Talk:Electoral Integrity Project

Hi there,

I would like to propose an update to this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Electoral_Integrity_Project

The largest part of the original is included and fleshed out with further information about the project. I hope that we can collaborate on the page to improve it.

Thanks

Baroness Le Strange

@Baronesslestrange: Thank you for your draft. You seem to be a new contributor to wikipedia. I have left a welcome message on your talk page. Please let me know if you have any questions I can help you with. I know from personal experience that, at first, the many rules of wikipedia can seem like the taboos of an especially bizarre and demanding cult, but, au fond, content creation is based around the Wikipedia:Core_content_policies. Here are some suggestions about your draft:

I noticed that all the material you added is sourced to the EIP's website or to publications made by EIP authors. Following our WP:SOURCES policy, wikipedia prefers reliable, third-party, published sources. You can cite the EIP as a source of information about itself as long as claims made are not unduly self-serving and the article is not *primarily* based around material from the EIP itself. Unfortunately your current draft is primarily based around the EIP's own material.

The following sentence seems to violate our Wikipedia:No original research policy: "It is however worthwhile to note that the intention of the PEI index is not to assess democracy but rather to assess electoral integrity thus, while elections are frequently associated as the primary mechanism of democracies, they exist in democratic and non-democratic states alike." Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source, so this argument must be attributed to someone writing about the EIP.

Best, 1177BC (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@1177BC:

Thank you for your kind response! You are of course correct, I am very new to this and finding it quite the juggle.

I have re-edited the draft page available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Electoral_Integrity_Project to include both citations that had some how previously been mucked up and some new ones. This includes an appropriate reference for the "No-original research query."

With regard to citations in general - for example regarding the definition of "Electoral Integrity", Professor Norris is the leading scholar in the world on the topic in that she is the most cited living scholar in the field. She is the one who created the definition to which other scholars in defer. I understand entirely why wiki does not wish to have too much material by the project about the project and will continue to work to improve this but wanted to bring this aspect to your intention in case it is of assistance.

I am more than happy to continue working to improve the edit and to learn more about wiki and once again very much appreciate your time.

Kindly, Baronesslestrange (talk) 06:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)Baronesslestrange[reply]

Hi, sorry for the delay.

Here are some thoughts: "It is however worthwhile to note that the intention of the PEI index is not to assess democracy but rather to assess electoral integrity. Thus while elections are frequently associated as the primary mechanism of democracies, they exist in democratic and non-democratic states alike[13]." This is sourced to Levitsky and Lucan, but it would be helpful if you could provide a page number. Also, this book seems to have been published before the EIP project came into existence. I'm also slightly puzzled and I may have misunderstood what you were trying to say - do political scientists really use a measure of 'electoral integrity' according to which a well-drilled Stalinist election in North Korea or Cuba is just as or more 'integral' than a slightly corrupt one in Romania? Is this a meaningful measure of anything? If this was an argument that Norris or others brought up in riposte to Gelman it should be sourced with a quote. In general wikipedia records disagreements like the one between Gelman and Norris but does not adjudicate them, so we avoid saying things like "It is however worthwhile to note..." in wikipedia's own voice.

The ELECT study is given two whole paragraphs in your version, but googling I find only the EIP's own webpage mentioning it, and no other sources. This should be edited down, as similarly with the MPT project and WVS data; the language of all of these seems to be mostly taken from EIP's own website. This needs to be edited down. It's fine to list the EIP's activities briefly, but notable activities will be discussed by outside sources. 1177BC (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@1177BC:

Hi again, my turn to apologise for the delay.

For the purpose of ease I have deleted the offending sentence!! While correct in essence, I understand your position in particular regarding the potential for perceived adjudication between Gelman and Norris.

I have also edited down the aforementioned paragraphs.

Can the update now be published?

Many thanks as always

2600:4040:750C:D00:B07B:2F62:A67A:A030 (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC) the assertions in the article also seem a bit rough, in that they assert simply by being a western country, theres no way that america could score less than Rwanda. It smacks of bias and maybe should be flagged as such[reply]