Wikipedia talk:Canvassing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Campaigning

Hi all,

Can someone identify when "campaigning" was added to this page and where the discussion was that indicated it was consensus to have this short section included? I think it is a rather peculiar point to have on this page. People should try to sway people with wording, argumentation, and opinions.

jps (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

[1], 11 years ago. So it is long standing. By the way, people should try to use wording, argumentation, and opinions in debates. That is not the same as posting a message designed to drum up support by using language deigned to encourage a certain type of person to edit or join a discussion.Slatersteven (talk) 22:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
The old wording seemed to apply specifically to user talk pages. Present wording is not so clear. Can you figure out when that change occurred?
jps (talk) 00:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Question regarding IRC

Would using an IRC channel (like #wikipedia-en) to encourage participation in something, like an AfD, be considered canvassing? Note that I am not talking about privately messaging specific users or pinging specific users, but just a general notice. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Appropriate and inappropriate canvassing

Jc37, regarding this edit you made, there was a discussion about that wording. Sphilbrick, Knowledgekid87, Isaacl, Godsy, Swarm, Pincrete, Patar knight, Jytdog, and Mandruss weighed in. Snuge purveyor closed the thread. I commented in a "Followup" subsection after that. Considering that you reverted Snuge purveyor, you must have seen Snuge purveyor edit's summary about consensus on the talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer's analysis that the conclusion of that RfC was that such changes of the text were counter-productive. 'Canvassing' is distinct from apt 'notifying' in WP-speak (I personally think they are different in the real-world too) . Pincrete (talk) 08:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Abuse of language

IMO it's just wrong to use canvass - without qualification - to mean something negative. Just today I wrote on a talk page that I want to "canvass opinion" before completing a significant change that I'm proposing. Had I known of the discussion earlier this year I would certainly have weighed in!

Why should there be any WP-speak, as Pincrete calls it, for any but the most technical of Wikipedia concepts? We owe it to each other to speak as clearly as possible, and to the purpose. Abusing the English language in this way just adds to the confusion surrounding the arcane mysteries of editing Wikipedia. We're not a "walled garden" and shouldn't be creating a priesthood of cognoscenti – let's leave that to the academicsDisclaimer: I was one … and other politicians ;-)

Canvassing opinion is not wrong. Vote stacking is. yoyo (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Nobody objects to you using a word in a way that makes sense to you on talk pages. In a policy it makes sense to minimise ambiguity, if I canvass on behalf of a politician in the RW, am I not hoping to persuade, as well as to inform and enquire? Words don't have 'special' esoteric meanings on WP, they do (necessarily IMO) sometimes shed the ambiguities that exist in the RW. "Canvassing opinion", "selectively notifying" ONLY those who are likely to agree, "making enquiries" to a selective few are precisely the means by which "vote stacking" is achieved. Why introduce ambiguity here? Pincrete (talk) 10:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Canvass, sense 3: "to go through (a district) or go to (persons) in order to solicit orders or political support or to determine opinions or sentiments" (my emphasis). So our usage is correct per one sense (or sub-sense) of the word, according to Merriam and Webster, and this is hardly a case of Wikipedia language distortion. ―Mandruss  12:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
The way we use words on Wikipedia talk pages matters because, for example, one editor might think that an essay is a policy or a guideline, or that someone has violated some policy or guideline. And, of course, there is the WP:Civil aspect of things. I used to dislike when editors would state "canvassed" to accuse people of wrongdoing when what the people actually did was appropriate notification. In those cases, I would state that the guideline was not violated and/or that it was appropriate canvassing. And as we see now, the guideline has made it clear that "canvassing" specifically refers to inappropriate notification. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Canvassing&oldid=811312717"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Canvassing
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia talk:Canvassing"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA