Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

Voting

1 2

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

effeietsanders at gmail

Jun 1, 2008, 8:26 AM

Post #1 of 38 (1742 views)
Permalink

Voting

Hi all,

I hear a lot of problems with the voting. First of all, i had
apperently to hear it in the pub, and it is not spread through other
channels? (but this might come later?)

Second, I cant log in anyhow because of security certificates which
are invalid, and i cant get around... (especially people who are even
less technically advanced will have problems with that, which gives
systemic bias)

third, I hear many nlwiki people complaining that they are denied
access, because of too little edits, even though they fit the rules
easily...

BR< Lodewijk

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

harel.cain at gmail

Jun 1, 2008, 8:30 AM

Post #2 of 38 (1690 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting [In reply to]

I can report that most (eligible!) users from hewiki are denied the
right to vote because they purportedly do not meet the requirements. I
think there is something very wrong with the list of eligible users
passed on to SPI, and it manifests itself non-uniformly over the
projects (in other words, it looks like some projects are fine and
some are not).

Proper disclosure: I'm a candidate on the current elections.

Harel

On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 6:26 PM, effe iets anders
<effeietsanders [at] gmail> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I hear a lot of problems with the voting. First of all, i had
> apperently to hear it in the pub, and it is not spread through other
> channels? (but this might come later?)
>
> Second, I cant log in anyhow because of security certificates which
> are invalid, and i cant get around... (especially people who are even
> less technically advanced will have problems with that, which gives
> systemic bias)
>
> third, I hear many nlwiki people complaining that they are denied
> access, because of too little edits, even though they fit the rules
> easily...
>
> BR< Lodewijk
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

nawrich at gmail

Jun 1, 2008, 8:42 AM

Post #3 of 38 (1692 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting [In reply to]

Whatever the problem is it is also having an impact on en.wiki, I'm unable
to vote as well. I'm told that this is a known issue that has been referred
to the company.

Nathan

On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Harel Cain <harel.cain [at] gmail> wrote:

> I can report that most (eligible!) users from hewiki are denied the
> right to vote because they purportedly do not meet the requirements. I
> think there is something very wrong with the list of eligible users
> passed on to SPI, and it manifests itself non-uniformly over the
> projects (in other words, it looks like some projects are fine and
> some are not).
>
> Proper disclosure: I'm a candidate on the current elections.
>
> Harel
>
> On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 6:26 PM, effe iets anders
> <effeietsanders [at] gmail> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I hear a lot of problems with the voting. First of all, i had
> > apperently to hear it in the pub, and it is not spread through other
> > channels? (but this might come later?)
> >
> > Second, I cant log in anyhow because of security certificates which
> > are invalid, and i cant get around... (especially people who are even
> > less technically advanced will have problems with that, which gives
> > systemic bias)
> >
> > third, I hear many nlwiki people complaining that they are denied
> > access, because of too little edits, even though they fit the rules
> > easily...
> >
> > BR< Lodewijk
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

millosh at gmail

Jun 1, 2008, 9:01 AM

Post #4 of 38 (1698 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting [In reply to]

On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 5:26 PM, effe iets anders
<effeietsanders [at] gmail> wrote:
> Second, I cant log in anyhow because of security certificates which
> are invalid, and i cant get around... (especially people who are even
> less technically advanced will have problems with that, which gives
> systemic bias)

Just click on "yes, I want that untrusted certificate" inside of the
main part of your web browser. By default, new browsers don't like
self-signed certificates and certificates signed by others than
"official" certificate renters.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

harel.cain at gmail

Jun 1, 2008, 9:10 AM

Post #5 of 38 (1690 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting [In reply to]

Happy to report that thanks to quick intervention by Daniel and others
from the elecom, the problem was tracked and apparently solved. The
localhost IP 127.0.0.1 was listed as the IP of all voters, and this IP
happened to be indef-blocked on nlwiki and hewiki by the open proxy
bot RonaldB.

