Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

Voting suffrage criteria (established members should be able to vote)

1 2

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

scream at datascreamer

Jun 22, 2008, 12:33 PM

Post #1 of 34 (1043 views)
Permalink

Voting suffrage criteria (established members should be able to vote)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Colleagues,

I'm concerned. I'll start off by saying I'm not sore, just concerned.
I'll use my personal experience to illustrate the larger problem.

The elections require an account to have so many edits to gain
eligibility to vote. Now, I believe the intent was to be sure that
prior to voting, members are established. My previous account, which is
established, has enough edits. The password is scrambled. I think
everyone knows I'm established. My enwiki "NonvocalScream" does not
meet criteria. The account is unified, and is my permanent account is
not eligible on any project... yet.

The election committee informed me that I should attempt to contact a
sysadmin to recover the eligible account's password. This was
unsuccessful. (No response from sysadmin) So I contacted the elections
committee three days prior to the end of voting. No response from them
either.

The end state: I was unable to vote.

I don't want this to happen to anyone else. Being unable to vote while
being an very established member of the community should not happen.
This should not happen to anyone, ever.

My suggested changes for the next election vote:

Keep the criteria, but allow the voters table to be modified via a
transparent meta wiki page. Modified by those with the ability to check
stories, make sure there is no double voting.

Thoughts?

Jon

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFIXqkG6+ro8Pm1AtURAoE+AKCn5oAUfgZpp66SEt8Xt3x6I3tX5wCcDN41
V4IXM97qLeT69PCdnnnLwP4=
=YcXi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

wiki.ral315 at gmail

Jun 22, 2008, 1:15 PM

Post #2 of 34 (1018 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting suffrage criteria (established members should be able to vote) [In reply to]

For your particular case, I wouldn't support an exemption; while I certainly
consider you an established community member, it's your fault alone that you
scrambled the password and changed the e-mail details of your previous
account. It's like shredding your driver's license in a country or state
that requires a driver's license to vote.

In general, I think that exceptions should certainly not be made once the
election starts. If any case-based issues should arise, perhaps they could
be looked at before the election starts, but I can't think of any scenario
where I would support an account being specifically exempted.

--
[[User:Ral315]]
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

scream at datascreamer

Jun 22, 2008, 1:23 PM

Post #3 of 34 (1020 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting suffrage criteria (established members should be able to vote) [In reply to]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ryan wrote:
> For your particular case, I wouldn't support an exemption; while I certainly
> consider you an established community member, it's your fault alone that you
> scrambled the password and changed the e-mail details of your previous
> account. It's like shredding your driver's license in a country or state
> that requires a driver's license to vote.
>
> In general, I think that exceptions should certainly not be made once the
> election starts. If any case-based issues should arise, perhaps they could
> be looked at before the election starts, but I can't think of any scenario
> where I would support an account being specifically exempted.
>

If I read you correctly, you don't agree with my action, so even though
I can be verified
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Identification_noticeboard

and my old account will not log in, you thing I should not vote. Smells
of retribution? You argument makes no sense. Try addressing my
suggested changes.

Thanks,
Jon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFIXrSr6+ro8Pm1AtURAlFiAKDBX3FZz8n5dWyySqumQbpwJBtP5QCgipa+
rhD5K2BEF3Bk4bJqYCazA/s=
=Bgl+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

scream at datascreamer

Jun 22, 2008, 1:30 PM

Post #4 of 34 (1020 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting suffrage criteria (established members should be able to vote) [In reply to]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jon wrote:
> Ryan wrote:
>> For your particular case, I wouldn't support an exemption; while I certainly
>> consider you an established community member, it's your fault alone that you
>> scrambled the password and changed the e-mail details of your previous
>> account. It's like shredding your driver's license in a country or state
>> that requires a driver's license to vote.
>
>> In general, I think that exceptions should certainly not be made once the
>> election starts. If any case-based issues should arise, perhaps they could
>> be looked at before the election starts, but I can't think of any scenario
>> where I would support an account being specifically exempted.
>
>
> If I read you correctly, you don't agree with my action, so even though
> I can be verified
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Identification_noticeboard
>
> and my old account will not log in, you thing I should not vote. Smells
> of retribution? You argument makes no sense. Try addressing my
> suggested changes.
>
> Thanks,
> Jon

Oh my I used the wrong word. I apologize, retribution was incorrect.

