Cool. How do we find those pages from the advertised
tools? Were they
shared here before (sorry if I missed them), or can we still vote on
them somewhere?
The underlying problem is that we ended up with 70+ candidates for the
MCDC. We were allowed up to 400 words for our statements, so there is a lot
to work through. In a case like that, there's a tendency to only vote for
people you know, or only based on regional representation, or tenure, or
something similar. The Compass was an imperfect tool, and one that was put
together in response to the problem of too much participation (after all,
there was uncertainty initially as to whether 19 people would actually put
their names forward).
I think there was a week at the end of September when people could
suggest statements (the final tally was 108). After that there was
another week in which people were able to vote for the statements they
wanted the candidates to answer. Not everyone got it right - there were
some responses that made it clear that some people were voting based on
their own opinions about the statement, rather than what they wanted to
hear.
Once they were narrowed down, Cornelius created a Google sheet where the
candidates were able to give our opinions on the statements, based on a
five-point scale. We were also able to add up to 500 characters clarifying
our stances. (These were interesting, because it's obvious that some people
who voted "support" and some who voted "oppose" had pretty much the
same
opinion, once you allowed for nuance.
After that the Compass tool was created. But even that output is too much
to parse. I put together a Google sheet for myself, where I could split
people into arbitrary groups - for example, only 54 people gave their
opinions on the compass, so I decided to separate those from the rest of
the group. I also split Europe/US/Canada from the rest of the world because
I want to make sure that I wasn't too biased by *who* I knew well. Being
able to sort people by tenure (thanks to Andrew's table) also allows me to
be more cogniscent of my biases (as an old-timer, I'm likely to gravitate
to people just because I've seen them around for the last 17 years).
Dusan's tool is great because it lets you compare responses to individual
questions, and lets you see the explanatory statements. Again, as I work my
way through the list and try to decide between people it helps me check
responses to individual questions.
I think confirmation bias would be to pick people you know and like (or and
maybe not like so much, but think the committee could use some
bomb-throwers). I'm grateful for the tools and summaries that people have
created. Now if there was only some way to compare pairs of candidate
statements side-by-side
Ian
Or would it be fairer now to the candidates to let
their statements
stand alone and for people to vote based on those alone, rather than
trying to provide 'advanced tools' that are intrinsically biased?
Thanks,
Mike
On 15/10/21 22:51:21, Guettarda wrote:
Hi Mike
The questions were selected from this list:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Electio…
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Electio…
People voted and the top ones were chosen. (A few near-duplicates that
ranked at the top were combined by Cornelius, iirc). The raw data
underlying both the Compass and Dusan's tool are here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Electio…
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Electio…
Ian
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 5:45 PM Mike Peel <email(a)mikepeel.net
<mailto:email@mikepeel.net>> wrote:
Both of these seem like a fantastic way to support your intrinsic
biases.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candida…
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candida…
- this supports your language or editor start date bias. Since you
are
limited to ordering by
name/username/region/languages/wiki/editor
since.
https://krehel.sk/Candidates_Drafting_Committee_Movement_Charter_Statements/
<
https://krehel.sk/Candidates_Drafting_Committee_Movement_Charter_Statements/
> - this seems to support selected question answers (from where?) and
> encourages you to vote based on other people's views that decide on
> their rankings (which aren't publicly available)? (Try ordering by
Q2 -
> or looking up where Q6 was posted).
>
> We need better tools to help voters. Neither of these tools do that.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> On 15/10/21 22:32:15, Andrew Lih wrote:
> > To echo Risker, I'd encourage the use of more advanced tools by
> voters.
> > On meta, I've pointed to the two tools that hopefully help:
> >
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/El…
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/El…
> >
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/El…
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/El…
The links point to:
- A table of all the factual information supplied by the
candidates in a
> wiki table, in which each column is sortable.
> - A browsable interface to all the compass questions and
responses,
providing
much better candidate comparisons. An issue Adam
brought up is
that there may not be a good understanding of the
variance in the
answers of candidates. For that reason, this tool is valuable in
showing
> that the following questions had the most diverse responses and
are
likely to
be the most useful for voters to examine directly.