Happy voting everyone,

Harel

On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Harel Cain <harel.cain [at] gmail> wrote:
> I can report that most (eligible!) users from hewiki are denied the
> right to vote because they purportedly do not meet the requirements. I
> think there is something very wrong with the list of eligible users
> passed on to SPI, and it manifests itself non-uniformly over the
> projects (in other words, it looks like some projects are fine and
> some are not).

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

effeietsanders at gmail

Jun 1, 2008, 9:15 AM

Post #6 of 38 (1694 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting [In reply to]

I only have the option "add exception" .
<Q>
Secure Connection Failed
wikimedia.spi-inc.org uses an invalid security certificate.
The certificate is not trusted because the issuer certificate is unknown.
(Error code: sec_error_unknown_issuer)
* This could be a problem with the server's configuration, or it
could be someone trying to impersonate the server.
* If you have connected to this server successfully in the past,
the error may be temporary, and you can try again later.

Or you can add an exception�
</Q>

Even though this was not possible last time, it is now :S So I added
it as an exception...

2008/6/1 Milos Rancic <millosh [at] gmail>:
> On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 5:26 PM, effe iets anders
> <effeietsanders [at] gmail> wrote:
>> Second, I cant log in anyhow because of security certificates which
>> are invalid, and i cant get around... (especially people who are even
>> less technically advanced will have problems with that, which gives
>> systemic bias)
>
> Just click on "yes, I want that untrusted certificate" inside of the
> main part of your web browser. By default, new browsers don't like
> self-signed certificates and certificates signed by others than
> "official" certificate renters.
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

rupert.thurner at wikimedia

Jun 1, 2008, 9:54 AM

Post #7 of 38 (1689 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting [In reply to]

see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436789. maybe you
vote for that one to get it included in future, as there is no obious
reason to not do it.

On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 6:46 PM, THURNER rupert
<thurner.rupert [at] redleo> wrote:
> see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436789. maybe you
> vote for that one to get it included in future, as there is no obious
> reason to not do it.
>
> On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 6:15 PM, effe iets anders
> <effeietsanders [at] gmail> wrote:
>> I only have the option "add exception" .
>> <Q>
>> Secure Connection Failed
>> wikimedia.spi-inc.org uses an invalid security certificate.
>> The certificate is not trusted because the issuer certificate is unknown.
>> (Error code: sec_error_unknown_issuer)
>> * This could be a problem with the server's configuration, or it
>> could be someone trying to impersonate the server.
>> * If you have connected to this server successfully in the past,
>> the error may be temporary, and you can try again later.
>>
>> Or you can add an exception…
>> </Q>
>>
>> Even though this was not possible last time, it is now :S So I added
>> it as an exception...
>>
>> 2008/6/1 Milos Rancic <millosh [at] gmail>:
>>> On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 5:26 PM, effe iets anders
>>> <effeietsanders [at] gmail> wrote:
>>>> Second, I cant log in anyhow because of security certificates which
>>>> are invalid, and i cant get around... (especially people who are even
>>>> less technically advanced will have problems with that, which gives
>>>> systemic bias)
>>>
>>> Just click on "yes, I want that untrusted certificate" inside of the
>>> main part of your web browser. By default, new browsers don't like
>>> self-signed certificates and certificates signed by others than
>>> "official" certificate renters.
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l [at] lists
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

dgerard at gmail

Jun 1, 2008, 10:05 AM

Post #8 of 38 (1695 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting [In reply to]

2008/6/1 THURNER rupert <rupert.thurner [at] wikimedia>:

> see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436789. maybe you
> vote for that one to get it included in future, as there is no obious
> reason to not do it.

It is explained in the bug that's a dupe of:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215243

Basically, CACert just don't have their shit together, and haven't
managed to request being added to Mozilla in four years. From Gervase
Markham, in this bug:

"We require that the CA request approval themselves. This is because
the inclusion process always requires some interaction with the CA,
and so they need to be on board to provide it and answer questions. It
also means we can be certain that we do not set a trust bit that the
CA would not want set.