Let me substitute that statement with

"Smells like "I don't agree with your action, completely your fault, and
you knew better, so even though I can verify your story... I don't think
we can help you out. No voting for you.

This was not a case of retribution and I misspoke.

Best,
Jon

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFIXrZW6+ro8Pm1AtURAuDaAJ0eTNP5Fnn2A0u/MiUTde5zvTXE5ACdHUh0
BImVjwwLsemf9+l0cmSv5Gk=
=bMHK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

effeietsanders at gmail

Jun 22, 2008, 1:37 PM

Post #5 of 34 (1019 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting suffrage criteria (established members should be able to vote) [In reply to]

I think we need to get worried if the problems are giving a systamic
bias. For now, after voting closed, I think we can�t do much about it.

Best regards,

Lodewijk

2008/6/22 Jon <scream [at] datascreamer>:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Jon wrote:
>> Ryan wrote:
>>> For your particular case, I wouldn't support an exemption; while I certainly
>>> consider you an established community member, it's your fault alone that you
>>> scrambled the password and changed the e-mail details of your previous
>>> account. It's like shredding your driver's license in a country or state
>>> that requires a driver's license to vote.
>>
>>> In general, I think that exceptions should certainly not be made once the
>>> election starts. If any case-based issues should arise, perhaps they could
>>> be looked at before the election starts, but I can't think of any scenario
>>> where I would support an account being specifically exempted.
>>
>>
>> If I read you correctly, you don't agree with my action, so even though
>> I can be verified
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Identification_noticeboard
>>
>> and my old account will not log in, you thing I should not vote. Smells
>> of retribution? You argument makes no sense. Try addressing my
>> suggested changes.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jon
>
>
> Oh my I used the wrong word. I apologize, retribution was incorrect.
>
> Let me substitute that statement with
>
> "Smells like "I don't agree with your action, completely your fault, and
> you knew better, so even though I can verify your story... I don't think
> we can help you out. No voting for you.
>
>
> This was not a case of retribution and I misspoke.
>
> Best,
> Jon
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFIXrZW6+ro8Pm1AtURAuDaAJ0eTNP5Fnn2A0u/MiUTde5zvTXE5ACdHUh0
> BImVjwwLsemf9+l0cmSv5Gk=
> =bMHK
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

wiki.ral315 at gmail

Jun 22, 2008, 1:42 PM

Post #6 of 34 (1024 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting suffrage criteria (established members should be able to vote) [In reply to]

On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Jon <scream [at] datascreamer> wrote:

> Oh my I used the wrong word. I apologize, retribution was incorrect.
>
> Let me substitute that statement with
>
> "Smells like "I don't agree with your action, completely your fault, and
> you knew better, so even though I can verify your story... I don't think
> we can help you out. No voting for you.
>
>
> This was not a case of retribution and I misspoke.
>
> Best,
> Jon
>

Not a problem.

What I'm saying isn't so much "completely your fault" as "there are serious
consequences with allowing individual changes to the voter list, and I don't
think it should be done unless there's a very, very dire case where the
Foundation itself screwed up". There are many potential problems with
allowing users to combine accounts, or use suffrage from an account they
can't physically access. While your identity could be easily verified,
others couldn't, and it would open up a huge can of worms to allow any such
combinations.

--
[[User:Ral315]]
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

scream at datascreamer

Jun 22, 2008, 2:00 PM

Post #7 of 34 (1018 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting suffrage criteria (established members should be able to vote) [In reply to]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I'm speaking for the next round of elections. Nothing can be done for
this time, I would not expect anything to be done for this round. I'm
speaking of what we can do in the future.

