It is very very important that everyone vote.
I personally strongly strongly support the candidacies of Oscar and Mindspillage.
Oscar is an amazing Dutch Wikipedian with strong support from that community but who does not have broad exposure in the English Wikipedia... I hope we can change that by introducing him to people.
Mindspillage is Mindspillage. We all know and love her. Give her some votes.
There are other candidates, some good, but at least some of them are entirely unacceptable because they have proven themselves repeatedly unable to work well with the community.
Please, everyone, vote... and vote for people who you can know and trust and care about as human beings.
I invite an open discussion here of the candidates. This is your community, speak openly of who you trust and why.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
It is very very important that everyone vote.
I personally strongly strongly support the candidacies of Oscar and Mindspillage.
Oscar is an amazing Dutch Wikipedian with strong support from that community but who does not have broad exposure in the English Wikipedia... I hope we can change that by introducing him to people.
Mindspillage is Mindspillage. We all know and love her. Give her some votes.
There are other candidates, some good, but at least some of them are entirely unacceptable because they have proven themselves repeatedly unable to work well with the community.
Please, everyone, vote... and vote for people who you can know and trust and care about as human beings.
I invite an open discussion here of the candidates. This is your community, speak openly of who you trust and why.
--Jimbo
Hoi, Where you assume that Oscar needs introduction because of him being little known in the English Wikipedia, the same is true for Mindspillage. She is not well known outside of the English Wikipedia. You did both Oscar and Mindspillage a disservice by not properly introducing either.
Where you state that some are "entirely unacceptable", you forget that democracy is about the electorate choosing it's champions. It is said that an electorate gets the representation that it deserves. It is for the people that are elected and who are not elected to work together. When this is entirely unacceptable, the notion of people being elected and being able and allowed to make a difference in that role will not be fulfilled. It will be a mockery of democracy.
When a person is to be chosen for the board of the Wikimedia Foundation, it has been said that it is extremely important that the notion of the WMF being about the English Wikipedia is a false notion. I am afraid that you damaged Mindspillage by portraying her as an English Wikipedia person. I think all candidates that focus on Wikipedia in their statements disqualify themselves as the Wikimedia Foundation is NOT about Wikipedia.
Thanks, GerardM
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Where you assume that Oscar needs introduction because of him being little known in the English Wikipedia, the same is true for Mindspillage. She is not well known outside of the English Wikipedia. You did both Oscar and Mindspillage a disservice by not properly introducing either.
Yes! Well, I hope that others can do a better job than I can. :)
Where you state that some are "entirely unacceptable", you forget that democracy is about the electorate choosing it's champions.
Not at all. I meant that some of the candidates are entirely unacceptable _from the point of view of the active Wikimedia community_.
When a person is to be chosen for the board of the Wikimedia Foundation, it has been said that it is extremely important that the notion of the WMF being about the English Wikipedia is a false notion. I am afraid that you damaged Mindspillage by portraying her as an English Wikipedia person. I think all candidates that focus on Wikipedia in their statements disqualify themselves as the Wikimedia Foundation is NOT about Wikipedia.
No, I did not mean to imply that. She is very very famous in the English Wikipedia, but she is much more than that. I do not think it should count against her that she is an English Wikipedian. :)
--Jimbo
On 16 Sep 2006, at 08:01, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I invite an open discussion here of the candidates. This is your community, speak openly of who you trust and why.
Well, I'll start off then.
One of the candidates I support is Kim Bruning. He has been willing to honestly engage in a detailed discussion about "free" on Wikipedia and look into my suggestions on improving the encyclopaedia with an open mind. (Some discussions, for example, on your talk page.)
One of the candidates I do not support is Kelly Martin. My first experiences of her was her call for my banning on my RfA based on incorrect premise, followed by failure to amend this call when given proof of her misunderstanding. It must be said that my recent experiences have been more positive though.
On 9/16/06, Stephen Streater sbstreater@mac.com wrote:
On 16 Sep 2006, at 08:01, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I invite an open discussion here of the candidates. This is your community, speak openly of who you trust and why.
Well, I'll start off then.
One of the candidates I support is Kim Bruning. He has been willing to honestly engage in a detailed discussion about "free" on Wikipedia and look into my suggestions on improving the encyclopaedia with an open mind. (Some discussions, for example, on your talk page.)
I very much endorse this view. Kim Bruning has ever been thoughtful. I have never seen or heard him step wrong in any substantial matter.
On 16 Sep 2006, at 12:32, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
On 9/16/06, Stephen Streater sbstreater@mac.com wrote:
On 16 Sep 2006, at 08:01, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I invite an open discussion here of the candidates. This is your community, speak openly of who you trust and why.
Well, I'll start off then.
One of the candidates I support is Kim Bruning. He has been willing to honestly engage in a detailed discussion about "free" on Wikipedia and look into my suggestions on improving the encyclopaedia with an open mind. (Some discussions, for example, on your talk page.)
I very much endorse this view. Kim Bruning has ever been thoughtful. I have never seen or heard him step wrong in any substantial matter.
WP:BITE is pretty important, as it helps shape the attitude of every new member. So you are on my yes list.
Another No from me is Linuxbeak - I don't know him except to know he holds lots of senior posts, but he hasn't replied to this query from August: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk% 3ALinuxbeak&diff=422106&oldid=421209 which is not what I look for in someone who is planning to represent me.
On 9/16/06, Stephen Streater sbstreater@mac.com wrote:
On 16 Sep 2006, at 08:01, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I invite an open discussion here of the candidates. This is your community, speak openly of who you trust and why.
Well, I'll start off then.
I've missed a week of mail. What was the spur for this thread? Was there a sudden drop in candidate discussions online? A rise in disendorsement? An announcement of election results?
I recall discussions of a more general nature -- involving input from the candidates -- the week that voting started. Those never quite got off the ground... I suppose we could start building ad-hoc trust networks now to identify statistically-sound community reps for the future, but is this the way to go? (are trust nets in use anywhere any more on de:wp?)
I do wish that more wikimedians -- candidates and community members, in and out of election-time -- would write more often about their interests and concerns, in ways that support direct comparison and editing of one anothers' writing. One of the strengths of wikis as media for conversations is how powerfully they allow subtle point-by-point disagreement without requiring* the rhetorical dance of ad hominems and clashing sweeping statements.
SJ
* ad hominems and sweeping statements are still allowed, but not required; and regularly lose out to persistent subtle discourse. Of course more memorable cases may be those where they do not...
--
Since you can tick as many as you like, I ticked 'yes' on any that I knew to be reasonably clueful, and not just on en: Wikipedia.
You can go back and vote again if you change your mind before deadline.
- d.
On 9/16/06, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
My personal strong feeling is that instead of choosing one appointed member, the board should appoint two, and appoint them as *permanent*, life members of the board . Daniel Mayer and Angela Beesley.
Please, no... I left for a reason. Well, about 10 reasons actually. I'm very pleased I won't be doing this in a week's time. :)
On 9/16/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I invite an open discussion here of the candidates. This is your community, speak openly of who you trust and why.
My view on who should be elected is already public, but for those who don't read meta, I believe Erik is the only candidate capable of having any positive influence within the current Board. Later, when that Board is expanded and the continuous internal conflicts are resolved, I would agree that Mindspillage and Oscar may be good candidates in future. I would also trust Steve Dunlop and Juan David Ruiz in the role, but right now - Erik is what the Board and Foundation needs.
It's very long, but well worth reading if you're serious about your vote: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Eloquence/Platform_2006
I strongly support this platform and as I said at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Eloquence/Endorse_2006 I believe Erik is the best candidate to represent the community in the development of the Wikimedia Foundation over the coming year. Erik has shown a continued commitment, not only to Wikipedia but to the Wikimedia Foundation as a whole. Erik's commitment to the sort of openness that will ensure the community will have an influence in ensuring the Foundation meets its goals makes me happy to endorse him as the person to replace me on the Board.
Angela
On 16 Sep 2006, at 11:18, Angela wrote:
My view on who should be elected is already public, but for those who don't read meta, I believe Erik is the only candidate capable of having any positive influence within the current Board. Later, when that Board is expanded and the continuous internal conflicts are resolved, I would agree that Mindspillage and Oscar may be good candidates in future. I would also trust Steve Dunlop and Juan David Ruiz in the role, but right now - Erik is what the Board and Foundation needs.
It's very long, but well worth reading if you're serious about your vote: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Eloquence/Platform_2006
I strongly support this platform and as I said at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Eloquence/Endorse_2006 I believe Erik is the best candidate to represent the community in the development of the Wikimedia Foundation over the coming year. Erik has shown a continued commitment, not only to Wikipedia but to the Wikimedia Foundation as a whole. Erik's commitment to the sort of openness that will ensure the community will have an influence in ensuring the Foundation meets its goals makes me happy to endorse him as the person to replace me on the Board.
That's lucky - I had already voted for him :-)
Well, as we are talking about this... the person I feel is the best candidate, and who I have just voted for, is Mindspillage.
