Wikipedia:Election Coverage

Per Wikipedia Policies and guidelines: "A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present, regardless of whether there's active discussion or not. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal is likewise rejected. Making small changes will not change this fact, nor will repetitive arguments. Generally it is wiser to rewrite a rejected proposal from scratch and start in a different direction."

Comments By The Proposal's Author

A couple of months ago, a proposal called Wikipedia:Candidates and Elections was shelved. I thought it had strong enough support, but I guess discussion had died.

Central to the discussion of this policy was the idea that Wikipedia is inherently biased toward the incumbent in any election. This is because the incumbent, most of the time, will have had more media coverage and such, and therefore will be more "notable" and more closely examined by our editors. Some people seemed to feel that this is as it should be- if someone isn't inherently notable enough to warrant equal coverage, then they shouldn't have it.

I've lately been realizing just how much a part of our society Wikipedia has become. If you Google just about any topic that's covered here, the Wikipedia article, if it isn't the first hit, will be in the first three or four. A fairly large percentage of the world's English-speaking population checks en. as their first or second reference for everything- and I do mean everything. We shouldn't be modest about that. We've gained fame and notoriety by covering everything, for better or worse.

As a community that's run by its members, I think we of all people should understand the importance of the democratic process in Western society. When it comes to such topics as candidates and elections, I believe that Wikipedia should cover them for better, not worse.

Since Wikipedia is such a commonly-used resource, its coverage of elections- especially current elections- should not be governed by the same basic set of requirements that determine whether other topics are included in the encyclopedia. I believe that, while notable people should still have the same articles that they normally would, a space should be set aside where simple, unbiased coverage of an important election can be guaranteed.

The proposal below was something I tacked onto the bottom of Wikipedia:Candidates and Elections at the very end of discussion. It was originally titled "Proposal C" because it was the third proposal to make it into the discussion, but by the time I brought it up, conversation was more or less over.

The basic theory behind it is this: elections at or above a certain level will be considered inherently notable, and automatically given an article, where the ballot will be summarized, giving absolutely equal weight to each candidate (or side of an issue, in the case of a referendum). Sources cited in favor of a position must be equal in number to sources cited in opposition, and if a candidate is covered, their opponent must be covered to an equal degree. Of course, this is only applicable to elections which aren't going to be covered to a greater degree- though I would posit that some of these guidelines should apply to any election's article.

The original text of the proposal follows. I will happily rewrite it in less convoluted terms later today or tomorrow (it's my birthday, and I'm a bit busy being doted on). Let the Mora-berating begin. --Moralis 22:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Original Text of Proposal

This is an alternative proposal that's coming off the top of my head. My thinking is this: while an argument can be made that, given the nature of Wikipedia, it is improper to explicitly avoid inclusion of candidate articles as political material, an equally (perhaps more) valid argument can be made that such articles are inherently NPOV or at least pose a significant risk of damaging the encyclopedia's credibility, not to mention the briefly discussed legal issues above. My proposal is this:

All elections at a state, provincial or national level shall be deemed inherently notable and eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. Articles on such elections may consist of a brief, neutral summary of the position/s at stake and major issues surrounding them, followed by a summary of the candidates contesting said position/s. To ensure candidate notability and NPOV, candidate summaries must contain an equal number of citations from voter pamphlets as they do from media or other sources. Candidate summaries with fewer than two citations will be considered unverifiable and deleted as original research or POV. Candidate summaries must also give equal weight to the candidate and their opposition. Wikipedia will neither endorse nor condemn an individual candidate for any reason.

Each candidate's summary may include one <ref> link to an outside pro-candidate source, but if they include the same, they must also include one link to an outside anti-candidate source, or one link to an outside source supporting each of the candidate's opponents.

In the case of referendums, initiatives, etc., pro- and con- positions will be considered equivalent to candidates for the purposes of this policy.

This proposal(/policy) shall not be used as justification for the deletion of articles pertaining to candidates or elections which are notable but are not encompassed by the terms of this proposal(/policy). Neither shall this proposal be used as justification for the creation of articles pertaining to individual candidates, referendums or elections below the state level. Such articles shall be subject to their own notability requirements. This article shall not be interpreted to prohibit the inclusion of articles on elections below the state or provincial level.

Furthermore, it shall be preferable under this policy that a single article, following the format outlined above, be created to include all positions and referendums on a single ballot where possible. Example:[[US Representative Elections, Washington State, 2006]] might include summaries of all candidates for a Washington-based position in the US House of Representatives in the 2006 election, or [[Nevada Elections, November, 2006]] might include a summary of all candidates for state and national positions who appeared on the 2006 ballot in Nevada, as well as any referendums which were decided in that election (such as the medicinal marijuana initiative, which did not pass).

This way, articles are kept as brief and consolidated as possible. Of course, this does not address the issue of local elections and their notability. I believe that the inclusion of such articles should be decided on a case-by-case basis, considering the overall effect that the results of the election will have on the area and the overall media attention that the election receives, if any. --Moralis 22:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Part of the reasoning behind this proposal is the general lack of individual candidate articles that it provides. The current debate seems to stem largely from the question of whether individual candidates are inherently notable, sometimes notable, or generally not notable. My answer to this question is, "no." This policy does not offer the opportunity for one candidate in an individual election to be more notable than another, unless they are notable for reasons not pertaining to the election itself, in which case their own article would be much more successful in the face of an RfD, I think. --Moralis 22:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A (very poor) example of what such an election page might look like is available here. --Moralis 01:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)