Best, Jon

effe iets anders wrote:
> I think we need to get worried if the problems are giving a systamic
> bias. For now, after voting closed, I think we can�t do much about it.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Lodewijk
>
> 2008/6/22 Jon <scream [at] datascreamer>:
> Jon wrote:
>>>> Ryan wrote:
>>>>> For your particular case, I wouldn't support an exemption; while I certainly
>>>>> consider you an established community member, it's your fault alone that you
>>>>> scrambled the password and changed the e-mail details of your previous
>>>>> account. It's like shredding your driver's license in a country or state
>>>>> that requires a driver's license to vote.
>>>>> In general, I think that exceptions should certainly not be made once the
>>>>> election starts. If any case-based issues should arise, perhaps they could
>>>>> be looked at before the election starts, but I can't think of any scenario
>>>>> where I would support an account being specifically exempted.
>>>>
>>>> If I read you correctly, you don't agree with my action, so even though
>>>> I can be verified
>>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Identification_noticeboard
>>>>
>>>> and my old account will not log in, you thing I should not vote. Smells
>>>> of retribution? You argument makes no sense. Try addressing my
>>>> suggested changes.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Jon
>
> Oh my I used the wrong word. I apologize, retribution was incorrect.
>
> Let me substitute that statement with
>
> "Smells like "I don't agree with your action, completely your fault, and
> you knew better, so even though I can verify your story... I don't think
> we can help you out. No voting for you.
>
>
> This was not a case of retribution and I misspoke.
>
> Best,
> Jon
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFIXr156+ro8Pm1AtURAoUmAJ9SPfwLi1xtJS5tjQLHZrtciNelnQCginJL
LQOW4cJ6rFnU9LJYPj236LM=
=XZG1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

jayvdb at gmail

Jun 22, 2008, 6:38 PM

Post #8 of 34 (1014 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting suffrage criteria (established members should be able to vote) [In reply to]

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 7:00 AM, Jon <scream [at] datascreamer> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I'm speaking for the next round of elections. Nothing can be done for
> this time, I would not expect anything to be done for this round. I'm
> speaking of what we can do in the future.
>
> Best, Jon

You choose to discard your prior identity, and I am guessing that your
new identity was unable to meet the March 1 deadline for having 600
edits because of the timing of the new identity.

Right to vanish ... is a right to ... _vanish_. It is inappropriate
to tailor processes of corporate governance around the right to
vanish, ... and then re-appear.

Your proposal would require an exceptional amount of additional work,
as similar requests will come in from various languages, requiring
translation assistance and introducing uncertainty into the process.
There would be complaints that identity merging requests were not
processed in time, and there will also be fraudulent attempts to usurp
inactive accounts in order to gain suffrage.

A more suitable approach would be to encourage people to meet suffrage
criteria with their new accounts before discarding their old account.
Perhaps this should be mentioned on RTV.

--
John Vandenberg

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

aphaia at gmail

Jun 22, 2008, 7:54 PM

Post #9 of 34 (1020 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting suffrage criteria (established members should be able to vote) [In reply to]

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 4:33 AM, Jon <scream [at] datascreamer> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Colleagues,
>
>
> I'm concerned. I'll start off by saying I'm not sore, just concerned.
> I'll use my personal experience to illustrate the larger problem.
>
> The elections require an account to have so many edits to gain
> eligibility to vote. Now, I believe the intent was to be sure that
> prior to voting, members are established. My previous account, which is
> established, has enough edits. The password is scrambled. I think
> everyone knows I'm established. My enwiki "NonvocalScream" does not
> meet criteria. The account is unified, and is my permanent account is
> not eligible on any project... yet.

I know you as NonvocalScream since very recent, just because he
annoyed me on IRC every night just when I was going to bed, on the
thing I've noted I will never deal with on such a way and urge to
submit their requests on the wiki. I do not know your previous
account.
Not everyone therefore recognize you as an established user. Q.E.D.

I would like to esteem your feeling but have seen many similar
unconvincing arguments when I served as an Election Official.
You are better to seek more robust argument, I suppose.

For your information I have 2K+ edits on English Wikipedia since 2004
and active some areas.

--
KIZU Naoko
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese)
Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD

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

scream at datascreamer

Jun 22, 2008, 8:15 PM

Post #10 of 34 (1016 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting suffrage criteria (established members should be able to vote) [In reply to]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Aphaia wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 4:33 AM, Jon <scream [at] datascreamer> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Colleagues,
>>
>>
>> I'm concerned. I'll start off by saying I'm not sore, just concerned.
>> I'll use my personal experience to illustrate the larger problem.
>>
>> The elections require an account to have so many edits to gain
>> eligibility to vote. Now, I believe the intent was to be sure that
>> prior to voting, members are established. My previous account, which is
>> established, has enough edits. The password is scrambled. I think
>> everyone knows I'm established. My enwiki "NonvocalScream" does not
>> meet criteria. The account is unified, and is my permanent account is
>> not eligible on any project... yet.
>
> I know you as NonvocalScream since very recent, just because he
> annoyed me on IRC every night just when I was going to bed, on the
> thing I've noted I will never deal with on such a way and urge to
> submit their requests on the wiki. I do not know your previous
> account.
> Not everyone therefore recognize you as an established user. Q.E.D.
>
> I would like to esteem your feeling but have seen many similar
> unconvincing arguments when I served as an Election Official.
> You are better to seek more robust argument, I suppose.
>
> For your information I have 2K+ edits on English Wikipedia since 2004
> and active some areas.
>

