Talk:Polls are evil/Archive 1

Okay. IRC quote time:

   <Guanaco>  so far i've refactored it from a poll to a discussion, 
              removed personal attacks and useless indecisiveness, and NPOVed it
<FennecFoxen> ... that's the kind of silliness I was hoping to hilight.
    <Guanaco> http://meta.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Polls_are_evil&diff=43965&oldid=43958
<FennecFoxen> Guanaco- sure... yeah... now what, will you NPOV "Friends of gays
              should not edit Wikipedia" and "Academic standards disease"?
    <Guanaco> yes

In the tradition of Friends of gays should not edit Wikipedia and Academic standards disease, and keeping in mind silly votes such as w:Wikipedia:Bad_jokes_and_other_deleted_nonsense/Delete_the_main_page, I tried to make a ludicrous and silly poll about whether polls are evil. And I find it refactored into a boring, serious discussion. While I appreciate that there may be a real desire for boring, serious discussions, I find it disconcerting that the nonsense portion of this issue has been removed in such a manner, as it was to form the core of an example of a completely ludicrous poll, demonstrative of why such affairs should be avoided. I protest this refactoring, and I hereby nominate this dispute for the lame edit wars section. - Fennec 03:46, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Additionally, I would like to hilight talk about polls (often separate from the polls themselves, on other talk pages, such as this) as an additional contributing factor towards the evil of polls. - Fennec 03:46, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • So what you are saying, basically, is that "poll" should be spelt "gdansk"? —Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 03:57, 2004 Jun 28 (UTC)

Discussion

As I said above, Polls are evil and want to take over the world. - Mark Ryan 03:54, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

This page is not about Poles. It's about Pole Dancers. Click here for an example.

Are polls evil? (8/5/1/1/3+2i ends 25:97, 14 Grune, 17th year of the Century of the Fruitbat)

Support

1. Fennec 01:57, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
2. Yes, and they are prone to sockpuppet abuse. Raul654 02:12, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
3. I agree. Someone else 02:12, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
4. Me too. Nobody 02:12, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
5. I second the above. Anon 02:12, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
6. Well, deliberately mean, at the least. ✏ Sverdrup 02:57, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
7. Polls are evil. Administrative power should be in the hands of the few. Give them an inch and they take a mile, I'm afraid. Before we know it Wikipedia will be full of the Reds. We need to take action now to stop that happening. - Mark Ryan 03:13, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
8. Wait, if we all support polls being evil, does that mean they're gonna stay that way? -Etaoin 20:03, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
9. Yes! (see how this doesn't contribute to the discussion!) Nsh 04:47, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
10. I don't have a login, so this proves how all supporters are trolls! 131.211.50.218 16:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
11. ABCD 01:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
12. 127.0.0.1 01:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
13. Oh yes. Oh yes indeed. Filiocht 15:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
14. At least overused... /Habj 02:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
15. Yes -- Dominus 19:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
16. Yes... but are we not contributing to a sort of poll right now?? 213.187.48.149 14:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
17. Yes (and I hope this is not a poll) AnyFile 17:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
18. Ucucha 14:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC) And this poll too!
19. Duh. Matt Yeager 23:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
20. aint this a poll? YES or NO??? Thats gonna be a poll with a percentile win, lose, draw? LOL

Oppose

1. Keep. He is my Prophet. He will save the world. - Brisby
2. Polls serve an important function. Without polls, we'd never know where a discussion is going and it would keep going in all directions. Ofcourse sockpuppet abuse needs to be dealt with. --Hemanshu 15:22, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
3. Yeah, they're abusable. Yeah, they're not perfect. Yeah, they're NECESSARY. -blankfaze (too lazy to log in to meta)
   • So could they be a necessary evil, perhaps? - Fennec 02:30, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
4. Polls are necessary, and can keep the discussion to a manageable level. Arj 20:49, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
5. Polls poll. --Ben Brockert < 01:59, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
6. 32K talk pages are evil. Neutrality 03:11, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
7. I agree with Neutrality, and when is a full page of discussion no body knows whats going on so far. Get It 03:57, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
8. No! (see how without a rationale, a vote one way is just as good as a vote the other, and with a rationale a dialectic process can occur!) Nsh 04:47, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
9. Polls are beautiful, but not binding. 216.160.223.49 21:28, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
10. ABCD 01:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
11. 127.0.0.1 01:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
12. Oh No. Oh No indeed. I have proof of this. Polls unique disadvantage is that they are not ment for stupid ones...And we have a lot of stupids around... :-) 146.124.141.250 07:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
13. Why polls are so popular: Polls allow people who don't have an informed opinion or who cannot articulate a rational position to pretend like they are contributing to the discussion. Polls are inclusive, man, and that's what it's all about. Right? --63.18.144.208 15:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
14. Yes -- Dominus 19:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
15. en:User:Cantus
16. Maybe you'd be evil too if your country was always getting partitioned.
17. Polls are not evil. Denelson83 20:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
18. Consensus by definiton is the majority and the majority is the way in which a democracy works.--137.195.101.92 05:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
19. Polls are not perfect but necessary at least as last option. Some people dont get that there ıs a Consensus without seeıng a number. Polls can be dangerous for small wikis because of lack of statistical data. If 5 people can change the look, polls could harm the wiki. So kinda evil but sometimes only solution. --Dbl2010^talk 01:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
20. This article has the mistaken idea that polls replace all debate. Rather, when used properly, they can be used to finish a debate after everyone has given their reasons for or against a proposal. -- Kjkolb 20:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
21. If wikipedia did't have polls it would be like every other Encyclopedia!!! 69.193.150.12 20:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
22. I oppose oversimplifying exclamations like "Polls are evil", and "Voting is evil". --Dan Polansky 11:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

