Flagged Revisions installed. Unapproved pages display a Red unchecked notice under the title. Trolls attack here by creating and archiving pages with offensive content. To verify an archived page, check the original URL. Questions about administration? Contact User talk:Abd. Limited privacy on this site, see CFC:Limited privacy

Meta/User talk:Abd/RfC study

From CFC
Jump to: navigation, search

See also[edit]

User:Snowolf/RfC. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Ping Would you like to draft an RfC on policy RfCs? PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'd participate. I do have some ideas on RfC in general to make it more useful and less disruptive. Some of these come from en.wikipedia practice. If there is interest, I'll work on it.
Briefly, there should be a draft RfC first, where a small number of users work on the issue to be presented. Where possible, the full RfC would then represent a small-scale working consensus, or would present alternatives where consensus could not be found. Mature questions tend to get more mature answers.
In some RfCs, often, there is "voting" before there is the presentation of evidence and arguments. That is backwards. So the first stage in an RfC would present the issue and ask for evidence and argument, not conclusions. I'd actively discourage that, at the beginning. When the community considers that the evidence and arguments are in place, *then* it would decide to go ahead with voting. This is standard deliberative process, wikis attempted to bypass it, and have sometimes ended up being stuck for a decade with a pile of ill-considered choices.
(Yes, in standard process, there is a vote on w:Previous question to decide if the organization is ready to vote or not. It requires, under typical rules, a supermajority, because it has, for centuries, been considered important to allow minority opinion to be fully heard before going ahead with a decision.) --Abd (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)