"I don't think CACert has stated that they can't meet the Mozilla
requirements. And as far as I am aware, they haven't asked for our
help either. Bottom line: this bug has been open nearly four years,
and all the information needed has not yet been presented. I consider
four years more than "a reasonable time", and so have closed this bug.
When and if CACert would like to present the information necessary,
they can open another bug and do so."

- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

bryan.tongminh at gmail

Jun 1, 2008, 10:05 AM

Post #9 of 38 (1690 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting [In reply to]

On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh [at] gmail> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 5:26 PM, effe iets anders
> <effeietsanders [at] gmail> wrote:
>> Second, I cant log in anyhow because of security certificates which
>> are invalid, and i cant get around... (especially people who are even
>> less technically advanced will have problems with that, which gives
>> systemic bias)
>
> Just click on "yes, I want that untrusted certificate" inside of the
> main part of your web browser. By default, new browsers don't like
> self-signed certificates and certificates signed by others than
> "official" certificate renters.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

If I recall correctly Firefox 3 simply refuses to open websites
without a certificate signed by an authority recognized. If this is
the case, voting with Firefox 3 is not possible.

Bryan

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

dgerard at gmail

Jun 1, 2008, 10:08 AM

Post #10 of 38 (1690 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting [In reply to]

2008/6/1 Bryan Tong Minh <bryan.tongminh [at] gmail>:

> If I recall correctly Firefox 3 simply refuses to open websites
> without a certificate signed by an authority recognized. If this is
> the case, voting with Firefox 3 is not possible.

Not impossible, just difficult. You have to click just the right things.

- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

millosh at gmail

Jun 1, 2008, 10:09 AM

Post #11 of 38 (1695 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting [In reply to]

On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Bryan Tong Minh
<bryan.tongminh [at] gmail> wrote:
> If I recall correctly Firefox 3 simply refuses to open websites
> without a certificate signed by an authority recognized. If this is
> the case, voting with Firefox 3 is not possible.

No, it just gives a confusing way for adding an exception. You should
click at the page, not inside of some pop-up window.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

effeietsanders at gmail

Jun 1, 2008, 10:42 AM

Post #12 of 38 (1698 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting [In reply to]

I think this is the core of the problem. "Just the right settings"...
That excludes a lot of people you know... Not everybody can work as
well with tha kind of securities as you, nor is everybody as trusting
on our security as you might be. This again gives a systemic bias... I
think that at least next time, but preferably these elections too,
should be fixed.

BR, Lodewijk

2008/6/1 David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail>:
> 2008/6/1 Bryan Tong Minh <bryan.tongminh [at] gmail>:
>
>> If I recall correctly Firefox 3 simply refuses to open websites
>> without a certificate signed by an authority recognized. If this is
>> the case, voting with Firefox 3 is not possible.
>
>
> Not impossible, just difficult. You have to click just the right things.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

dgerard at gmail

Jun 1, 2008, 10:46 AM

Post #13 of 38 (1692 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting [In reply to]

2008/6/1 effe iets anders <effeietsanders [at] gmail>:

> I think this is the core of the problem. "Just the right settings"...
> That excludes a lot of people you know... Not everybody can work as
> well with tha kind of securities as you, nor is everybody as trusting
> on our security as you might be. This again gives a systemic bias... I
> think that at least next time, but preferably these elections too,
> should be fixed.

The problem is that SPI are using a certificate from someone who isn't
Verisign (good) but who appear to be at best semi-competent weirdos
(bad).

- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

philippebeaudette at gmail

Jun 1, 2008, 10:54 AM

Post #14 of 38 (1697 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting [In reply to]

Lodewijk,

If there are nlwiki people who are denied access to vote but are qualified,
please let the election committee know with specific usernames. We're happy
to track down problems, but need some details to figure it out.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Board_elections/2008/en or by email to
any member of the committee (including myself).

