On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 5:45 PM Mike Peel <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/Candidates/Table
- 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/
- 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/Elections#Tools_for_examining_candidates
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Elections#Tools_for_examining_candidates>
>
> 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@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/Candidates#Candidates_Compass:_One_statement,_all_answers>
> 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@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>> wrote:
>
> Additionally, we are piloting a so-called “Election Compass
> <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@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/message/ORUIO7XSLVBBW57GIVPG53LJA3CIBNDG/
> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/ORUIO7XSLVBBW57GIVPG53LJA3CIBNDG/>
> 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 at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/KKNSAX5FKNUYRRKIZQJZP4OAURUN2JZ5/
> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/KKNSAX5FKNUYRRKIZQJZP4OAURUN2JZ5/>
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> 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>
> WEB: 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>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/message/PHJ3SYO6B4ILQ4N5YRMNJ6UYLLGGORPX/
> 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/message/2L4RG5H6XAQ2YPF3NMS4XZDGKQWJPFTD/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org