[EM] Documentation of Methods - Wow look at those insights about drawbacks

[Jameson Quinn]

2010/5/26 Alex Rollin <alex.rollin at gmail.com>

> Everyone on this list is so brilliant!  I am so glad that you guys are such
> experts on all these methods, most of which I was totally unaware of before
> listening in here.
>
> That said, I did a tiny little bit of homework when I joined so I might be
> more receptive to the lists blinding insights.  The bulk of this reading was
> on Wikipedia.
>
> Are the brilliant writers and experimenters here updating the documentation
> on Wikipedia?
>
> Here's the Condorcet entry that is drawing scrutiny!
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method
>
> The Schulz method page is pretty well done...I mean, it's got pictures, and
> it's organized:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method
>
> I was reading the recent thread "Drawbacks of Various Methods" and it seems
> to me that it should be possible to amend each of the Wikipedia entries to
> reflect these insights in a clear and collaborative fashion.
>

Wikipedia is not as easy as you might think. If you have consensus, great;
if not, you need bulletproof references for everything you say, and a lot of
this is not published anywhere.


> Maybe?  And then, perhaps a reading guide to each of the methods, and
> perhaps use cases for different methods with clues about context?
>

Maybe. Published where, for what audience?


>
> I volunteer to read and digest, edit, and focus on guides (especially for
> cooperative self-owned organizations.)
>

Thanks for your interest.


>
> Alex
> http://alexrollin.com
>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20100526/584e87c0/attachment-0004.htm>