Philippe

--------------------------------------------------
From: "effe iets anders" <effeietsanders [at] gmail>
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 10:26 AM
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l [at] lists>
Subject: [Foundation-l] Voting

> Hi all,
>
> I hear a lot of problems with the voting. First of all, i had
> apperently to hear it in the pub, and it is not spread through other
> channels? (but this might come later?)
>
> Second, I cant log in anyhow because of security certificates which
> are invalid, and i cant get around... (especially people who are even
> less technically advanced will have problems with that, which gives
> systemic bias)
>
> third, I hear many nlwiki people complaining that they are denied
> access, because of too little edits, even though they fit the rules
> easily...
>
> BR< Lodewijk
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

sebmol at gmail

Jun 1, 2008, 10:56 AM

Post #15 of 38 (1699 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting [In reply to]

On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 7:46 PM, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:

>
> The problem is that SPI are using a certificate from someone who isn't
> Verisign (good) but who appear to be at best semi-competent weirdos
> (bad).
>

Indeed. It's also utterly inappropriate for us to suggest that users should
ignore or circumvent security warnings when it comes to voting at Wikimedia.
It took years of "conditioning" to make sure users of web browsers know what
to look for (e.g. the lock symbol, the green background-color for secure
URLs) when entering personal or private information. We have to make sure we
don't counteract that by telling them now to just ignore the warnings.

Sebastian
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

effeietsanders at gmail

Jun 1, 2008, 11:57 AM

Post #16 of 38 (1696 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting [In reply to]

the issues of nlwiki and hewiki have been resolved (might or might not
turn up elsewhere). Please contact user:RonaldB for details.

BR, Lodewijk

2008/6/1 Philippe Beaudette <philippebeaudette [at] gmail>:
> Lodewijk,
>
> If there are nlwiki people who are denied access to vote but are qualified,
> please let the election committee know with specific usernames. We're happy
> to track down problems, but need some details to figure it out.
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Board_elections/2008/en or by email to
> any member of the committee (including myself).
>
>
> Philippe
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "effe iets anders" <effeietsanders [at] gmail>
> Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 10:26 AM
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l [at] lists>
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Voting
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I hear a lot of problems with the voting. First of all, i had
>> apperently to hear it in the pub, and it is not spread through other
>> channels? (but this might come later?)
>>
>> Second, I cant log in anyhow because of security certificates which
>> are invalid, and i cant get around... (especially people who are even
>> less technically advanced will have problems with that, which gives
>> systemic bias)
>>
>> third, I hear many nlwiki people complaining that they are denied
>> access, because of too little edits, even though they fit the rules
>> easily...
>>
>> BR< Lodewijk
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l [at] lists
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

swatjester at gmail

Jun 1, 2008, 1:23 PM

Post #17 of 38 (1697 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting [In reply to]

As an aside (disclosure: I too am a candidate), there is terrible
explanation of the voting procedure on the voting page. It just says
"use the schulze method" and links to the Wikipedia article on the
topic, which is incomprehensibly technical, and describes all sorts of
code features and matrices and stuff, and never once really explains
what kind of voting system it is. I realize that's more of a criticism
of the Wikipedia article than of the voting system, but the voting
page doesn't really explain the operation of the system. I think it
ought to do so.

-Dan
On Jun 1, 2008, at 11:26 AM, effe iets anders wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I hear a lot of problems with the voting. First of all, i had
> apperently to hear it in the pub, and it is not spread through other
> channels? (but this might come later?)
>
> Second, I cant log in anyhow because of security certificates which
> are invalid, and i cant get around... (especially people who are even
> less technically advanced will have problems with that, which gives
> systemic bias)
>
> third, I hear many nlwiki people complaining that they are denied
> access, because of too little edits, even though they fit the rules
> easily...
>
> BR< Lodewijk
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

brian.mcneil at wikinewsie

Jun 1, 2008, 1:32 PM

Post #18 of 38 (1700 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting [In reply to]

I'd certainly like to see the documentation on voting improved. It is
perfectly possible to put your first choice candidate as 1 and if there are
three or four other people you'd prefer over the rest of the pack you can
put in a 5 or 6 for them. You are not obliged to use 1, 2, 3, etc. For those
you ignore a 100 is in your signed score.

