This is a horribly problematic election. Not only does it take hours to go through the candidates if you actually want to rank them, but you would also need to be willing to spend about a lot of time to enter them into the broken voting interface (which works great for up to 5 candidates - not for 70).
If anyone is planning to go through anyway - after some experimenting i found out that the silly random order of the ballot dropdown (making it impossible to find the candidate to input) can be worked around by clicking the dropdown, and then typing their first letter several times until the right candidate is selected. Then hit enter.
This interface was non-userfriendly with the board elections but for this election it is prohibitively so. With this number of candidates, a 7-member district would have been much more userfriendly (even if it is suboptimal from the perspective of a mathematical modeling).
Lodewijk
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 3:34 PM Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 6:04 PM Mike Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
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/Election...
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Election...
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/Election...
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Election...
Ian
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 5:45 PM Mike Peel <email@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/Candidat...
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidat...
- this supports your language or editor start date bias. Since youare
limited to ordering by name/username/region/languages/wiki/editorsince.
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 byQ2 -
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/Ele...
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Ele...
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Ele...
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Ele...
> > 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 andresponses,
> 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 andare
> 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@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/Can... < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Can...
> to be helpful. It is created by one of the candidates, is based on > the information submitted by candidates for the electioncompass,
> 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 thegeneral
> 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@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@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 tryingthe
> 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 personactually
> 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 thatdifferentiates
> between the candidates. Instead, it seems like it'sgoing to
> amplify tiny differences like "strongly" vs "support"—is this true? > > Was the tool analyzed with this sort of concern inmind? 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@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@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@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@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@andrewlih.com <mailto:andrew@andrewlih.com> <mailto:andrew@andrewlih.com <mailto:andrew@andrewlih.com>> > WEB: https://muckrack.com/fuzheado <https://muckrack.com/fuzheado> <https://muckrack.com/fuzheado <https://muckrack.com/fuzheado>> > PROJECT: Wikipedia Space:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WPSPACE
<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@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 athttps://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@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- 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> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> Public archives athttps://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@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org>
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org