?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFIXxU76+ro8Pm1AtURAlcXAJ9CZ7FNIxFGCYTwtw2nbuYRWT0VCQCfdHhi
30ORTT0v6hiz4Gg2za08GzI=
=ee/v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

scream at datascreamer

Jun 22, 2008, 8:18 PM

Post #11 of 34 (1021 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting suffrage criteria (established members should be able to vote) [In reply to]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Aphaia wrote:

- -snip-
Not everyone therefore recognize you as an established user. Q.E.D.
- -snip-

This is why I suggested a transparent wiki page. For such cases. This
of course is a suggestion for future elections. The rest of your
message with regards to irc nightly, I did not understand.

Best,
Jon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFIXxYV6+ro8Pm1AtURAhMOAJ9PuW8JwJkYME96bnWuVj0KdrSX7QCfW+BZ
i/9Jh+RyFnJ/6yhwmsbN/Ts=
=s7lz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

jayvdb at gmail

Jun 22, 2008, 9:01 PM

Post #12 of 34 (1011 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting suffrage criteria (established members should be able to vote) [In reply to]

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Jon <scream [at] datascreamer> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Aphaia wrote:
>
> - -snip-
> Not everyone therefore recognize you as an established user. Q.E.D.
> - -snip-
>
>
>
>
> This is why I suggested a transparent wiki page. For such cases.

Can I write on this transparent wiki page with indelible wiki ink?

--
John

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

scream at datascreamer

Jun 22, 2008, 9:13 PM

Post #13 of 34 (1007 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting suffrage criteria (established members should be able to vote) [In reply to]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Jon <scream [at] datascreamer> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Aphaia wrote:
>>
>> - -snip-
>> Not everyone therefore recognize you as an established user. Q.E.D.
>> - -snip-
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This is why I suggested a transparent wiki page. For such cases.
>
> Can I write on this transparent wiki page with indelible wiki ink?
>
> --
> John
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

No, the transparencies are to expensive to replace. :)

Best,
Jon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFIXyLS6+ro8Pm1AtURAloiAJ9s73hbfk8jTuCgoFICzoniXua2BwCeN5ZC
PxY1fXMvqWTNplfO+pWVDUo=
=CZBB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

wikipedia at verizon

Jun 22, 2008, 9:24 PM

Post #14 of 34 (1014 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting suffrage criteria (established members should be able to vote) [In reply to]

I don't agree with the solution proposed, but the situation illustrates
more generally some of the problems with our election system. Let me
provide another illustration.

We had a meetup this past week attended by a number of people involved
in Wikimedia projects. The group included several researchers who have
worked on Wikipedia, studied its social dynamics, especially how
policies are used and applied, and presented papers to academic
conferences on these issues. These are people with a good understanding
of the community and I think they would be well-suited to participate
intelligently in the process of choosing board members. Nevertheless,
some of these same people do not actually have enough edits to vote in
the election, even though they've studied the community more closely
than most of those who did vote.

Over time, the elections are also showing the same edit-count creep that
manifests itself in the selection of administrators on mature projects.
The effect is to increasingly exclude people who should have been
considered part of the community. I don't have easy solutions for how to
address this while still preventing manipulation through sockpuppet
accounts and the like, but this is one reason we added a second method
for the community to choose board members through the chapter selection
process. In the chapter setting, participation is more clearly related
to individual identity, and it goes some distance toward offering the
membership system that was originally contemplated, whose failure to
implement some people still lament.

