Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections/Board elections/2005: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 12:04, 6 July 2005

Latest revision as of 22:28, 27 August 2013

(22 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown)

Line 62:

:Hi, Anthere. Welcome back and thank you for your suggestions.

:We officers got a mail recently from Angela and she asked us to wait until next Monday. Other three didn't say anything currently (perhaps they are in beds already *g) that is why the schedule above is said "proposed" (before it was said once "exact timeline"). I proposed already to postpone this schedule at least beginning presentation from the next week.

:As for the length I am not worry about translation (remember yahoo! press release was translated into several languages in a hour) but I don't oppose to make it longer. How about three weeks? --{{[[User:Aphaia|Aphaia]] | Translate <font color=red>[[Election notice translations 2005|Election]]</font> | [[User talk:Aphaia|<font color=lightseagreen>++</sig}}font>]] 00:49, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

:For Eloquence. I am not sure your suggested schedule is the best. I prefer to have a buffer time after we set the rule and the day we begin to accept self-nomination but within a week, I assume. And as for translation, I don't think it is a good idea to have a term only for translation.

:I admit it would be the best that all translations can be available at once, but I doubt its feasibility at the same time. First if we don't publish statement before translation is complete, we need to work separately and it become difficult to cooperate. We concent translation will be done on meta, so in public, just after the presentation by candidates themselves. We assure some major language translations including English, French and German [sorry now I can't assure if Ja translation is available, nor if it will be posted to JA projects including JA WP. I have currently no contact between JA WP. I know only it will be not ME the person who will care for JA WP which allows trolls to play with my real name and to edit freely including defaming me.] though there are currently no volunteer for Fr and De translation coordinators. Other language translation will be followed including Pl, It, Nl, Skan(No) and Balkan(Sr, perhaps). I support to make the presentation term longer but don't to separate translation and presentation.

:My proposed schedule are 4 days shift, or 1 week shift from the former plan, that is, begins the next Wednesday or the Saturday. But there is no other Election officers available, I would like to wait for them and to listen to them. --{{[[User:Aphaia|Aphaia]] | Translate <font color=red>[[Election notice translations 2005|Election]]</font> | [[User talk:Aphaia|<font color=lightseagreen>++</sig}}font>]] 01:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

== Where do I vote? ==

Line 81:

::Thank you for your comment, we will issue an official statement, if necessary. Your patient is appreciated. --[[User:Aphaia|Aphaia]] | Translate <font color=red>[[Election notice translations 2005|Election]]</font> | [[User talk:Aphaia|<font color=lightseagreen>++</font>]] 06:39, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)

=== When is the voting closed? ===

I interpreted this ^ as one day extra of voting, but it seems like every wiki is closed now? [[User:RaSten|RaSten]] 06:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

==Anonymous active users &mdash; clarification of ineligible voting status required==

Line 96 ⟶ 98:

:::this "all active users are invited" is really a mess. It is actually a lie. Because also people with 300 edits are active. this whole thing should be boycotted. [[User:Tobias Conradi|Tobias Conradi]] 6 July 2005 12:04 (UTC)

*Yes, it is a sham and a shame that such an arbitrary and dictatorial requirement is misrepresented in this way. [[User:61.10.7.223|61.10.7.223]] 7 July 2005 14:06 (UTC)

==Bad treatment of Multi wiki editors==

Line 110 ⟶ 114:

::ANYBODY TO ANSWER WHY YOU TREAT INTERWIKI ACTIVISTS SO BAD? Or are you just fine? This is one of the worst things here, I have seen in my wikilife. It seems bureaucrats are taking over [[User:Tobias Conradi|Tobias Conradi]] 6 July 2005 11:59 (UTC)

:::No, the election officials are trying to make sure that vote fraud doesn't occur. Besides, if you don't have at least 400 edits on any one WP project, I'm not sure you necessarily deserve to vote. 400 edits isn't that large a number. [[User:69.209.106.236|69.209.106.236]] 8 July 2005 20:09 (UTC)

::Dear Tobias. I am sorry to hear that this is the worst thing you have experienced in your wikilife. As several people above have alluded to, we have set this restriction in order to avoid sockpuppetting. We would have loved to be able to allow votes from any one user with a total of >400 edits across several projects, however, it is not technologically possible to do this at the moment, and to do it manually would be near impossible. We have several thousand people voting.

