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.
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.
On 6/26/07, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Sorry. I've tagged it for speedy deletion G6.
I asked here because my position on summaries being good was also rejected at another site: I was burned by those admins for linking to the opensecrets page for a famous person and the voting history for the person they contributed to.
Don't be so easily discouraged; I thought it was interesting. Hard to quantify positions like that, of course. I'd prefer a table with quotes from the Q&A page.
On 6/26/07, Jeandré du Toit jackdt@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/26/07, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Sorry. I've tagged it for speedy deletion G6.
I asked here because my position on summaries being good was also rejected at another site: I was burned by those admins for linking to the opensecrets page for a famous person and the voting history for the person they contributed to. -- User:Jeandré du Toit
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I would rather that as well, Erik. I just thought it trivialized what is a significant issue. ('it' being a graphic depicting...well, I'm not sure what it was depicting.)
This should be a discursive process, imo.
Erik Moeller wrote:
Don't be so easily discouraged; I thought it was interesting. Hard to quantify positions like that, of course. I'd prefer a table with quotes from the Q&A page.
On 6/26/07, Jeandré du Toit jackdt@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/26/07, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Sorry. I've tagged it for speedy deletion G6.
I asked here because my position on summaries being good was also rejected at another site: I was burned by those admins for linking to the opensecrets page for a famous person and the voting history for the person they contributed to. -- User:Jeandré du Toit
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
It is tough to see comments on something which is no more visible :-(
ant
Brad Patrick wrote:
I would rather that as well, Erik. I just thought it trivialized what is a significant issue. ('it' being a graphic depicting...well, I'm not sure what it was depicting.)
This should be a discursive process, imo.
Erik Moeller wrote:
Don't be so easily discouraged; I thought it was interesting. Hard to quantify positions like that, of course. I'd prefer a table with quotes from the Q&A page.
On 6/26/07, Jeandré du Toit jackdt@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/26/07, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Sorry. I've tagged it for speedy deletion G6.
I asked here because my position on summaries being good was also rejected at another site: I was burned by those admins for linking to the opensecrets page for a famous person and the voting history for the person they contributed to. -- User:Jeandré du Toit
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I don't understand where the numbers come from.
On 6/25/07, Jeandré du Toit jackdt@gmail.com 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. -- User:Jeandré du Toit
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
The idea of summarising candidate statements on a subject is a good one, but it needs to be done objectively. Assigning numerical values to other people's opinions is extremely subjective, and I think has a net negative impact on the election.
Hoi, Single issue politics are often only divisive. In this presentation people who have added a template on their user page on one project are compared. It is hardly relevant because as long as there are alternatives to advertisements, adverts will not happen.
There are many more issues that have a much more dramatic impact on our projects like that are not addressed with as much attention..
- the role of chapters on the Foundation - the role of chapters on the projects - how to handle issues with communities where there is no clear communication happening because of culture or language - how to maintain core values in all the language versions of our projects - how to raise sufficient funding needed to sustain our projects - how to partner with other organisations - how to ensure proper working relations between the board, personnel chapters and communities - how to define the bands of acceptable behaviour for a community
Thanks, GerardM
On 6/26/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The idea of summarising candidate statements on a subject is a good one, but it needs to be done objectively. Assigning numerical values to other people's opinions is extremely subjective, and I think has a net negative impact on the election.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org