Can I put in a 200 for someone I *really* don't want to see elected? [No,
not you Dan ;)].

Brian McNeil

-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces [at] lists
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces [at] lists] On Behalf Of Dan Rosenthal
Sent: 01 June 2008 22:23
To: effeietsanders [at] gmail; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Voting

As an aside (disclosure: I too am a candidate), there is terrible
explanation of the voting procedure on the voting page. It just says
"use the schulze method" and links to the Wikipedia article on the
topic, which is incomprehensibly technical, and describes all sorts of
code features and matrices and stuff, and never once really explains
what kind of voting system it is. I realize that's more of a criticism
of the Wikipedia article than of the voting system, but the voting
page doesn't really explain the operation of the system. I think it
ought to do so.

-Dan
On Jun 1, 2008, at 11:26 AM, effe iets anders wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I hear a lot of problems with the voting. First of all, i had
> apperently to hear it in the pub, and it is not spread through other
> channels? (but this might come later?)
>
> Second, I cant log in anyhow because of security certificates which
> are invalid, and i cant get around... (especially people who are even
> less technically advanced will have problems with that, which gives
> systemic bias)
>
> third, I hear many nlwiki people complaining that they are denied
> access, because of too little edits, even though they fit the rules
> easily...
>
> BR< Lodewijk
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

cbrown1023.ml at gmail

Jun 1, 2008, 1:32 PM

Post #19 of 38 (1694 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting [In reply to]

On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester [at] gmail> wrote:
> As an aside (disclosure: I too am a candidate), there is terrible
> explanation of the voting procedure on the voting page. It just says
> "use the schulze method" and links to the Wikipedia article on the
> topic, which is incomprehensibly technical, and describes all sorts of
> code features and matrices and stuff, and never once really explains
> what kind of voting system it is. I realize that's more of a criticism
> of the Wikipedia article than of the voting system, but the voting
> page doesn't really explain the operation of the system. I think it
> ought to do so.
>
> -Dan

It's a bit clearer when you are actually voting.
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Boardvote_intro>

--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

---
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

swatjester at gmail

Jun 1, 2008, 1:54 PM

Post #20 of 38 (1696 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting [In reply to]

It wasn't for me, and I was voting. That page just says "You can do X
to rank your candidates. We'll pick em with the Schulze method" But
never actually says WHAT the schulze method is. It just says go view
the Wikipedia page, which for me was completely incomprehensible.
Actually you know where I found the best description, was on the
Condorcet voting article. It explains it in pretty basic terms, but I
think they could be generalized even farther:
-----
Rank candidates in terms of preference. First choice is 1, second is
2, etc. Unranked candidates have a rank of 100, which is the lowest
possible rank. You may give multiple candidates the same rank if you
choose.

When you submit your ballot, each candidate's preference will be
compared with each other candidate's preference, to see which one
would win in a "one on one" race. The candidate that would win the
most "one on one races" is the winner. For example, If you ranked
candidates A,B,C,D in the order 1, 2, 3, 4, then A would be the
winner, because A beat out three other candidates (B,C,D). B would
beat 2 other candidates, C would beat 1, and D would not beat any.

In the event of a tie, where the system is unable to determine a
winner, the system will then drop the candidates who won by the
narrowest margins until there is a winner.
------

Is that about correct?

