So now the election process itself has become a parody of USA Today?
This is absurdity. If you have sufficient concerns about specific
candidates say so. I would hope people who care enough about the issue
to be interested in learning people's positions could do so without
visual aids.
Jeandré du Toit wrote:
I've uploaded a screencap
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wmf-2007-07-elections-ads.png>
of a chart I made with
openOffice.org Calc with my interpretations of
the board candidate answers about the use of ads on foundation
projects. I'd appreciate comments on the whether I should link to it
from the talk pages of
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advertisements>,
<http://tinyurl.com/2ouwzw>, and
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_against_advertisements>;
or delete the image.
Cons: Like the divisive political and financial ethics userboxes, it
may create some ugly factionalizing. Such summaries can reduce the
quality of discussion with dogmatic single issue flaming instead of
rational discussion.
Pros: I think more information is good, and since there are very good
contributers who'd leave if ads are displayed I think it's worth the
new discussion that the chart may produce for this dealbreaker issue.
It's meta enough that I think the en.wikip userboxes problem doesn't
really apply here.