Wikipedia:投票は議論の代用とはならない
![]() | この文書はウィキペディア日本語版の方針やガイドラインとして提案中です。内容に関してノートページで議論を行っています。 |
![]() | この文書の要旨: ウィキペディアにおける決定は、多数決原理によってではなく、合意を目指して行動している理性的な人々による議論を通じて行います。投票は議論の助けとすることだけを予定しており、注意して使用するべきです。 |
![]() | このページのノートに、このページに関する提案があります。 提案の要約:方針化について |
![]() | この項目「Wikipedia:投票は議論の代用とはならない」は途中まで翻訳されたものです。(原文:en:Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion) 翻訳作業に協力して下さる方を求めています。ノートページや履歴、翻訳のガイドラインも参照してください。要約欄への翻訳情報の記入をお忘れなく。(2010年4月) |
利用者の行動について |
---|
合意形成 |
「 | 投票は怒りを生み、怒りは憎しみを生み、そして憎しみは苦しみを生む。 | 」 |
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/Notavote.svg/200px-Notavote.svg.png)
記事についての投票
この節の加筆が望まれています。 |
投票は合意を妨げる
この節の加筆が望まれています。 |
Having the option of settling a dispute by taking a poll, instead of the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of each side's arguments, actually undermines the progress in dispute resolution that Wiki has allowed. Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy, nor is it a bureaucracy, and that these points are considered a strength, not a failing. Dialectics is one of the most important things that makes Wikipedia special, and while taking a poll may occasionally make it a lot easier for people to find a mutually agreeable position, they can also work to cause factionalism and may therefore be divisive.
Polling encourages the community to remain divided by avoiding discourse; participants don't interact with the other voters, but merely choose camps. Establishing consensus requires expressing that opinion in terms other than a choice between discrete options, and expanding the reasoning behind it, addressing the points that others have left, until all come to a mutually agreeable solution. No one can address objections that aren't stated, nor points which aren't made. Establishing consensus can be a lot harder than taking a poll, but so are most things that are worth doing.
調査投票のガイドライン
Petitions
Petitions are even more problematic since they not only encourage the community to avoid meaningful discourse and engagement, but also limit their scope to only one initially-stated opinion or preference with little or no opportunity for discussing and reconciling competing or opposing points of view. As a rule, petitions should be avoided; when they are created, they should be closed and marked {{historical}} after a reasonable period of time or once the initial interest in the petition passes.
削除、移動、秀逸な記事
記事の削除についての議論(例:Wikipedia:削除依頼)、記事の移動の依頼(Wikipedia:移動依頼)、秀逸な記事の選考(Wikipedia:秀逸な記事)のような手続きでは、投票による調査を行っています。これは時に多数決方式を取っていると誤解されることがありますが、実際には投票の数ではなく、議論において述べられた意見の強度に基づいて決定しています。
こういった手続きの主な目的は合意形成にあるので、参加者はたった一言だけ意見を述べてあとは放っておくというやり方よりも、自身の主張の理由を説明し、他の参加者の意見に耳を傾け、何とかして妥協するというやり方が望ましいです。そういった手続きで投票を停滞させる行為 ("vote stack") を試みることは非効率的かつ妨害的であって、理由を付記することのない票は最終的な判断にあたって重きを置かれることはまったくないでしょう。必要に応じて{{Not a ballot}}(en) テンプレートを使うことで、このことを参加者に思い出させることができます。
基本方針とガイドライン
この節の加筆が望まれています。 |
Wikipedia is not a democracy; policy and guidelines are not ratified through a vote. Under the relevant policy, new policies and guidelines may be created by (1) codifying existing practice; (2) through community consensus, or (3) as a result of a declaration from Jimmy Wales, the Board, or the Developers in appropriate cases. Novice users sometimes think they should make a "motion" on some issue and "call for votes", but Wikipedia doesn't work like that.
Because straw polling cannot create consensus, polling is rarely helpful in the development of policies or guidelines, and frequently counterproductive. Although straw polls and/or votes have been used in the adoption of a limited number of policies, including the three revert rule, and the older parts of Categories for speedy deletion, even in those these cases, the polls were put together carefully and only after discussing the matter for a month or more. No guideline has ever been enacted through a vote.
The aim of many guidelines is primarily to describe current practice, to help editors to understand how Wikipedia works. This means that it is not necessary, and in many cases unwise, to call a vote or straw poll on a proposed policy or guideline. If a proposal is not controversial, doing a headcount is not necessary; if a proposal is controversial, doing a headcount to see where the majority lies will not resolve the controversy, and may polarize it further. The controversy may spill onto the poll itself, causing debate on its mechanics. People tend to respond to ill-advised polls by voting against the poll or by adding a section for "voting is evil".
ウィキペディアは多数決型民主主義ではありません:基本方針とガイドラインは投票によって決定したものではありません。
標準仕様
(たとえばWikipedia:レイアウトの指針のような)ある問題について標準仕様を定めるという合意がなされれば、その仕様についてはおそらく複数の提案が出されるでしょう。そのうちのいずれかが明らかに望ましいというわけでもなければ、最も好まれる仕様を選ぶのには投票が推奨されます。これは、最終的な標準仕様が合意を反映しているようにするために、複数の(しばしば似通った)仕様のうちどれが最も広範な支持を得ているかを計る手助けとなります。
People
In some cases on Wikipedia, community polls are used to determine whether to trust editors with additional responsibilities, in particular requests for adminship and elections for the arbitration committee. However, in both cases the poll results are subject to interpretation by the party who makes the decision (i.e. the bureaucrats or Jimbo). Historically, the party making the decision has considered the arguments made, the number of editors on each side of the issue, and any other relevant factors.
In these processes it is preferable if people discuss, ask questions of the candidate, and state their reasonings, rather than simply stating "yes" or "no" with no further comment. While the end result is often obvious based directly on counts of who said yea or nay, it is possible to sway people's opinions by applying solid reasoning and logic. Even so, people new to wikipedia are often confused, due to the strong resemblence between such structured discussion and a majority vote process, which they are not. There is no exact "target" percentage that forms the cutoff point, although some processes, such as WP:RFA, do indicate a rough numerical percentage for establishing consensus.
Feature requests
Changes to the MediaWiki software are made by the developers and are usually discussed on BugZilla. Some people are tempted to call a vote on feature requests on the assumption that the more people support a feature, the more likely the developers are to implement it. However, this is not generally the case, as the developers consider issues of feasibility and server load to be far more important.
However, for requests for configuration changes for the English Wikipedia, such as enabling or disabling an existing feature, a straw poll may be helpful for the sysadmin tasked with determining consensus for it. Though as with feature requests, the final decision still rests with the Wikimedia sysadmins and, ultimately, the CTO.
Arbitration
Although arbitration is not a community process, it is listed here for the sake of completeness. The ArbCom follows a procedure of listing principles, findings of facts and remedies; individual arbiters discuss these issues and then vote for or against statements and resolutions. However, no "vote" is final until the case is closed. Arbiters can change their positions as a result of discussions with fellow arbiters. In general, findings which attract opposition are reworded to address that opposition, with the aim of reaching a consensus view among the arbitrators. Nevertheless, Arbcom decisions are subject to simple-majority vote.
脚注
- ^ a b c d e f 現在ウィキペディア日本語版では論争を仲裁する機関(例:Wikipedia:裁定委員会)がないため、「投票に拘束力はない」と定めると論争の解決が困難となって妥当ではないのではないかとの異論があります。議論はWikipedia‐ノート:論争の解決#投票節の除去の提案を参照してください。