-Dan

On Jun 1, 2008, at 4:32 PM, Casey Brown wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester [at] gmail>
> wrote:
>> As an aside (disclosure: I too am a candidate), there is terrible
>> explanation of the voting procedure on the voting page. It just says
>> "use the schulze method" and links to the Wikipedia article on the
>> topic, which is incomprehensibly technical, and describes all sorts
>> of
>> code features and matrices and stuff, and never once really explains
>> what kind of voting system it is. I realize that's more of a
>> criticism
>> of the Wikipedia article than of the voting system, but the voting
>> page doesn't really explain the operation of the system. I think it
>> ought to do so.
>>
>> -Dan
>
> It's a bit clearer when you are actually voting.
> <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Boardvote_intro>
>
> --
> Casey Brown
> Cbrown1023
>
> ---
> Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails
> sent to
> this address will probably get lost.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

brian.mcneil at wikinewsie

Jun 1, 2008, 2:07 PM

Post #21 of 38 (1692 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting [In reply to]

Can't we just have a schulze method article on simple Wikipedia?

;-)

Brian McNeil

-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces [at] lists
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces [at] lists] On Behalf Of Dan Rosenthal
Sent: 01 June 2008 22:55
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Voting

It wasn't for me, and I was voting. That page just says "You can do X
to rank your candidates. We'll pick em with the Schulze method" But
never actually says WHAT the schulze method is. It just says go view
the Wikipedia page, which for me was completely incomprehensible.
Actually you know where I found the best description, was on the
Condorcet voting article. It explains it in pretty basic terms, but I
think they could be generalized even farther:
-----
Rank candidates in terms of preference. First choice is 1, second is
2, etc. Unranked candidates have a rank of 100, which is the lowest
possible rank. You may give multiple candidates the same rank if you
choose.

When you submit your ballot, each candidate's preference will be
compared with each other candidate's preference, to see which one
would win in a "one on one" race. The candidate that would win the
most "one on one races" is the winner. For example, If you ranked
candidates A,B,C,D in the order 1, 2, 3, 4, then A would be the
winner, because A beat out three other candidates (B,C,D). B would
beat 2 other candidates, C would beat 1, and D would not beat any.

In the event of a tie, where the system is unable to determine a
winner, the system will then drop the candidates who won by the
narrowest margins until there is a winner.
------

Is that about correct?

-Dan

On Jun 1, 2008, at 4:32 PM, Casey Brown wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester [at] gmail>
> wrote:
>> As an aside (disclosure: I too am a candidate), there is terrible
>> explanation of the voting procedure on the voting page. It just says
>> "use the schulze method" and links to the Wikipedia article on the
>> topic, which is incomprehensibly technical, and describes all sorts
>> of
>> code features and matrices and stuff, and never once really explains
>> what kind of voting system it is. I realize that's more of a
>> criticism
>> of the Wikipedia article than of the voting system, but the voting
>> page doesn't really explain the operation of the system. I think it
>> ought to do so.
>>
>> -Dan
>
> It's a bit clearer when you are actually voting.
> <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Boardvote_intro>
>
> --
> Casey Brown
> Cbrown1023
>
> ---
> Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails
> sent to
> this address will probably get lost.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

cbrown1023.ml at gmail

Jun 1, 2008, 2:51 PM

Post #22 of 38 (1694 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting [In reply to]

I like Brian's solution better... it doesn't involve calling up all
the translators and making them re-translate the interface and then
getting that propagated on the wiki. :P

/me goes to make Pathoschild or Philippe or someone do it

On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Brian McNeil
<brian.mcneil [at] wikinewsie> wrote:
> Can't we just have a schulze method article on simple Wikipedia?
>
> ;-)
>
>
> Brian McNeil
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces [at] lists
> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces [at] lists] On Behalf Of Dan Rosenthal
> Sent: 01 June 2008 22:55
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Voting
>
> It wasn't for me, and I was voting. That page just says "You can do X
> to rank your candidates. We'll pick em with the Schulze method" But
> never actually says WHAT the schulze method is. It just says go view
> the Wikipedia page, which for me was completely incomprehensible.
> Actually you know where I found the best description, was on the
> Condorcet voting article. It explains it in pretty basic terms, but I
> think they could be generalized even farther:
> -----
> Rank candidates in terms of preference. First choice is 1, second is
> 2, etc. Unranked candidates have a rank of 100, which is the lowest
> possible rank. You may give multiple candidates the same rank if you
> choose.
>
> When you submit your ballot, each candidate's preference will be
> compared with each other candidate's preference, to see which one
> would win in a "one on one" race. The candidate that would win the
> most "one on one races" is the winner. For example, If you ranked
> candidates A,B,C,D in the order 1, 2, 3, 4, then A would be the
> winner, because A beat out three other candidates (B,C,D). B would
> beat 2 other candidates, C would beat 1, and D would not beat any.
>
> In the event of a tie, where the system is unable to determine a
> winner, the system will then drop the candidates who won by the
> narrowest margins until there is a winner.
> ------
>
> Is that about correct?
>
> -Dan
>
>