• Polls are chaotic neutral. -- Cyrius 02:59, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Best Comment Ever. -24.195.1.189 21:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Maybe! (see how sometimes people are in the middle, but they can still help the people at the extremes of the dispute come towards the middle ground!)
• ABCD 01:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• 127.0.0.1 01:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Voting on whether voting is evil. Is that ironic? Post-modern? Both? Neither? - Vote now! 193.60.78.118 13:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• LOL agreed my friend

Ballot-stuffing

• Vote early. Vote often. - Brisby
• We are the GNAA. You will be crapflooded. Resistance is futile. Luigi30 20:16, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• ABCD 01:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• 127.0.0.1 01:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Other

I can't decide, so please add to the following. -- Grunt 01:59, 2004 Jun 28 (UTC)

What should Grunt vote for?

Support

1. 24.91.125.90 20:38, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
2. ABCD 01:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. 127.0.0.1 01:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Vote oppose, Grunt! 146.124.141.250 07:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Get It 03:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) Don't vote :) Polls are evil!
2. ABCD 01:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. 127.0.0.1 01:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Other

• Yes, you should vote for Other! (Or was this spot for Other stuff about your voting?) - Fennec 02:15, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Polls are evil, so Grunt should not vote. No, not even declare neutrality. See Association of Apathetic Wikipedians. -- Paddu 03:35, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• ABCD 01:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• 127.0.0.1 01:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Help!

I can't decide who to tell Grunt to vote for. Vote on who I should vote to tell Grunt to vote for below. Aquillion 02:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

What should Aquillion tell Grunt to vote for?

Support

1. Boivie 15:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC). Obviously Aquillion should tell Grunt to support that Polls are evil. And explain to him the benefits of joining the quest against polls.
2. Boivie 15:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC). I vote once more, to make sure Aquillion do the right thing.
3. Biovio 14:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC). I try signing with another name this time, to see if this could convince Aquillion to move Grunt towards the right direction. /Boivie

No opinion

Blockinblox but your pronouns are in the wrong case

Oppose the neutral supporters

• 24.26.93.10 03:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• ABCD 01:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• 127.0.0.1 01:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• "I hate these filthy neutrals, Kif! With enemies, you know where they stand, but with neutrals—who knows. It sickens me." Zapp Brannigan 15:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Commentary

Personal attack on pollsters

• Grunt, you're a wishy-washy grunt, and you probably display your epidermis in public!
  • You insensitive clod, you have no right to make a fool of yourself! I move that you be banned immediately!
    • Done! Mwuahahahhaha!
      • No fair! I'm gonna complain on the mailing list!

Polls are evil = Democracy is evil. ... Wikipedia is Communism?

-_-

--Mistress Selina Kyle 07:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Meh, but then this follows the fallacy that communism and democracy are opposites. Someone should start reading Kropotkin. Natalinasmpf 07:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't even understand what purpose this is supposed to serve. OBVIOUSLY there are serious flaws to the democratic method of the wikipedia community, but it is a necessary evil. I think this article should be nominated for AfD: it is presenting itself as wikipedia policy, which if it were, then it would be listed as such on wikipedia proper.Shaggorama

You're sending the wrong message

I first read this as saying that public opinion polls are evil, and that we shouldn't vote for president. Seriously, it has to mention that it's talking about Wikipedia and other Wikis. I wasn't sure how to revise it, so I'll leave that up to someone who knows a little more about the subject (someone who's read the article, maybe?)

