Proposal:VotingOnTheWikiIsStupid

It has been proposed that this page be replaced by a haddock. (Discuss)

VotingOnTheWikiIsStupid
Proposal status:	Abandoned (inactive)
Proposed by:	Doctau
Tagging:	*=*
Statistics:
Rendered as:	n/a
Draft started:	2009-10-03
RFC start:	2009-10-03
Vote start:	2009-10-03
Vote end:	∞

Proposal

This proposal is to declare that voting on the wiki is completely pointless, and that we don't care about it. If passed, we will ban all wiki votes.

Rationale

People vote on the wiki, thinking that it might actually mean something. We need to stop that delusion.

Discussion

Although this proposal failed to follow Proposal Status Process defined at Proposed_features#Proposal_creation_guidelines, there is still some postfactum discussion on Talk:Proposed_features/VotingOnTheWikiIsStupid so you might want to discuss it there.

Votes

• I approve this proposal. -- --Doctau 07:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. --The wiki gives guidelines to mappers how to map features to keep this continous, and gives rules to renderers how to render those features. An important part of giving those guidelines is discussion and voting. Voting on the wiki means something, but only as far as the mappers who reads the wiki. Actual changes in the map is made by mappers. If we are going to ban all wiki votes who are going to give guidelines to the mappers? --Gnonthgol 08:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. --Same reason as Gnonthgol. Without guidelines our work is worthless, because nobody would know what a tag means. Snoopy88 10:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. --Same reason as Gnonthgol. --Cohan 10:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. Not only because it's silly, and the facts pointed out by Gnonthgol, but also because Proposal Voting should really follow Proposed_features#Proposal_creation_guidelines to be usefull at all (with Draft and Discussion stages before Voting) -- User:Mnalis 19:00 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. This is exactly what we need. --Thomas Wood 22:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. There's voting on the Wiki?? But people vote better with their feet than their hands. --RussNelson 00:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• I veto this proposal. This proposal violates all written an oral ruses. The vote was started without proper discussion, there is no link to this page from Proposed Features, etc. Also since this proposal suggests that votings have no force/validity, if it passes via voting, it will have no force either, so can ignore it -- Zkir 06:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• I am ignoring this proposal because voting on the wiki is stupid. --Richard 13:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• I -1 this proposal. These templates are awesome! Randomjunk 11:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. In the hope that that'll cause the wiki to disappear in a puff of logic. All of us non-wikifiddlers might have to take a bit more care when mapping the next crossing=zebra, but at least we'd be out Getting Stuff Done. --achadwick 10:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Socks 13:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. When you suggest that something is a delusion you should at least give us a motivation. Right now the proposal looks like it's written by a 14-year-old who's angry at his parents. To write a proposal like this in any way I can take seriously you have to at least show that you can understand the reasons why there is a voting process, show us why those reasons are moot, and show that just ignoring the votes is the best way forward. sybren 06:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --TomH 07:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I don't get your point: if you think that voting is stupid, why do you start one? Besides this voting according to our OSM-standards can be started at least 2 weeks after an RFC on talk-ML. I think that voting is less important that preceeding discussions, but it helps to estimate the support a certain tag/proposal has in the comunity. It is a small hurdle that only the worst proposals (not well defined) cannot pass. I personally think it helps to summarize what users think and to get to better tag definitions than without. -- Dieterdreist 13:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
• I declare all contributions of User:Doctau (the one who created this page) completely pointless. Hmmm, well, and now what ? I would prefere something more constructive, e.g. replacing everywhere one the wiki the word "vote" by "opinion poll" as I suggested one year ago. You cannot throw away opinions because you dislike them. But it is just opinions, 6 votes on a tag proposal doesn't mean that the 10.000 others like it. They just don't care. And a proposal should remain open without any end date. --Pieren 14:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. since most tag definitions on the wiki create more confusion than enlightment. --Nimix 20:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. --Lulu-Ann 14:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. (and the haddock) --JonS 09:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. Most OSM users don't care about voting on the wiki. We have over 180,000 users. How many do vote? --Michi 21:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• I ignore this proposal. After being brainwashed in the #osm, i do not care about voting, only about properly discussing and documenting used tags. Love the haddock. --Richlv 17:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. Go out and do some mapping instead of bashing the established system without proposing something better. The voting process isn't good but until somebody can come up with something better, it is the only one we have. (Thought I voted ages ago on this?) --Skippern 15:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. --Kslotte 23:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with the idea behind this proposal. In the spirit of the proposal, this is not a vote. See User:Richlv's reason. —Victor Bielawski 12:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
• I would like to express a degree of incredulity at this proposal. Pnorman (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)