6 - limit the role of WMF to "keep the servers running"
11 - democratic governance structure
20 - new forms of knowledge representation
24 - regional elections
27 - "counter-voice"
45 - "percentage of movement money" to be allocated
92 - ratification from all
I'd encourage voters to experiment with these tools.
-Andrew
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 9:39 AM Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com
<mailto:risker.wp@gmail.com>
<mailto:risker.wp@gmail.com
<mailto:risker.wp@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Adam, you may find the tool discussed here
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Ca…
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Ca…
to be helpful. It is created by one of the candidates, is
based on
> the information submitted by candidates for the election
compass,
and
is quite visual. (Disclosure: I am also a candidate.)
I'd also suggest that the written answers illustrate the
differences
between candidates a little more specifically
than the general
five-point compass. Perhaps, also, part of the reason that
there's
some consensus amongst candidates (at least
on the surface)
is that
they could be representative of a pretty
broad consensus
throughout
the global community on some points.
Risker/Anne
On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 at 09:26, Adam Wight
<adam.m.wight(a)gmail.com
<mailto:adam.m.wight@gmail.com>
<mailto:adam.m.wight@gmail.com
<mailto:adam.m.wight@gmail.com>>> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 12:02 PM Kaarel Vaidla
<kvaidla(a)wikimedia.org <mailto:kvaidla@wikimedia.org>
<mailto:kvaidla@wikimedia.org <mailto:kvaidla@wikimedia.org>>>
wrote:
Additionally, we are piloting a so-called “Election
Compass
<https://mcdc-election-compass.toolforge.org/
<https://mcdc-election-compass.toolforge.org/>>” for this
election. Click yourself through the
tool and respond
to the
19 statements, and you will see which
candidate is
closest
to you!
Hi, thank you for facilitating this process and for
sharing the
> interesting "election compass" experiment. After trying
the
tool, I urge you to take it offline. Its algorithm is
opaque,
and in my opinion very unlikely to give a
helpful
result. It's
explicitly meant to influence how we
vote, but without us
having
done any validation of what it's
actually calculating.
If you
want to test this tool, you could
position it as an "exit
poll",
> to compare the tool's results with how each person
actually
> voted, or you could turn off
the "alignment" scoring.
>
> My suspicions started with the fact that I answered
"strongly
support" or "support" to almost every question, which
suggests
> that the axes were not chosen in a way that differentiates
> between the candidates. Instead, it seems like it's
going
to
amplify tiny differences like "strongly" vs "support"—is
this true?
>
> Was the tool analyzed with this sort of concern in mind?
Are
there reasons to believe that the "alignment" scores are
meaningful in our scenario?
Kind regards,
Adam Wight
[[mw:User:Adamw]]
Writing in my volunteer capacity.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list --
wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:
wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>>, guidelines at:
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines>
> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines>> and
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l>
> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l>>
> > Public archives at
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
<
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
<
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
>>
> > To unsubscribe send an email to
> > wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org>>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>>, guidelines at:
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines>
> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines>> and
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l>
> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l>>
> > Public archives at
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
<
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
<
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
To unsubscribe send an email to
wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org>
<mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org>>
--
-Andrew Lih
Author of The Wikipedia Revolution
US National Archives Citizen Archivist of the Year (2016)
Knight Foundation grant recipient - Wikipedia Space (2015)
Wikimedia DC - Outreach and GLAM
Previously: professor of journalism and communications, American
University, Columbia University, USC
---
Email: andrew(a)andrewlih.com <mailto:andrew@andrewlih.com>
<mailto:andrew@andrewlih.com <mailto:andrew@andrewlih.com>>
<https://muckrack.com/fuzheado> <https://muckrack.com/fuzheado
<https://muckrack.com/fuzheado>>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WPSPACE>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WPSPACE
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WPSPACE>>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l>
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
<
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
To unsubscribe send an email to
wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l>
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
<
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
>
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@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