Greetings,
If it is promotion on mailing lists, it is still open and people can see
that post. I have been more concerned about the numerous one-to-one
communication over different social networking and communication platforms
(chats) and votstacking attempts. In many of the cases, it is just asking
for votes as favour, and it ends up being how many people one knows and can
contact.
I believe, any process where "vote count" is the "only" way to decide
the
winners, appropriate canvassing policy should be a behavioral guideline.
ইতি,
টিটো দত্ত
(মাতৃভাষা থাক জীবন জুড়ে)
শনি, ২৬ জুন, ২০২১ তারিখে ৩:৩৮ AM টায় এ Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> লিখেছেন:
Speaking personally only, I'd prefer not to have
candidate statements or
self-promotion on this mailing list, although I'd be fine if candidates
announced their candidacy and gave a link to their statements on Meta. We
have to keep in mind that the majority of potential voters do not read this
mailing list, and it's worthwhile for both the voters and the candidates to
ensure that all members of the community have an equal opportunity to
assess each candidate fairly and fully.
Ultimately, this is a decision for the list moderators; however, it's also
a decision of the readers whether or not to read these statements.
Risker/Anne
On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 at 15:06, Benjamin Lees <emufarmers(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 3:05 AM টিটো দত্ত Tito
Dutta <trulytito(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
In such a situation there is a possibility that
if a candidate has many
social media or contacts and friends (Wimimedian), they will end up getting
more votes than someone who entirely relied on their nomination and
performance.
Is this a problem? That's normally how an election works. You
participate in public debates, Q&As, or other events to present yourself to
voters who have come to look at all the candidates, and then you reach out
and try to engage voters who haven't engaged themselves.
WP:CANVASS exists in the Wikipedia milieu that proclaims that discussions
are not votes, and hence discourages ordinary election behaviors in order
to promote consensus-based decision-making. (I don't recall offhand whether
or how WP:CANVASS has been applied to the one thing that even the English
Wikipedia acknowledges is an election: the ArbCom election.)
Nevertheless, I think it would be appropriate for particular venues to
consider whether they want to permit themselves to be used for
campaigning. For instance, a couple people announced their candidacies or
intended candidacies for things on this mailing list earlier this month,
which is fine, I think, but you could imagine it becoming disruptive to the
list if it devolved into electioneering by a hundred different candidates.
Likewise, the English Wikipedia might not permit a candidate to post a
vote-for-me message on the talk pages of all eligible voters. That's
really a question of disruptiveness to the forum, though, not fairness of
the election.
Benjamin
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org