements lighter tools (direct action, revert, discussion) rather than replacing them. ~~Initial hypothesis: the~~ voting method should match the complexity of the decision~~, and the degree of participation should match the stakes. Simple~~ majority for binary questions, Condorcet-style ranked voting (Schulze method) ~~as the strongest instrument, reserved for~~ complex and ~~contested multi-option choices~~, consensus for editorial work, and single transferable vote for multi-seat elections. The portal covers the methods under study, the proposed rules (eligibility, secret ballot, quorum, election committee, challenges), ~~and~~ a research page grounded in the documented practice of the Wikimedia, Debian and Mozilla communities plus peer-reviewed literature. Everything is a first hypothesis, to be validated by the steering committee and then by the community.}}

{{ExpertIntro|Entry page of the Voting portal. First point, stated upfront: formal voting is not intended for every decision. The initial hypothesis is that consensus requirements should follow the degree of stakes, and that the degree of stakes is expressed by the community itself: the more people raise a question, the higher the stakes. This idea is inspired by the Swiss popular initiative and referendum. Voting complements lighter tools (direct action, revert, discussion) rather than replacing them. The voting method should match the complexity of the decision: simple majority for binary questions, Condorcet-style ranked voting (Schulze method) where a case is complex and there is a clear, shared perception that it must be put to a vote, consensus for editorial work, and single transferable vote for multi-seat elections. The portal also explores a Slashdot-inspired karma mechanism for agenda setting, collegial decisions by small panels structured around User Groups, and a humble framing of wiki-style participatory governance (wikicracy). It covers the methods under study, the proposed rules (eligibility, secret ballot, quorum, election committee, challenges), a research page grounded in the documented practice of the Wikimedia, Debian and Mozilla communities plus peer-reviewed literature, and a page on the documented history and results of Condorcet voting. Everything is a first hypothesis, to be validated by the steering committee and then by the community.}}

__TOC__

Line 25:

# '''Revert.''' When a contribution is problematic and can be undone, undoing it is enough. A revocable action does not need a vote: the cost of a mistake is low because the mistake is reversible.

# '''Discussion.''' When a revert is contested, for example when an editing conflict follows the revert, the people involved discuss and look for [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making consensus], if needed with mediation (see the [[Gov/en/Portal:Justice/Main|Justice portal]]).

# '''Formal vote.''' Only when discussion cannot settle a question ~~that is complex~~, ~~contested~~ and ~~in need of~~ a ~~clear~~, ~~settled adoption~~ does a formal vote come into play, up to a Condorcet-style ballot for the ~~hardest~~ multi-option cases.

# '''Formal vote.''' Only when discussion cannot settle a question, and the question is widely perceived as needing a settled decision, does a formal vote come into play, up to a Condorcet-style ballot for the most complex multi-option cases.

Condorcet voting is therefore intended as a complement to the simpler tools: ~~clearly~~ the ~~strongest method for~~ complex and ~~contested questions~~, ~~and clearly not~~ the ~~method for everything else~~.

Condorcet voting is therefore intended as a complement to the simpler tools, not as a supreme method. The initial hypothesis is that it becomes relevant when two conditions are met at the same time: the case is complex (several options, real trade-offs), and there is a clear, shared perception that the question needs to be submitted to a vote. Outside those two conditions, lighter tools remain the norm.

This gradation is not a WikiDeal invention; long-lived online communities document it explicitly:

Line 36:

The documented evidence, including academic work on graduated governance mechanisms, is gathered on the [[Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Research#ladder-in-practice|research page]].

