<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>One problem is that Wikipedia should not contain original research (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research</a>). Many topics on the EM list fall in the original research category. In principle one should first publish all new material in some "reliable source" first (more reliable than the EM list, if there are such places :-)) and then refer to those publications. In practice maybe Wikipedia is not that strict, but I believe the Wikipedia community doesn't want to e.g. recently invented and still unstable elections methods to be published in Wikipedia. All stable stuff could however go directly to Wikipedia.</div><div><br></div><div>The already mentioned <a href="http://wiki.electorama.com/">http://wiki.electorama.com/</a> web page is also a good place to store all the less stable material.</div><div><br></div><div>Elections as well as election method discussions are typically quite competitive. For this reason election methods are not the easiest topic to write in Wikipedia. But I hope people will give space to also other ideas than their own and the ones that they want to promote, and to the analysis of problems and benefits of each topic. A wiki style approach with neutral text and clear sections to address all the aspects would be a good approach. Many current EM related articles in Wikipedia would benefit of such clearer and more uniform approach to "Drawbacks of Various Methods" (and benefits).</div><div><br></div><div>I must say that there have been so many proposals on the EM list that I have not been able to follow properly all the developments and I can't remember all the proposals that have been made. Also here a wiki style approach with good descriptions and classification of the methods could be helpful.</div><div><br></div><div>Juho</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><div><div>On May 26, 2010, at 9:08 PM, Alex Rollin wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote">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.<div><br></div><div>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.</div> <div><br></div><div>Are the brilliant writers and experimenters here updating the documentation on Wikipedia? </div><div><br></div><div>Here's the Condorcet entry that is drawing scrutiny!</div><div><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method</a></div> <div><br></div><div>The Schulz method page is pretty well done...I mean, it's got pictures, and it's organized:</div><div><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method</a></div> <div><br></div><div>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. Maybe? And then, perhaps a reading guide to each of the methods, and perhaps use cases for different methods with clues about context?</div> <div><br></div><div>I volunteer to read and digest, edit, and focus on guides (especially for cooperative self-owned organizations.)</div><div><br>Alex</div><div><a href="http://alexrollin.com" target="_blank">http://alexrollin.com</a></div> </div><br> ----<br>Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="http://electorama.com/em">http://electorama.com/em</a> for list info<br></blockquote></div><br></body></html>