사용자:이원룡/번역실/투표는 악이다

이 문서의 원문은 meta:Polls_are_evil입니다.
관리자 Klutzy 님이 거기에 번역한 것이 좀 있습니다. 참고합니다.

Note: This is an important essay written by the community. Although it doesn't have the force of policy or guideline, it is nevertheless heavily referenced on many Wikimedia projects, especially the English Wikipedia

주의사항: 이것은 공동체에 의해 작성된 중요한 에세이입니다. 비록 이것이 정책이나 지침으로 효력이 있는 것은 아니지만, 그럼에도 불구하고, 이 에세이는 많은 위키미디어 프로젝트들에서(특히 영어판 위키피디아에서) 중요하게 참조되고 있습니다.

Polls are evil. Don't vote on everything, and if you can help it, don't vote on anything.

투표는 악입니다. 모든 것에 대해 투표를 하려고 하지는 마세요. 그리고 가능하면(?), 어떤 것에도 투표하지 마세요.

Or, rather, polling isn't evil in itself, but when you try to distill an essay's worth of thought into a single phrase, that's the sort of oversimplified, divisive statement that happens. A bit like trying to distill an essay's worth of thought into a single "yea" or "nay".

(Although Wikipedia has a Neutral point of view policy, this article seems to have the general consensus of the Wikipedia community.)

투표는 컨센서스를 형성을 막는다 Polling discourages consensus[편집]

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. . This is a strength, not a failing. is one of the most important things that make Wiki special, and while taking a poll is very often a lot easier than helping each other find a mutually agreeable position, it's almost never better.

Polling encourages the community to remain divided by avoiding that 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 option 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, points that aren't made.

Yes, establishing consensus is a lot harder than taking a poll. So are most things worth doing.

그렇다, 컨센서스의 형성은 투표를 하는 것 보다 훨씬 힘들다.

투표는 그릇된 이분법을 조장한다 Polling encourages false dichotomy[편집]

Very rarely are there only two potential positions on an issue.

이슈에 대해 오직 두가지의 가능한 입장만 있는 경우는 드물다.

Simplifying a complex issue to a yes/no vote creates a false dichotomy.

복잡한 이슈를 예스와 노의 투표로 단순화시키는 것은 그릇된 이분법을 결과한다.

For example, in a vote for deletion, the option of merging the article with a similar piece is often ignored.

예를들면, 삭제 투표에서, 비슷한 문서에의 병합이라는 옵션이 무시되곤 한다.

To help counteract this, if you see a third option or compromise that has not been discussed, mention it!

단순한 예스/노 투표로 해결하려는 방법에 대해 맞서기위해서, 당신은, 아직 논의된 적이 없는 제3의 의견이나 양보안을 생각해보라.

Polling encourages groupthink[편집]

Seeing a list of participants in a poll encourages people to add their names. It's easy to just add your name, especially if one side is clearly "winning". Polling factionalizes users who might not even have been that strongly opposed—or that strongly in agreement. Discussion toward consensus requires participants to state their reasoning, and to read and understand the reasoning of others, to see where the situation is headed; polls give a falsely simplified picture. Not to mention that it's difficult to place yourself on the opposite side of users you respect, or on the same side as users you don't.

When the vote is strongly unbalanced, those on the "losing" side feel marginalized, and those on the "winning" side will sometimes feel as though the results of the poll give them license to do as they wish without taking into account the views of the minority, though nothing has been resolved.

Polling isn't fair, either[편집]

One of the primary issues with conducting polls is deciding whose votes count. Obviously, it's not fair if one user creates a horde of and uses them to stack a side. How about if someone brings in friends from outside Wikipedia who have barely edited? What about users who have only been around for a few days? Those who are longtime users but haven't read any of the associated discussion or misunderstand some of the issues? Who is the community, and how much weight should each person's voice have? These are difficult questions to answer when conducting a poll; any method of correcting perceived errors and faults in the process will inevitably lead to someone feeling slighted or wronged. In situations where a person or group of persons is charged with calling the final outcome, a decision will be made but its responsibility will fall on their shoulders; a difficult task particularly when they choose for whichever reason not to strictly follow the numbers. Where no one has final authority, it may be that everyone comes out thinking something went awry. ("If only these votes that shouldn't have counted hadn't been and others had, things might be different!") And that's just of those who participate. What of those who do not vote because they don't believe in voting? Even where we can perfectly define our community, . Under the usual conditions of quick-and-easy first-past-the-post polling it is entirely possible to come out with an answer that is not the one that would most satisfy everyone.

Discussion avoids many these issues of counting by going on the weight of arguments rather than numbers, and making it clear that the reasons rather than the strict count should be more important in determining the outcome. A vote has the outward appearance of strict objective fairness but is likely to come out with an outcome that is still tainted by vote-stacking, based on misunderstanding, or not the option that would be the most acceptable by everyone. It is not quick and not easy to determine the proper outcome of a discussion, as compared to a simple count, but it is the most open to coming up with solutions that may strike a compromise to satisfy more people, and lessens the chance that something will win simply because its proponents can gather more people to sign their names.

Polls are misleading and encourage confusion[편집]

As stated above, polling isn't in itself evil. Polls can be useful for a quick gauge of opinion. The problem is that people take the results of a poll as a mandate to do something based on the numbers that turn out—which it is not. It is explicitly stated that Wikipedia is not a democracy—the saying that "what is right is not always popular, and what is popular is not always right" applies.

Yet the existence of polls often implies to editors—particularly new ones—that the result of the vote is what matters, which is why processes such as are so prone to abuse by s. The belief that the result of the poll, and not the commentary that springs from it, is going to decide the fate of the work, is what leads to polls that develop into more and more complex beasts, holding every possible option, leading to no longer two opposing camps but a dozen and pages that look like nothing but a mess to anyone who hasn't been embroiled in the debate. Voters feel misled at the end of a poll if the numerically superior option is not the one acted upon. "But it won the poll!" they claim, and not realizing that a poll is no substitute for consensus, are understandably upset, feeling that their voices have not been heard.

예제 Examples[편집]

"What should be included?" on Swedish Wikipedia - This page was used to vote on what should be included on Swedish Wikipedia, including books, movies, people, schools etc. It is today regarded obsolete and hated by many.
Wikipedia:What's in, what's out on the English Wikipedia was similar in idea, and is also marked as obsolete.