--Michael Snow

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

jayvdb at gmail

Jun 22, 2008, 10:41 PM

Post #15 of 34 (1007 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting suffrage criteria (established members should be able to vote) [In reply to]

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Michael Snow <wikipedia [at] verizon> wrote:
> I don't agree with the solution proposed, but the situation illustrates
> more generally some of the problems with our election system. Let me
> provide another illustration.
>
> We had a meetup this past week attended by a number of people involved
> in Wikimedia projects. The group included several researchers who have
> worked on Wikipedia, studied its social dynamics, especially how
> policies are used and applied, and presented papers to academic
> conferences on these issues. These are people with a good understanding
> of the community and I think they would be well-suited to participate
> intelligently in the process of choosing board members. Nevertheless,
> some of these same people do not actually have enough edits to vote in
> the election, even though they've studied the community more closely
> than most of those who did vote.
>
> Over time, the elections are also showing the same edit-count creep that
> manifests itself in the selection of administrators on mature projects.
> The effect is to increasingly exclude people who should have been
> considered part of the community. I don't have easy solutions for how to
> address this while still preventing manipulation through sockpuppet
> accounts and the like, but this is one reason we added a second method
> for the community to choose board members through the chapter selection
> process. In the chapter setting, participation is more clearly related
> to individual identity, and it goes some distance toward offering the
> membership system that was originally contemplated, whose failure to
> implement some people still lament.

Knowing about the community is not the same as having contributed free
content to the world.

600 edits is simple. It equates to about 10 hours worth of copy and
pasting on English Wikisource; a task any novice could do. The same
can be achieved in a few hours with AWB on Wikipedia (although the
tasks to perform are a bit harder to find these day on English
Wikipedia), or a few days on New page patrol. On Commons,
[[Category:Media needing categories as of 18 November 2007]] has 425
images, which could be mostly cleared with a few hours using the
HotCat Gadget.

--
John

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

swatjester at gmail

Jun 22, 2008, 10:46 PM

Post #16 of 34 (1004 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting suffrage criteria (established members should be able to vote) [In reply to]

Again why editcount-itis is bad. I have around 100 photos in my aperture
library that are marked 3 stars or higher. If I upload them all to my flickr
account and then use flickr tool to upload them to commons, then for each
photo make separate edits for categories, description, data, etc.... you
could have 600 edits in a couple of hours. You can take 3 or 4 pages, and
make 20 edits to them screwing around with small stuff, moving spaces
around, adding individual words or categories, instead of doing it all in
bulk.

In short, edit count suffrage requirements, in theory at least, exclude
legitimate voters, while not excluding people who want to game the system.

-Dan

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 1:41 AM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb [at] gmail> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Michael Snow <wikipedia [at] verizon>
> wrote:
> > I don't agree with the solution proposed, but the situation illustrates
> > more generally some of the problems with our election system. Let me
> > provide another illustration.
> >
> > We had a meetup this past week attended by a number of people involved
> > in Wikimedia projects. The group included several researchers who have
> > worked on Wikipedia, studied its social dynamics, especially how
> > policies are used and applied, and presented papers to academic
> > conferences on these issues. These are people with a good understanding
> > of the community and I think they would be well-suited to participate
> > intelligently in the process of choosing board members. Nevertheless,
> > some of these same people do not actually have enough edits to vote in
> > the election, even though they've studied the community more closely
> > than most of those who did vote.
> >
> > Over time, the elections are also showing the same edit-count creep that
> > manifests itself in the selection of administrators on mature projects.
> > The effect is to increasingly exclude people who should have been
> > considered part of the community. I don't have easy solutions for how to
> > address this while still preventing manipulation through sockpuppet
> > accounts and the like, but this is one reason we added a second method
> > for the community to choose board members through the chapter selection
> > process. In the chapter setting, participation is more clearly related
> > to individual identity, and it goes some distance toward offering the
> > membership system that was originally contemplated, whose failure to
> > implement some people still lament.
>
> Knowing about the community is not the same as having contributed free
> content to the world.
>
> 600 edits is simple. It equates to about 10 hours worth of copy and
> pasting on English Wikisource; a task any novice could do. The same
> can be achieved in a few hours with AWB on Wikipedia (although the
> tasks to perform are a bit harder to find these day on English
> Wikipedia), or a few days on New page patrol. On Commons,
> [[Category:Media needing categories as of 18 November 2007]] has 425
> images, which could be mostly cleared with a few hours using the
> HotCat Gadget.
>
> --
> John
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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

gmaxwell at gmail

Jun 22, 2008, 11:23 PM

Post #17 of 34 (1012 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting suffrage criteria (established members should be able to vote) [In reply to]

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 1:46 AM, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester [at] gmail> wrote:
[snip]
> In short, edit count suffrage requirements, in theory at least, exclude
> legitimate voters, while not excluding people who want to game the system.