== How stakes would be expressed: the Swiss inspiration ==

If the weight of a decision procedure should follow the stakes, who measures the stakes? The working idea proposed here, as a basis for discussion: the community itself, through the number of people who raise a question. WikiDeal intends to draw also on the Swiss system of [https://www.ch.ch/en/political-system/political-rights/initiatives/what-is-a-federal-popular-initiative/ popular initiative] and [https://www.ch.ch/en/political-system/political-rights/referendum/ referendum] to define which decisions are priorities. In Switzerland, citizens can put a constitutional change to a national vote by collecting 100,000 signatures within 18 months, and can challenge a law passed by parliament by collecting 50,000 signatures within 100 days; the procedures are run by the [https://www.bk.admin.ch/de/volksinitiativen Federal Chancellery] (pages in German, French and Italian).

What matters for WikiDeal is the mechanism, not the exact numbers: the agenda is not set only by the bodies in place. When many people signal that a question matters, that signal itself expresses the degree of stakes and can trigger a decision procedure, with the breadth of consensus sought growing accordingly. The thresholds and forms such a mechanism could take at WikiDeal are entirely open; documented results of the Swiss instrument are summarised on the [[Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Condorcet-History#swiss-comparison|history and results page]].

== Earning a voice in the agenda: the Slashdot karma inspiration ==

A second envisaged inspiration, also proposed as a basis for discussion, is the karma system of the technology news site [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot Slashdot], documented in its [https://slashdot.org/faq official FAQ]: points (karma) earned through the quality and the quantity of a person's contributions determine who is trusted with moderation rights, in rotating turns that the FAQ compares to jury duty.

Adapted to WikiDeal, the mechanism being explored looks like this. Contributors with high karma, that is, rights received through the quality and quantity of their contributions, could take part in choosing the subjects debated in the future, notably by accepting proposed posts for a news blog covering the life of WikiDeal: its policies, its markets, its governance, its funding. An accepted subject would first appear as a brief news item, then be opened to debate through comments. Depending on the case, the process could go further, up to a Condorcet-type vote: notably for elections, but also for decisions of the initiative or referendum type described above. None of this is decided; it is a first sketch of how agenda rights could be earned rather than granted.

== Collegial decisions: small panels rather than lone deciders ==

Between individual action and community-wide votes, WikiDeal intends to encourage a dynamic of decisions taken collegially by small panels (areopagus-style colleges), not by isolated individuals. Such panels would work by building [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making consensus] and consent among their members, so that agreement is frequent and most questions are settled without ever burdening the whole community with a request. The intended backbone for these panels is the [[Gov/en/Portal:Community/User-Groups|User Groups]]: small, thematic or local groups where collegial habits can form. Community-wide procedures would then be reserved for what small colleges cannot legitimately settle alone, consistent with the ladder above.

Line 58:

Line 77:

This mapping is a starting point, not a decision. It is adapted from the practice of the Wikimedia and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian Debian] communities, documented on the [[Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Research|research page]].

== A humble note: wikicracy ==

Speaking in the House of Commons on 11 November 1947, Winston Churchill said: "Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" ([https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill#democracy-except Wikiquote, with the Hansard reference]; Churchill himself presented the idea as already proverbial, "it has been said").

Wiki-style online participatory democracy, sometimes called wikicracy, with its different levels of participation, can be looked at the same way. It may be the most refined mode available today for managing complex and limited resources together, and it remains imperfect: slow at times, demanding, exposed to its own failure modes. There can always be something better. This portal is written with that awareness. WikiDeal does not claim to do participatory governance perfectly; it tries to make a proposal, one among others, and to keep it open to revision.

Line 65:

Line 91:

* [[Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Rules|Voting rules]]: the proposed rules of procedure (who votes, secret ballot, quorum, duration, election committee, verification, challenges, transparency).

* [[Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Research|Voting research and experience]]: what the documented elections of the Wikimedia, Debian and Mozilla communities teach, and what peer-reviewed research says about online governance, multi-option decisions and the evaluation of these processes.

* [[Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Condorcet-History|Condorcet voting in practice: history and results]]: the documented record, with sourced numbers: who voted with Condorcet methods in the Wikimedia galaxy and in Debian, for what, with what participation, and how the Swiss popular initiative compares.

== Related pages ==