Hello all, thank you for your help and interest as usual, now we close candidate accepting. I hope we can release soon the complete list of candidates. This election gets a wide attention, and we have now close to 20 candidates. I'm really excited about that. Quicklist of candidate statement by language: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Election_translations_2006/En#Candidates
Some of those candidates came late, but I hope the Wikimedia community pay impartial attention to all those candidates. All statements will be read closely, ideally in the language most convenient for each reader, that is, each voter. Regretfully we need to admit not all voter can read those statement in the language they are most familiar with, though.
But luckily and thankfully being helped by many eager translators, some language speakers will be able to have each of those statements in their own languages - or not. It depends on our volunteering staff, and if you are multilingual, you can help it. Your translation will help your friends in your community and help assuring the neutrality and impartiality of this coming Election. I think no one will be happy if some candidates have their statements in multiple language, and others have only in few, or some language speaker voters can read what a certain candidate think and promise, but need to rely on machine translation or a language version which is obscure for them at all. I want to pursue the equal opportunity to the highest extent. On this Election. Not only because I am serving as officer to that, but also I believe in the equal right of us the Wikimedia editor and trust you all as collaborator to the same goal; to provide free knowledge in every potion of this planet, in every language. And voting for our community representative should be one of most significant part to pursue this goal in my opinion. And for that, we need your help, you German, Spanish, Dutch, Italian, Polish ... and many other translators.
Again, we need your help. To provide all our voters enough information consider this Election as serious as possible. As impartial as possible. And you can help us. Us the Wikimedia community, assuring it the global character, the equality - and free access to a certain knowledge: what those candidate think about our mission. So, give a look to our workspace and consider what you can do! Quicklist of candidate statement by language: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Election_translations_2006/En#Candidates
Thank you for your attention, and see later on meta.
On 8/29/06, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
Hello all, thank you for your help and interest as usual, now we close candidate accepting. I hope we can release soon the complete list of candidates. This election gets a wide attention, and we have now close to 20 candidates.
So less than a third of the total who ran in en.wikipedia's arbcom elections. Are people now going to accept that [[MediaWiki:Watchdetails]] provides enough profile for this kind of notice?
On 29-Aug-06, at 6:11 AM, geni wrote:
On 8/29/06, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
Hello all, thank you for your help and interest as usual, now we close candidate accepting. I hope we can release soon the complete list of candidates. This election gets a wide attention, and we have now close to 20 candidates.
So less than a third of the total who ran in en.wikipedia's arbcom elections. Are people now going to accept that [[MediaWiki:Watchdetails]] provides enough profile for this kind of notice?
-- geni
No.
Amgine
On 8/29/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
So less than a third of the total who ran in en.wikipedia's arbcom elections. Are people now going to accept that [[MediaWiki:Watchdetails]] provides enough profile for this kind of notice?
By your logic we would conclude that a watchlist only site notice gets higher visability than the system wide one.
On 8/29/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/29/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
So less than a third of the total who ran in en.wikipedia's arbcom elections. Are people now going to accept that [[MediaWiki:Watchdetails]] provides enough profile for this kind of notice?
By your logic we would conclude that a watchlist only site notice gets higher visability than the system wide one.
I believe Geni's logic is that there are fewer people in the Board election than in the ArbCom election, and thus that the interest in the latter is greater than in the former, justifying a less prominent notice.
At least I think that's the logic...
On 8/29/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/29/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/29/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
So less than a third of the total who ran in en.wikipedia's arbcom elections. Are people now going to accept that [[MediaWiki:Watchdetails]] provides enough profile for this kind of notice?
By your logic we would conclude that a watchlist only site notice gets higher visability than the system wide one.
I believe Geni's logic is that there are fewer people in the Board election than in the ArbCom election, and thus that the interest in the latter is greater than in the former, justifying a less prominent notice.
At least I think that's the logic...
No I'm pointing out that something that was advertised through [[MediaWiki:Watchdetails]] ended up with more than 3 times as many candidates and something that was advertised through banner ads on every single project. This provides further evidence that [[MediaWiki:Watchdetails]] is a perfectaly adiquate method for advertising things.
Incerdentaly for those following this it is now 69 days since there was 24 hours without something in [[mediawiki:Sitenotice]].
Hello,
On 8/29/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
No I'm pointing out that something that was advertised through [[MediaWiki:Watchdetails]] ended up with more than 3 times as many candidates and something that was advertised through banner ads on every single project. This provides further evidence that [[MediaWiki:Watchdetails]] is a perfectaly adiquate method for advertising things.
I deliberately put aside the debate on which notice should be used. I have my own point of view about this, but I don't have the time to split hairs.
This said, I don't really understand how you can compare the Board election and the ArbCom one. We are talking about completely different positions. Being an arbitrator has nothing to do with being a Board member, so comparing the number of candidacies of these two elections seems completely irrelevant to me.
g.
Guillaume Paumier wrote:
Hello,
On 8/29/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
No I'm pointing out that something that was advertised through [[MediaWiki:Watchdetails]] ended up with more than 3 times as many candidates and something that was advertised through banner ads on every single project. This provides further evidence that [[MediaWiki:Watchdetails]] is a perfectaly adiquate method for advertising things.
I deliberately put aside the debate on which notice should be used. I have my own point of view about this, but I don't have the time to split hairs.
This said, I don't really understand how you can compare the Board election and the ArbCom one. We are talking about completely different positions. Being an arbitrator has nothing to do with being a Board member, so comparing the number of candidacies of these two elections seems completely irrelevant to me.
g.
Besides, ArbCom is/was an en: only thing and Board election is pan-project.
Filip
On 8/29/06, Guillaume Paumier guillom.pom@gmail.com wrote:
I deliberately put aside the debate on which notice should be used. I have my own point of view about this, but I don't have the time to split hairs.
On en wikipedia that is one page vs 5,503,662. Pretty big hair
This said, I don't really understand how you can compare the Board election and the ArbCom one.
Only elections we have that were advertised through MediaWiki:Watchdetails (and Signpost and general community chatter)
We are talking about completely different positions. Being an arbitrator has nothing to do with being a Board member, so comparing the number of candidacies of these two elections seems completely irrelevant to me.
Not completely irrelivant. So far the general approach I'm seeing is "the notice will go in MediaWiki:Sitenotice if you disagree we will ignore you" which is unhelpful. Thus anything that might get discusion going is worth a try.
On 8/29/06, Filip Maljkovic dungodung@gmail.com wrote:
Besides, ArbCom is/was an en: only thing and Board election is pan-project.
You're right. That should give them an even larger pool to take candidates from.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org