They exclude people who want to game the system but not so much as to
spend a couple of hours *per account* to do so... (combined with
having to pass what is effectively a checkuser on all voters..) Voting
twice isn't going to have a huge influence on the election... twenty
times, otoh, is larger than the difference between some of the
candidates in prior elections. :)

There are valid contributors who are excluded.. but we should figure
out who they are and add criteria that allows them... Removing the
"proof of work" check is not our only option for being reasonably
inclusive, but "proof of work" checks are some of the very few
mechanisms we have to dampen sock voting.

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

jayvdb at gmail

Jun 23, 2008, 12:57 AM

Post #18 of 34 (1003 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting suffrage criteria (established members should be able to vote) [In reply to]

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester [at] gmail> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 1:41 AM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb [at] gmail> wrote:
>>
>> 600 edits is simple. It equates to about 10 hours worth of copy and
>> pasting on English Wikisource; a task any novice could do. The same
>> can be achieved in a few hours with AWB on Wikipedia (although the
>> tasks to perform are a bit harder to find these day on English
>> Wikipedia), or a few days on New page patrol. On Commons,
>> [[Category:Media needing categories as of 18 November 2007]] has 425
>> images, which could be mostly cleared with a few hours using the
>> HotCat Gadget.

> Again why editcount-itis is bad.

The suffrage requirement was 600 edits, and 50 in three months. That
is not a reasonable example of editcount-itis.

> I have around 100 photos in my aperture
> library that are marked 3 stars or higher. If I upload them all to my flickr
> account and then use flickr tool to upload them to commons, then for each
> photo make separate edits for categories, description, data, etc.... you
> could have 600 edits in a couple of hours.

Most users start off doing these tasks the laborious way.
That you can uploading 100 images with a few strokes of your wand
doesn't mean you should obtain suffrage after only 10 minutes effort.

The 600 edits is a simple requirement to ensure that a person is still
active in a project. It keeps the voting community grounded in doing
something useful.

> You can take 3 or 4 pages, and
> make 20 edits to them screwing around with small stuff, moving spaces
> around, adding individual words or categories, instead of doing it all in
> bulk.

Maybe, however on many wikis that would swiftly result in guidance,
followed by stern warnings, blocks and/or questions in peoples minds.

> In short, edit count suffrage requirements, in theory at least, exclude
> legitimate voters, while not excluding people who want to game the system.

As I explained, anyone can meet the suffrage requirements by simply
accepting them as they are, and putting in a few hours on a single
wiki. Legitimate voters are those who actually do some real content
creation. Even our sysadmins could easily attain this edit
requirement without issue by contributing to our computer software and
operating system wikibooks. (I mention them as they were a class of
extraordinary people mentioned in foundation-l suffrage discussions
before this years election period)

Rather than devoting resources to increase flexibility of who should
have suffrage, I would rather the time is spent on excluding the
likelihood of the system being gamed. Any gaming going on with a 600
edit requirement is likely affecting a real wiki somewhere. If
someone is voting twice in board elections, they will likely be voting
twice in other issues.

--
John Vandenberg

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

swatjester at gmail

Jun 23, 2008, 8:15 AM

Post #19 of 34 (993 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting suffrage criteria (established members should be able to vote) [In reply to]

And you are quoting exactly my point. Anyone CAN gain the suffrage
requirements with just a few hours on a wiki, meaning that they don't really
do anything to keep out the people they are intended to keep out, but there
is anectodal evidence that they ARE keeping out people we want to vote.

My point with the example about commons, was that it is easy for someone to
get those 600 edits very quickly, but it requires a knowledge of our tools
and how to work the system already. The average contributor who doesn't meet
the suffrage requirement, but wants to vote may not know how to get those
edits, and may get discouraged. Someone who wants to game the system,
however, already knows the best ways to do so because they are generally
part of our "internal community".

I think the more effective way of keeping the system's integrity is by
increasing the number of legitimate users with suffrage, not by excluding
potential gaming (notice, we can't even guarantee that we're actually
succeeding at that) that simultaneously hurts legitimate users.