::Despite being an excellent interwiki activist yourself, it seems quite clear that you are eligible to vote this year, with thousands of edits on [[:en:]]. I'm sure this applies to most people who actively edit across several projects. [[User:BjarteSorensen|Bjarte]] 9 July 2005 03:33 (UTC)

==Required number of edits to vote excessive?==

Line 120 ⟶ 130:

::The problem is that this decision ingrains a particular view which will become self-fulfilling: that users with fewer edits are less important to the Wiki project. It is also backing a political decision (who may vote) on a technical reason (essentially, cheats have difficulty meeting this criterion). The problem is that genuine users (even the majority of users) are caught up with the cheats. The answer surely is not to discriminate against those who may be more thoughtful about what they write, but to have instead better mechanisms to catch cheats. --[[User:81.154.201.232|81.154.201.232]] 18:35, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)

:::You're right. It discourages casual users from editing (why contribute when the project doesn't seem to care about my opinion?) and it encourages fewer well-thought updates. I guess next year I should do an update for every single word I want to change in an article, instead of doing multiple things at once. That way maybe I'll have enough edits. Someone could have written 100 articles from scratch and been ineligible while a user who fixed 400 spelling errors is voting. Something is wrong here. [[User:141.152.190.4|141.152.190.4]] 6 July 2005 15:13 (UTC)

::::We do not think somebody who have edited <400 times are less important than others, as somebody above seems to think. Apart from technical reasons, though, I dare say that most democratic societies set certain restrictions on who can vote. In the country where I am a citizen, Norway, for instance, it took me 18 years of living in the society and learning about it before I was able to vote for the first time. In the case of immigrants, they can only vote once they are citizens, which in practical terms generally means living in the society for some time. Four hundred edits and three months of activity is not a particularly strict requirement, I believe. It could e.g. be ~5 edits/day over three months, or ~1 edit/day over a year. If you logged in and did not discuss this anonymously, you would all have a couple of edits more here on meta already! [[User:BjarteSorensen|Bjarte]] 9 July 2005 03:44 (UTC)

:::::I don't log in here because I don't participate here, I participate at Wikipedia. Since the edit total doesn't count across projects anyhow, there's no benefit to me creating an account to comment here. If someone wanted to cheat, they could simply edit their own talk page 400 times and be eligible. I try to contribute where it's valuable, which can't be quantified with an edit count. [[User:68.106.180.237|68.106.180.237]] 9 July 2005 17:22 (UTC)

I definitely consider myself an active user - at times I'm sure my wife has considered me almost an obsessive user. I've written whole articles. But I have lots of other things to do (like a business to run), so I am very disappointed that, being invited to vote, as an active user, I am then told that 136 edits is not enough. I agree with Sj that there needs to be much more encouragement to ordinary netizens to edit Wikipedia. And if ordinary netizens who have crossed the intial hurdle and now do *some* editing are not valued enough to vote, then I think Wikipedia is unwell! --[[User:PeterR|PeterR]] 22:35, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

:Your contributions are appreciated! At the current rate, I am sure you can vote in next year's elections. [[User:BjarteSorensen|Bjarte]] 02:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I just read the criteria for being a candidate, and the criteria for voting and running are the same. This will obviously require some public comment and participation for the next election, but I'm sure that goes without saying. [[User:JulieADriver|JulieADriver]] 04:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

== The message about the elections ==

Line 197 ⟶ 219:

How does one enter their vote? It is not at all clear on the main page how one can vote, or if it's even possible to vote. The closet I found was an entry if you want to be a candidate for the Board of Trustees.

:[[User:66.55.217.228|66.55.217.228]] 05:46, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)

:If you have enough edits on the wiki you are visiting, the [[Special:Boardvote]] link (on your local wiki; this link gives you the Meta one) should give you a menu, where one option gets you to the entry of the voting section (if you are qualified as a voter; otherwise you will se a message why you can't vote). The candidates present themselves here at Meta at [[Election candidates 2005]] (translations into several languages available there).

== Poorly worded invite. ==

&#8217;&#8216;All active users are invited to vote in the Elections for the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation.&#8217;&#8217; This is rather inaccurate, considering there are plenty of active contributors (myself included) that do not have enough edits. Perhaps &#8220;Qualifying active users...&#8221;, or &#8216;Users with at least 400 edits are invited to vote..." would be more appropriate. It&#8217;s mildly insulting to see that message day in and day out, knowing I&#8217;m an active contributor (to Wikipedia), yet I am not allowed to vote. &#8212; Dan East 00:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

*I concur. &#8212;[[User:220.233.29.169|220.233.29.169]] 02:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

==Election over==

The page needs to be edited to say the vote is over and X and Y have been elected. [[User:213.122.172.138|213.122.172.138]] 00:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

:Also, the text at the top ("'''The election for 2005 now opened.'''") should be changed. [[User:RaSten|RaSten]] 06:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

=== time stamps ===

* Halló [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Elections for the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, 2005/En|&direction=next&oldid=168960}} Elections for the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, 2005/En|&direction=next&oldid=168960] shows the timestamp as

<pre>

< Elections for the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, 2005

Revision as of 05:55, July 13, 2005; view current revision

←Older revision | Newer revision→

</pre>

* The message itself contains

<pre>

09:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Election Officials, Wikimedia Election Committee

</pre>

* I thing that more care should be payed to these issues especially in a case like these elections. Please compare also with the timestamp of this note. Best regards [[User:Gangleri|Gangleri]] | [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User talk:Gangleri|action=history}} Th] | [[{{ns:User_talk}}:Gangleri|T]] 21:20, July 14, 2005 (UTC)