Err. Why? This is meta.

James F. (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved from the content page

I agree voting should be optional in all cases. It is often found that opinions are varied to conform with popular opinion and an example is the American situation concerning the Irak situation. When the troops were sent in the population was all in favour. Now that easy success has not been achieved quickly the reverse applies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dempk366 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC).

Propagandistic title

As most everyone here knows this essay is frequently cited on English Wikipedia and ordinarily this wouldn't be a problem if when folks did this there was a healthy recognition that this page is an essay. Many folks over on English Wikipedia want to give this essay a bit more authority than an "essay" and do this by repeating either "Voting is evil" or "Polling is evil" when the possibility of a poll comes up but this essay explains itself, "Or, rather, polling isn't evil in itself but when you try to distill an essay's worth of thought into a single phrase, that's the sort of oversimplified, divisive statement that happens"... unfortunately when folks say "Voting is evil" they neglect to mention this aspect of this essay. Now it is rather illogical to say that "voting is evil" when much of how Wikipedia works is due to polling (witness XfDs, RfAs, ArbCom elections, etc. even policies and guidelines, see: en:Wikipedia:Straw_polls#Straw_poll_surveys). Ironically this essay is fulfilling the very premise of what according to its own wording it wishes to negate, namely the over simplification of a given issue (in this case the divisive habit of oversimplifying the idea of having a poll by just being able to blanket say "they are evil" without all of the nuances of this essay). Accordingly I have changed the title to "Polling can be problematic". Netscott 08:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What started out as a bit of lightheartedness has grown to become something a bit more serious and this new title reflects that. Netscott 09:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

A more tongue-in-cheek alternate title could be "Polling has its problems" if folks think this title is too serious. Netscott 10:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• That is better. Also consider Polling is problematic.Hillgentleman | 書 |2007年04月06日( Fri ), 14:01:04

• Well my thinking was that blanket "Yes" as well as blanket "No" wording should be avoided. Essentially wording that says, "for the most part polling should be avoided but it does have its uses". One of the advantages of a title like this as well as "Polling has its problems" is that the reader is enticed into actually reading the thing and understanding the essay rather than just utilizing the title for slogan purposes. Propagandistic slogan titles should be avoided when the point of a written piece is that people should actually read it. Netscott 14:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• This page given an opinion. There is another page that gives the opposite opinion. Both opinions exist and are not going away. If you hold the opinion opposite from this page, editorializing this page to make your own opinion seem stronger is inappropriate. Radiant! 11:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• This is a wiki, since when is editing a page inappropriate? No one owns this page and considering the page sat for 6 days under the new title obviously there hasn't been much dispute changing it. Netscott 11:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

OMG guys, was move-warring that necessary? Protected. MaxSem 11:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Good question, the page sat for six days at the new title... then User:Radiant! came along and reverted the title four times... while saying "discuss major changes" as though I hadn't. Netscott 11:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Max. "Polling is evil" isn't propaganda, it's a long-standing meme on Wikipedia. It is really not helpful to bowdlerize that if you disagree with it. There already is a page that states the opposite opinion (Voting is a tool); moving that page to "voting is a broken tool" would be equally unhelpful. Radiant! 11:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I discussed this major change here... for six days a new title sat and no one disagreed with it... where is the problem? I explained my logic for the change... no one disagreed with it in six days. Netscott 11:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• You didn't discuss anything here though, you just mentioned it. There was no discussion. But there's no problem either. People hadn't noticed your sweeping changes earlier, and now they have. What's so special about six days, anyway? Wikipedia does not need to stick to political correctness and hence does not need to bowdlerize anything. Radiant! 11:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• What is all of this talk above here? My changes are to move away from the propagandistic title that this essay has had which has been self-defeating... those are perfectly logical changes. Netscott 11:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• We know what is polling. How do we define evil? Does this essay establish that voting is evil?Hillgentleman | 書 |2007年04月12日( Thu ), 21:32:37

• "No voting system is guaranteed to be fair" seems to be worded to be readable as "not having a voting system is guaranteed to be fair". Is that intentional or would it be as well to word it something along the lines of "there is no voting system that is guaranteed to be fair"? Knotwork 13:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Meatball

Wasn't there some meatball page about the same concept? Radiant! 15:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

meatball Voting Is Evil. Incidentally, this talkpage is currently divorced from its content page. Jkelly 20:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)