-Dan

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 3:57 AM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb [at] gmail> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester [at] gmail>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 1:41 AM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb [at] gmail>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> 600 edits is simple. It equates to about 10 hours worth of copy and
> >> pasting on English Wikisource; a task any novice could do. The same
> >> can be achieved in a few hours with AWB on Wikipedia (although the
> >> tasks to perform are a bit harder to find these day on English
> >> Wikipedia), or a few days on New page patrol. On Commons,
> >> [[Category:Media needing categories as of 18 November 2007]] has 425
> >> images, which could be mostly cleared with a few hours using the
> >> HotCat Gadget.
>
> > Again why editcount-itis is bad.
>
> The suffrage requirement was 600 edits, and 50 in three months. That
> is not a reasonable example of editcount-itis.
>
> > I have around 100 photos in my aperture
> > library that are marked 3 stars or higher. If I upload them all to my
> flickr
> > account and then use flickr tool to upload them to commons, then for each
> > photo make separate edits for categories, description, data, etc.... you
> > could have 600 edits in a couple of hours.
>
> Most users start off doing these tasks the laborious way.
> That you can uploading 100 images with a few strokes of your wand
> doesn't mean you should obtain suffrage after only 10 minutes effort.
>
> The 600 edits is a simple requirement to ensure that a person is still
> active in a project. It keeps the voting community grounded in doing
> something useful.
>
> > You can take 3 or 4 pages, and
> > make 20 edits to them screwing around with small stuff, moving spaces
> > around, adding individual words or categories, instead of doing it all in
> > bulk.
>
> Maybe, however on many wikis that would swiftly result in guidance,
> followed by stern warnings, blocks and/or questions in peoples minds.
>
> > In short, edit count suffrage requirements, in theory at least, exclude
> > legitimate voters, while not excluding people who want to game the
> system.
>
> As I explained, anyone can meet the suffrage requirements by simply
> accepting them as they are, and putting in a few hours on a single
> wiki. Legitimate voters are those who actually do some real content
> creation. Even our sysadmins could easily attain this edit
> requirement without issue by contributing to our computer software and
> operating system wikibooks. (I mention them as they were a class of
> extraordinary people mentioned in foundation-l suffrage discussions
> before this years election period)
>
> Rather than devoting resources to increase flexibility of who should
> have suffrage, I would rather the time is spent on excluding the
> likelihood of the system being gamed. Any gaming going on with a 600
> edit requirement is likely affecting a real wiki somewhere. If
> someone is voting twice in board elections, they will likely be voting
> twice in other issues.
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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

Anthere9 at yahoo

Jun 23, 2008, 8:35 AM

Post #20 of 34 (993 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting suffrage criteria (established members should be able to vote) [In reply to]

Michael Snow wrote:
> Over time, the elections are also showing the same edit-count creep that
> manifests itself in the selection of administrators on mature projects.
> The effect is to increasingly exclude people who should have been
> considered part of the community. I don't have easy solutions for how to
> address this while still preventing manipulation through sockpuppet
> accounts and the like, but this is one reason we added a second method
> for the community to choose board members through the chapter selection
> process. In the chapter setting, participation is more clearly related
> to individual identity, and it goes some distance toward offering the
> membership system that was originally contemplated, whose failure to
> implement some people still lament.
>
> --Michael Snow

And what if... we tried making the Foundation a membership based
organization ?

Ant

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

szilagyi at gmail

Jun 23, 2008, 8:36 AM

Post #21 of 34 (987 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting suffrage criteria (established members should be able to vote) [In reply to]

On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 10:46 PM, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester [at] gmail>
wrote:

> In short, edit count suffrage requirements, in theory at least, exclude
> legitimate voters, while not excluding people who want to game the system.
>
> -Dan
>

On the other hand, since the board elections are an internal process, should
it not be limited to active participants? The suffrage is fair in that its
as mentioned incredibly easy to get.

Who should be voting but users of one of the sites that the Board oversees
and employees of the corporation? Certainly not any of the following:

1. Charitable financial contributors
2. "Partners" such as (possibly) Creative Commons people/staff, Answers.com
people, etc.
3. General public
4. ?

It should be somewhat exclusive. I've given to the ASPCA, I've given to the
Democratic party here in the US, I've given to the local library here in my
city. That doesn't give me a board vote on any of those, even though I'm an
active participant to some degree in all three.

In reply to Scream in general on this thread, no one ever is forced to
scramble their account login. I'd been very, very tempted in the past to do
just that on my EN account, but in hindsight I'm very glad that I never did.