She is someone I trust totally, to do the job well and to do it for everyone in the community. I have great respect for her, and for her ability to work with others, effectively and with diplomacy. This is a big factor in my decision, the board does not need someone who will go their own way regardless of the opinions of others.
Mindspillage is smart, hard working, thoughtful, and has a clear understanding of the foundation and it's future. I think she is the ideal candidate.
Regards,
-- sannse
Jimmy Wales wrote:
It is very very important that everyone vote.
I personally strongly strongly support the candidacies of Oscar and Mindspillage.
Oscar is an amazing Dutch Wikipedian with strong support from that community but who does not have broad exposure in the English Wikipedia... I hope we can change that by introducing him to people.
Mindspillage is Mindspillage. We all know and love her. Give her some votes.
There are other candidates, some good, but at least some of them are entirely unacceptable because they have proven themselves repeatedly unable to work well with the community.
Please, everyone, vote... and vote for people who you can know and trust and care about as human beings.
I invite an open discussion here of the candidates. This is your community, speak openly of who you trust and why.
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 9/16/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
It is very very important that everyone vote.
Yes, absolutely.
I personally strongly strongly support the candidacies of Oscar and Mindspillage.
I think that's a very important, and valuable, statement. I am on the record as stating that the majority of any future expanded Board should be elected by the community (possibly through a membership model, but not necessarily so). However, in that model, sitting Board members can provide balance and reason by endorsing particular candidacies. Angela has endorsed me, and I think it is vital for you, Anthere and Michael to also share your views on the candidates.
I don't think a public, cross-posted mailing list thread is necessarily the best way to do so, as it might turn into an exchange of negativity. In the future, perhaps each candidate statement should have a "slot" for endorsements. That way, Board members and others could easily make their opinions known.
I for one welcome and encourage questions and comments about my candidacy at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eloquence/Platform_2006
For those who do not wish to vote for me, I support the candidacies of Arnomane, Mindspillage, AaronSw, and UninvitedCompany. I do not support Oscar at this point in time; even though he is a very pleasant and experienced person, I think his skills are primarily in the area of diplomacy and negotiation, and will be more useful when the Board is larger and the structures of the Foundation have stabilized. However, I will probably support him for an expanded Board.
The voting system used in this election, approval voting, allows anyone to vote for as many candidates as they want, and I would be pleased to receive the support of you, the reader. I would also be happy if one of the other candidates listed above won, as I think that each one of them will do a great job at representing and helping to run and oversee the Foundation in this critical period of its history.
On 16 Sep 2006, at 18:05, Erik Moeller wrote:
On 9/16/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
It is very very important that everyone vote.
Yes, absolutely.
I personally strongly strongly support the candidacies of Oscar and Mindspillage.
I think that's a very important, and valuable, statement. I am on the record as stating that the majority of any future expanded Board should be elected by the community (possibly through a membership model, but not necessarily so). However, in that model, sitting Board members can provide balance and reason by endorsing particular candidacies. Angela has endorsed me, and I think it is vital for you, Anthere and Michael to also share your views on the candidates.
I don't think a public, cross-posted mailing list thread is necessarily the best way to do so, as it might turn into an exchange of negativity. In the future, perhaps each candidate statement should have a "slot" for endorsements. That way, Board members and others could easily make their opinions known.
I would also like to see a list of endorsements in the statements.
I think now (by chance perhaps) all the people I have voted for have posted here. I'm sure there are some excellent candidates amongst the others, but I have not had experience of them. Perhaps with more experience here I will know them, but in the mean time, I will constrain my votes to the people I like and know.
If I may add my personal opinion, I do not think that it was appropriate for Jimmy to declare public support for any candidate. Here's why: In some sense, Jimmy's role is to be an impartial adjudicator, facilitating to a great extent the views of the community, although obviously also keeping the greater good of Wikipedia in mind. In some ways, indeed, one might draw an analogy between this and a hypothetical situation where the monarch encouraged the electorate to vote one way or the other. Just my $0.02.
On 16 Sep 2006, at 19:18, David Mestel wrote:
If I may add my personal opinion, I do not think that it was appropriate for Jimmy to declare public support for any candidate. Here's why: In some sense, Jimmy's role is to be an impartial adjudicator, facilitating to a great extent the views of the community, although obviously also keeping the greater good of Wikipedia in mind. In some ways, indeed, one might draw an analogy between this and a hypothetical situation where the monarch encouraged the electorate to vote one way or the other. Just my $0.02.
I'd rather have more information than less. The more people who disucss this election, the more informed the eventual decision will be.
On 16/09/06, Stephen Streater sbstreater@mac.com wrote:
I'd rather have more information than less. The more people who disucss this election, the more informed the eventual decision will be.
It's a fair point, but I nonetheless feel that my analogy still stands - if the monarch endorsed one candidate, that would also mean more people discussing the election.
David Mestel wrote:
If I may add my personal opinion, I do not think that it was appropriate for Jimmy to declare public support for any candidate. Here's why: In some sense, Jimmy's role is to be an impartial adjudicator, facilitating to a great extent the views of the community, although obviously also keeping the greater good of Wikipedia in mind. In some ways, indeed, one might draw an analogy between this and a hypothetical situation where the monarch encouraged the electorate to vote one way or the other. Just my $0.02.
I think it is a crucial information with whom of the candidates the current board members see themselves able to work with. The impression I got when I was involved in foundation work was that several board members don't get along very well with some of the candidates. Everyone should be able to imagine the consequences.
greetings, elian
David Mestel wrote:
If I may add my personal opinion, I do not think that it was appropriate for Jimmy to declare public support for any candidate. Here's why: In some sense, Jimmy's role is to be an impartial adjudicator, facilitating to a great extent the views of the community, although obviously also keeping the greater good of Wikipedia in mind. In some ways, indeed, one might draw an analogy between this and a hypothetical situation where the monarch encouraged the electorate to vote one way or the other. Just my $0.02.
I understand and appreciate this point. In general, I try not to speak on such matters. In this case, though, I think we have a unique opportunity.
--Jimbo
On 9/16/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I understand and appreciate this point. In general, I try not to speak
on such matters. In this case, though, I think we have a unique opportunity.
I agree that in the past, given your position, you have been rather wise to keep your opinions in check, as difficult as that must have been. This approach has worked phenomenally well toward creating vast amounts of good will within the community.
That said, it is my humble view that Eloquence is by far the most qualified - in every respect - and even a cursory look at look at his five-year-long Wikipedia rap sheet will make that plain.
I have not till now communicated this to him or anyone else, so its gratifying to see Angela and others reply to this thread in his support, even if it goes somewhat against the establishment. It is my sincere belief the board needs someone who can speak for the open public interest, and that Erik very much has his finger on the pulse in that regard. Always has.
Sincerely, -sv.
PS: I dont understand what "unique opportunity" is supposed to mean in this context.
On 9/16/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I understand and appreciate this point. In general, I try not to speak
on such matters. In this case, though, I think we have a unique opportunity.
I agree that in the past, given your position, you have been rather wise to keep your opinions in check, as difficult as that must have been. This approach has worked phenomenally well toward creating vast amounts of good will within the community.
That said, it is my humble view that Eloquence is by far the most qualified - in every respect - and even a cursory look at look at his five-year-long Wikipedia rap sheet will make that plain.
I have not till now communicated this to him or anyone else, so its gratifying to see Angela and others reply to this thread in his support, even if it goes somewhat against the establishment. It is my sincere belief the board needs someone who can speak for the open public interest, and that Erik very much has his finger on the pulse in that regard. Always has.
Sincerely, -sv.
PS: I dont understand what "unique opportunity" is supposed to mean in this context.
On 17 Sep 2006, at 09:08, stvrtg wrote:
On 9/16/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I understand and appreciate this point. In general, I try not to speak
on such matters. In this case, though, I think we have a unique opportunity.
That said, it is my humble view that Eloquence is by far the most qualified
- in every respect - and even a cursory look at look at his five-
year-long Wikipedia rap sheet will make that plain.
It is conceivable that there is more than one appropriate candidate. I don't see any reason not to have more than one elected.
I voted for three people who I felt would be the best and most-qualified: there is one who I think is the most qualified, and two who are about equal. I wonder if I am doing my first choice user a disservice by voting for the other two, and instead just vote for the one who I think is the clear frontrunner.
DP
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Maybe I might be considered evil, but I have no familiarity with a sizeable number of the candidates, so I just identified the candidates I knew I definitely did NOT want (there were three) and voted for everyone else. That was a much more effective way of contributing to the outcome I wanted (ie to stop my three un-preferred candidates from winning) than arbitrarily picking a particular candidate (or candidates).
Cynical
On 9/18/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
I voted for three people who I felt would be the best and most-qualified: there is one who I think is the most qualified, and two who are about equal. I wonder if I am doing my first choice user a disservice by voting for the other two, and instead just vote for the one who I think is the clear frontrunner.
Based on the counts in the previous elections a huge number of people only supported one... In my discussions with people I found that many that supported only one in the election actually thought that multiple would have done an okay job, but either didn't understand or didn't feel comfortable with the approval voting process.
For each person like you who used the approval process correctly there will probably be four who tried to game it by only picking their first choice.
Based on the power lawish distribution of approval in the last election, it's safe to say that your first choice is likely the same as a lot of other people's first choice.... so your preference is still represented even if you approved multiple people.
It's unfortunate that we're using an approval vote when it appears that most of our voters view it as something else.
On 9/18/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/18/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
I voted for three people who I felt would be the best and
most-qualified:
there is one who I think is the most qualified, and two who are about
equal.
I wonder if I am doing my first choice user a disservice by voting for
the
other two, and instead just vote for the one who I think is the clear frontrunner.
Based on the counts in the previous elections a huge number of people only supported one... In my discussions with people I found that many that supported only one in the election actually thought that multiple would have done an okay job, but either didn't understand or didn't feel comfortable with the approval voting process.
For each person like you who used the approval process correctly there will probably be four who tried to game it by only picking their first choice.
Based on the power lawish distribution of approval in the last election, it's safe to say that your first choice is likely the same as a lot of other people's first choice.... so your preference is still represented even if you approved multiple people.
It's unfortunate that we're using an approval vote when it appears that most of our voters view it as something else.
Ah, then I'll leave my votes as is. :-) Based on your comments above, it would seem that Cynical nailed this down perfectly: he singled out three people who wouldn't be good, and approved of everyone else.
DP
On 9/18/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, then I'll leave my votes as is. :-) Based on your comments above, it would seem that Cynical nailed this down perfectly: he singled out three people who wouldn't be good, and approved of everyone else.
Thats really more like an approval vote should be used... it's an admission that the world is a complex place and that we can't say that X is better than Y, but that we can say the Z just won't work.
I suspect that the approval vote process would be better if there were multiple open seats,... at least mathmatically a multi seat election is more fair... but I also think the voting public would be less likely to try to game it.
Oh well.. I don't look forward to another round of elections should we decide to pull from the community for the expanded board seats.
On 9/18/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/18/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
I voted for three people who I felt would be the best and
most-qualified:
there is one who I think is the most qualified, and two who are about
equal.
I wonder if I am doing my first choice user a disservice by voting for
the
other two, and instead just vote for the one who I think is the clear frontrunner.
Based on the counts in the previous elections a huge number of people only supported one... In my discussions with people I found that many that supported only one in the election actually thought that multiple would have done an okay job, but either didn't understand or didn't feel comfortable with the approval voting process.
I'm one of those who are not familiar with this voting process. When I looked at the candidates, there were a few I did not want to win, a couple that I thought would be ok, one that I favored, and a whole bunch that I had no opinion on. So I voted for the one I favored and the couple I thought would be ok.
Does that seem like a sensible approach?
(Really wanting to be educated...)
-Rich [[W:en:User:Rholton]]
On 18 Sep 2006, at 16:49, Death Phoenix wrote:
I voted for three people who I felt would be the best and most- qualified: there is one who I think is the most qualified, and two who are about equal. I wonder if I am doing my first choice user a disservice by voting for the other two, and instead just vote for the one who I think is the clear frontrunner.
Have a look at [[Single_Transferable_Vote]]. It avoids this problem.
On 9/18/06, Stephen Streater sbstreater@mac.com wrote:
On 18 Sep 2006, at 16:49, Death Phoenix wrote:
I voted for three people who I felt would be the best and most- qualified: there is one who I think is the most qualified, and two who are about equal. I wonder if I am doing my first choice user a disservice by voting for the other two, and instead just vote for the one who I think is the clear frontrunner.
Have a look at [[Single_Transferable_Vote]]. It avoids this problem.
Yes, it does, but if it's not in this particular election, then it's useless to me in the context of my vote in this election. ;-)
DP
On 16/09/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I understand and appreciate this point. In general, I try not to speak on such matters. In this case, though, I think we have a unique opportunity.
--Jimbo
Fair enough.
On 9/16/06, David Mestel david.mestel@gmail.com wrote:
If I may add my personal opinion, I do not think that it was appropriate for Jimmy to declare public support for any candidate. Here's why: In some sense, Jimmy's role is to be an impartial adjudicator, facilitating to a great extent the views of the community, although obviously also keeping the greater good of Wikipedia in mind. In some ways, indeed, one might draw an analogy between this and a hypothetical situation where the monarch encouraged the electorate to vote one way or the other. Just my $0.02.
I think people are better informed hearing what he has to say on the subject, just as people are better informed hearing the opinions of any respected and experienced user. Granted, he has a bigger pulpit than most, but I don't see anything inappropriate here. I don't see any pressing need for him to appear, or actually be, neutral here and I'm not sure what would be served by it.