Abolishing the Upvote

Disclaimer: This essay was written in response to the essay The Value Of The No-Vote, which was written in response to Abolish The No Vote, Downvote Your Friends, and Other Musings. However, this is the fevered nightime ravings of a mediocre writer who should not be taken seriously, and who is thinking about maybe grabbing a snack.1

Friends, compatriots, staff, and others, there's been a lot of discussion about the practice of voting these past few days. Essays have been written, comments have been posted, and minds have been changed. However, it's fair to say it's been a bit contentious in methodology.

Some people say we should get rid of downvotes, but others think they're a valued part of discussion. Some might say our previously world-renowned standards are slipping, while their detractors would accuse us of not being as accepting of coldposted X-men skips as we used to be.

There's been a lot of discussion about what the right steps should be, and, I admit that they may have some merit. But, there's been one hard, inescapable conclusion to these debates (and the wiki as a whole) that everyone has missed: We must abolish the upvote.

Think about it. What's the number one culprit behind allowing mediocre skips to stay on the site? Someone hitting +1. No other vote, not the downvote, not the upvote, not even the dreaded ¾ vote2 has invited so much chaos and confusion to reside in our minds.

Is someone upvoting this because they like it, or have their simple, god-fearing hearts been lured by the seductive power of shiny CSS, whispering dark promises about shiny divs and info bars into their ears? Is this a good article that stands on its own merits, or has the author made 5679 separate alternate accounts to upvote it?

Getting rid of the upvote would rid us of all these problems. No more would we have to worry if our article would be doing well or not. Either it's at zero, which means it's one of the best articles on the site, or it's at -1 or lower, which means Satan himself has sent one of his mad muses to lead you astray in your writing. You'll never lie awake again, wondering whether or not that downvote means they hate you and everything you've ever said, written, or accomplished.3 You'll have it decided for you!

This would also solve the issue of us filling up our article slots too fast, as any page with more than 10 downvotes up would be eligible for deletion. I calculate that about 90 percent of all articles will be deleted, freeing up tons of space, and allowing anyone who wants a series 1 slot to come and get it.

Now, I'm not going to lie and say this would be smooth sailing. There's bound to be a few problems, like how I'd probably be too busy drowning in wiki groupies to attend the award ceremonies, or the dilemma of which brand new super-yacht to take my keys to the city out on when I head to the Bahamas. But I'm confident that if we work together and persevere, I'll be able to unjustly profit off the fruit of your labour.

In short: Voters, tear down that upvote!


Q: What on god's green earth is this crap? I wrote better stuff when I was three.

A: The idle, possibly delirious mind of a madman at 2 am.

Q: But Cerastes, you handsome devil! Wouldn't that make it so articles are constantly battling to stay alive with astronomically tiny chances?

A: Hey, if your article isn't good enough to avoid upvotes entirely, maybe it's not good at all.

Q: Wouldn't a lot of iconic articles like 096, 49, or 682 be deleted?

A: See above.

Q: How would we solve the issue of vital pages like the front page, series lists, and Tales lists being affected and deleted?

A: See above.

Q: If you're advocating for people not to upvote things, and you expect people to follow your advice, wouldn't this mean this essay has a much higher chance of getting deleted without upvotes, thanks to your argument?

A: …ah, shit.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License