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

nawrich at gmail

Jun 23, 2008, 9:13 AM

Post #22 of 34 (994 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting suffrage criteria (established members should be able to vote) [In reply to]

Ant makes a good point - one way to get around all these technical
requirements is to have people vote as people, not accounts, and membership
is one way to do that. Even if there are legal or other reasons to not have
membership specifically, it is still possible to develop a real person voter
roll. Obviously it raises the bar for voters - while they wouldn't need to
be disclosed to the public, they would need to disclose in some material way
to the Foundation. That's a bit more of a hurdle than an hour with Huggle
(you guys who mention AWB are missing the boat these days), but it isn't
undoable and its not obviously unreasonable to ask people to register to
vote with a copy of a legal ID. Still open to gaming, of course, but
seemingly less so and no more vulnerable than most other elections.

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

ronmoss at dslnorthwest

Jun 23, 2008, 9:57 AM

Post #23 of 34 (987 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting suffrage criteria (established members should be able to vote) [In reply to]

Ant; Your observation only lacks noticing the treatment of Sherry Peel
Jackson, the former IRS ageng that has been encarcerated for her political
stance. Google her and Joe Banister also a former Criminal investigator,
IRS.
They worked him over too. Then Google Peter Hendrickson or Tom Cryer, both
of whom are experts on the issue. Please help het Sherry released and this
matter out to the public. Thanks Ron Moss
----- Original Message -----
From: "Florence Devouard" <Anthere9 [at] yahoo>
To: <foundation-l [at] lists>
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 8:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Voting suffrage criteria (established members
should be able to vote)

> Michael Snow wrote:
>> Over time, the elections are also showing the same edit-count creep that
>> manifests itself in the selection of administrators on mature projects.
>> The effect is to increasingly exclude people who should have been
>> considered part of the community. I don't have easy solutions for how to
>> address this while still preventing manipulation through sockpuppet
>> accounts and the like, but this is one reason we added a second method
>> for the community to choose board members through the chapter selection
>> process. In the chapter setting, participation is more clearly related
>> to individual identity, and it goes some distance toward offering the
>> membership system that was originally contemplated, whose failure to
>> implement some people still lament.
>>
>> --Michael Snow
>
>
> And what if... we tried making the Foundation a membership based
> organization ?
>
> Ant
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

charlottethewebb at gmail

Jun 23, 2008, 11:35 AM

Post #24 of 34 (982 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting suffrage criteria (established members should be able to vote) [In reply to]

On 6/22/08, Jon <scream [at] datascreamer> wrote:
> I'm speaking for the next round of elections. Nothing can be done for
> this time, I would not expect anything to be done for this round. I'm
> speaking of what we can do in the future.

Well as a practical matter, if you plan to change accounts again you
should do it now rather than in early 2009.

�C.W.

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

swatjester at gmail

Jun 23, 2008, 12:00 PM

Post #25 of 34 (991 views)
Permalink

Re: Voting suffrage criteria (established members should be able to vote) [In reply to]

That's the second spam that we've gotten from Ron Moss. Why are these posts
going through/not being moderated.?

-Dan

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Ron Moss <ronmoss [at] dslnorthwest> wrote:

> Ant; Your observation only lacks noticing the treatment of Sherry Peel
> Jackson, the former IRS ageng that has been encarcerated for her political
> stance. Google her and Joe Banister also a former Criminal investigator,
> IRS.
> They worked him over too. Then Google Peter Hendrickson or Tom Cryer, both
> of whom are experts on the issue. Please help het Sherry released and this
> matter out to the public. Thanks Ron Moss
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Florence Devouard" <Anthere9 [at] yahoo>
> To: <foundation-l [at] lists>
> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 8:35 AM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Voting suffrage criteria (established members
> should be able to vote)
>
>
> > Michael Snow wrote:
> >> Over time, the elections are also showing the same edit-count creep that
> >> manifests itself in the selection of administrators on mature projects.
> >> The effect is to increasingly exclude people who should have been
> >> considered part of the community. I don't have easy solutions for how to
> >> address this while still preventing manipulation through sockpuppet
> >> accounts and the like, but this is one reason we added a second method
> >> for the community to choose board members through the chapter selection
> >> process. In the chapter setting, participation is more clearly related
> >> to individual identity, and it goes some distance toward offering the
> >> membership system that was originally contemplated, whose failure to
> >> implement some people still lament.
> >>
> >> --Michael Snow
> >
> >
> > And what if... we tried making the Foundation a membership based
> > organization ?
> >
> > Ant
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>

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

1 2

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads