[EM] Re: Arrow's Theorem flawed?

Bill Clark wclarkxoom at gmail.com
Fri May 13 07:19:49 PDT 2005

Curt Siffert <siffert <at> museworld.com> writes:

>> I recently posted this addendum to the Arrow's Theorem page on
>> wikipedia:  It was immediately deleted for "bias".

>> [...]

>> Was I out in left field for writing this?  I was under the impression
>> that many vote theorists agreed with this characterization.

On 5/12/05, Araucaria Araucana <araucaria.araucana at gmail.com> wrote:

> Just a thought, but stating "many vote theorists" without providing
> supporting links to referreed articles might have led to the bias decision.

> I'm not saying that your argument is like those supporting Intelligent
> Design or denying Global Warming, but perhaps as a result of the furor
> on those other topics, the wikipedia maintainers are a little sensitive
> to unsubstantiated claims.

Wikipedia maintainers are sensitive to _arguments_, period.  If you'd
rewritten your contribution in a more neutral point of view (NPOV)
rather than one clearly sympathetic to the position you were
describing, it would have been more likely to be accepted.

NPOV can be subtle -- making changes such as "some voting theorists"
or "a number of voting theorists" rather than "many voting theorists"
can make a big difference in perception.  Also, it's better to discuss
significant changes on the talk pages prior to the change, especially
for articles with an active maintainer base.

-Bill Clark

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list