--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

---
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

ktc at ktchan

Jun 1, 2008, 3:36 PM

Post #23 of 38 (1706 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting [In reply to]

On Sun, 2008-06-01 at 17:26 +0200, effe iets anders wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I hear a lot of problems with the voting. First of all, i had
> apperently to hear it in the pub, and it is not spread through other
> channels? (but this might come later?)

What do you prefer? For the election committee to email foundation-l
when every technical issue come up, leave it a few days for it to be
talked to death, see if there's a consensus, and then if there's
consensus to see if anyone want to implement whatever the consensus is
regarding a solution? Or alternatively, along with the sysadmins (mainly
Tim), & SPI try and resolve the problem as quickly as possible?

I'm sure will be happy to go with the first one, it'll mean less work
and worry for me (and others). Simply press forward to foundation-l, and
sit back for a few days.

> third, I hear many nlwiki people complaining that they are denied
> access, because of too little edits, even though they fit the rules
> easily...

On Sun, 2008-06-01 at 18:30 +0300, Harel Cain wrote:
> I can report that most (eligible!) users from hewiki are denied the
> right to vote because they purportedly do not meet the requirements. I
> think there is something very wrong with the list of eligible users
> passed on to SPI, and it manifests itself non-uniformly over the
> projects (in other words, it looks like some projects are fine and
> some are not).

The sysadmin & election committee obviously should have foreseen someone
would go and decide localhost is an open proxy and hence should be
indefinitely blocked.... </sarcasm>

KTC

--
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine

Attachments:

signature.asc (0.18 KB)

ktc at ktchan

Jun 1, 2008, 3:40 PM

Post #24 of 38 (1694 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting [In reply to]

On Sun, 2008-06-01 at 19:42 +0200, effe iets anders wrote:
> I think this is the core of the problem. "Just the right settings"...
> That excludes a lot of people you know... Not everybody can work as
> well with tha kind of securities as you, nor is everybody as trusting
> on our security as you might be. This again gives a systemic bias... I
> think that at least next time, but preferably these elections too,
> should be fixed.

This is obviously an issue.

But to think the set of people who deliberately sought out an unstable
beta (Firefox 3) to run as their browser overlaps heavily with the set
of people who wouldn't be able to figure out the settings.......

KTC

--
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine

Attachments:

signature.asc (0.18 KB)

ktc at ktchan

Jun 1, 2008, 3:42 PM

Post #25 of 38 (1702 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting [In reply to]

On Sun, 2008-06-01 at 22:32 +0200, Brian McNeil wrote:
> I'd certainly like to see the documentation on voting improved. It is
> perfectly possible to put your first choice candidate as 1 and if there are
> three or four other people you'd prefer over the rest of the pack you can
> put in a 5 or 6 for them. You are not obliged to use 1, 2, 3, etc. For those
> you ignore a 100 is in your signed score.
>
> Can I put in a 200 for someone I *really* don't want to see elected? [No,
> not you Dan ;)].

If you had tested it, you would had find 1. it's not possible unless you
deliberately disabled certain html form checking in your browser, and 2.
even if you did, the voting software would reject your entry giving an
error.

KTC

--
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine

Attachments:

signature.asc (0.18 KB)

1 2

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads