I d really love to have a simple voting right without exceptions, simple to explain. This than could be adopted as well by chapters and thematic orgs to distinguish between active and other members. I.e. have a number of billable contributions to Wikipedia or commons or be a registered developer. To make it an incentive more to contribute.
Rupert On Oct 6, 2014 1:55 PM, "Lodewijk" lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Do you know which users were among these 534? Would it be possible to randomly approach 20-30 of them and ask why they didn't vote? It would be helpful to learn, I guess. This is, assuming such a mini-survey was not attempted yet.
Best, Lodewijk
2014-10-06 8:46 GMT+02:00 James Alexander jalexander@wikimedia.org:
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 5:12 AM, James Alexander <
jalexander@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
A completely un deduped (and so is double+ counting anyone who is
eligible
on multiple wikis because of activity there) number is 207911 for 2013.
Caveats:
This number is quick and dirty and 'reasonable' as a starting point but far from perfect, among other things:
- It doesn't include 100% of the staff or developers, only the staff
who had staff rights or asked and developers who asked because they couldn't vote in other ways). This is a relatively small amount of
missing
people.
- It still includes bots and blocked users, because that was checked
later in the process. I, again, think this is a relatively small
amount
given number of bots + blocked users with more then 300 edits
relative to
the total. It is possible some of the bots are very active across
the
board
though which will be helped by the de dupping.
- It is not de dupped meaning it double+ counts people who were
active
on many wikis or accounts, sometimes a lot (for example there are 7
entries
for my personal account, 7 for my work account, and 69 for the
steward
DerHexer given global work). Sorting through the crap that the
script
spat
out is more then I'm willing to do at 5am but I will try to do this
later
today and get this number down. My guess is this is in the 10k
range.
So I was wrong about the extent of the de duplication. In the end there were about *50124* unique people marked off on the voter list (again,
like
above, that does still include some bots/blocked on multiple wiki users
but
they are only counted once each) so call it 50k.
Using that number:
- With a total of 1809 valid votes that is about a 3.6% turnout.
- We know that another 534 people authenticated to vote but did not
actually cast a valid vote (and so most likely left after seeing the ballot)[1]. That would account for an additional 1%
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Post_mor...
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe