[EM] jargon dictionary suggestion

[Dr.Ernie Prabhakar]

Hi all,

Well, after looking into it, the jargon page seemed mostly a rehash of  
information already on the voting system page.  So, I decided to just  
fold it in, at least as a starting point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 
Voting_system#Criteria_for_evaluating_election_methods

I've also added terminology other terminology we discussed, such as  
'strategic voting'.

If needed, I think we should extract this to create a regular wiki page  
covering general terminology, rather than a special-purpose meta-wiki  
page.

-- Ernie P.

On May 30, 2004, at 10:38 PM, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote:

> Hi James,
>
> Congratulations - you've just reinvented wiki policy. :-)  I presume  
> you missed Ken's email due to time lag:
>
>> http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki.phtml? 
>> title=Electoral_reform_jargon_list ?
>>
>> If so, that's a "wiki," which is a collectively-maintained web page.  
>> Anyone can go in and edit it whenever they like. It'd probably be a  
>> really good idea to bring it up to date with all the terms and  
>> acronyms that are thrown around here. But anyone who wants to can do  
>> it!
>
> I've updated it to better match current Wiki standards (though it  
> could still use help).  I'll try to add a few terms myself as time  
> goes on.
>
> -- Ernie P.
>
> On May 30, 2004, at 9:04 PM, James Green-Armytage wrote:
>
>>
>> Dave Ketchum wrote:
>>> I do not know how to do a search and thus find the agreed on
>>> definition of an acronym.
>>>
>>> Perhaps someone could accept responsibility for maintaining a  
>>> dictionary;
>>
>> 	However, if people are interested in creating a jargon dictionary  
>> for its
>> own sake (and I think that it's a good idea), here's how I would  
>> suggest
>> to go about it:
>>
>> 1. Anyone can write an e-mail to the EM list, with the subject heading
>> "Jargon Dictionary." They can write in a few definitions to begin,  
>> but it
>> doesn't have to be more than one or two. They should put their  
>> initials
>> next to the definitions that they wrote.
>> 2. People should put the definitions in alphabetical order.
>> 3. Someone else copies the entire Jargon Dictionary, adds more  
>> definitions
>> of their own to it, and reposts it to the list, always with the  
>> heading
>> "Jargon Dictionary."
>> 4. Someone else copies the second version of the Jargon Dictionary in  
>> its
>> entirety, and then adds more definitions, marked by their own  
>> initials.
>> They post the new version.
>> 5. And so on. People keep updating the dictionary simply by copying  
>> the
>> last version posted, adding more definitions, and re-posting it.
>>
>> Note: People should not ever delete or alter any definition that was
>> originally posted by anyone other than themself.
>> 	However, people can withdraw or alter definitions that they posted
>> originally.
>> 	
>> Note: If you disagree with a definition, then you can post another
>> definition for the same term.
>> 	Other people can then add their initials to one or the other (or  
>> both) in
>> approval.
>>
>> Note: It's possible that if multiple people are working on the  
>> dictionary
>> at once, they might post separate versions of the dictionary that  
>> don't
>> include each other's new definitions. If so, it's no big problem...  
>> one or
>> both of them can just re-add the definitions that they tried to add
>> before, copying from the latest version of the dictionary available.  
>> In
>> general, any time you notice one of your definitions omitted from a  
>> new
>> version of the dictionary, you can feel free to do a new posting with  
>> it
>> added.
>>
>> 	People who maintain web pages can feel free to copy current versions  
>> of
>> the dictionary to a web page with a permanent address, and then  
>> update the
>> page every so often as the dictionary changes.
>> 	I think that this would be a good project that we could work on  
>> together,
>> without placing commitment on any one person in particular.
>> 	I guess that if anyone puts in any definitions that are just totally
>> ridiculous (e.g. "IRV: A psychedelic hippo-grinding method invented  
>> by the
>> Marquis de Chocula"... ), then there could be some sort of process of
>> removing it. I guess that you could copy it to a separate thread of
>> "Dictionary Out-takes" for a week or so, and if during that time no  
>> one
>> can bring up a half-reasonable support for keeping the definition, it
>> could get stricken from the Jargon Dictionary itself. Or something  
>> like
>> that... hopefully it wouldn't be too bad of a problem, but we'll see.
>>
>> 	Well, what do you think? Anyone can start the ball rolling. Just  
>> keep the
>> subject heading of "Jargon Dictionary"...
>>
>> sincerely,
>> James
>>
>> ----
>> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list  
>> info
>