-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Colleagues,
I'm concerned. I'll start off by saying I'm not sore, just concerned. I'll use my personal experience to illustrate the larger problem.
The elections require an account to have so many edits to gain eligibility to vote. Now, I believe the intent was to be sure that prior to voting, members are established. My previous account, which is established, has enough edits. The password is scrambled. I think everyone knows I'm established. My enwiki "NonvocalScream" does not meet criteria. The account is unified, and is my permanent account is not eligible on any project... yet.
The election committee informed me that I should attempt to contact a sysadmin to recover the eligible account's password. This was unsuccessful. (No response from sysadmin) So I contacted the elections committee three days prior to the end of voting. No response from them either.
The end state: I was unable to vote.
I don't want this to happen to anyone else. Being unable to vote while being an very established member of the community should not happen. This should not happen to anyone, ever.
My suggested changes for the next election vote:
Keep the criteria, but allow the voters table to be modified via a transparent meta wiki page. Modified by those with the ability to check stories, make sure there is no double voting.
Thoughts?
Jon
For your particular case, I wouldn't support an exemption; while I certainly consider you an established community member, it's your fault alone that you scrambled the password and changed the e-mail details of your previous account. It's like shredding your driver's license in a country or state that requires a driver's license to vote.
In general, I think that exceptions should certainly not be made once the election starts. If any case-based issues should arise, perhaps they could be looked at before the election starts, but I can't think of any scenario where I would support an account being specifically exempted.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Ryan wrote:
For your particular case, I wouldn't support an exemption; while I certainly consider you an established community member, it's your fault alone that you scrambled the password and changed the e-mail details of your previous account. It's like shredding your driver's license in a country or state that requires a driver's license to vote.
In general, I think that exceptions should certainly not be made once the election starts. If any case-based issues should arise, perhaps they could be looked at before the election starts, but I can't think of any scenario where I would support an account being specifically exempted.
If I read you correctly, you don't agree with my action, so even though I can be verified http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Identification_noticeboard
and my old account will not log in, you thing I should not vote. Smells of retribution? You argument makes no sense. Try addressing my suggested changes.
Thanks, Jon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Jon wrote:
Ryan wrote:
For your particular case, I wouldn't support an exemption; while I certainly consider you an established community member, it's your fault alone that you scrambled the password and changed the e-mail details of your previous account. It's like shredding your driver's license in a country or state that requires a driver's license to vote.
In general, I think that exceptions should certainly not be made once the election starts. If any case-based issues should arise, perhaps they could be looked at before the election starts, but I can't think of any scenario where I would support an account being specifically exempted.
If I read you correctly, you don't agree with my action, so even though I can be verified http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Identification_noticeboard
and my old account will not log in, you thing I should not vote. Smells of retribution? You argument makes no sense. Try addressing my suggested changes.
Thanks, Jon
Oh my I used the wrong word. I apologize, retribution was incorrect.
Let me substitute that statement with
"Smells like "I don't agree with your action, completely your fault, and you knew better, so even though I can verify your story... I don't think we can help you out. No voting for you.
This was not a case of retribution and I misspoke.
Best, Jon
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I think we need to get worried if the problems are giving a systamic bias. For now, after voting closed, I think we can´t do much about it.
Best regards,
Lodewijk
2008/6/22 Jon scream@datascreamer.com:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Jon wrote:
Ryan wrote:
For your particular case, I wouldn't support an exemption; while I certainly consider you an established community member, it's your fault alone that you scrambled the password and changed the e-mail details of your previous account. It's like shredding your driver's license in a country or state that requires a driver's license to vote.
In general, I think that exceptions should certainly not be made once the election starts. If any case-based issues should arise, perhaps they could be looked at before the election starts, but I can't think of any scenario where I would support an account being specifically exempted.
If I read you correctly, you don't agree with my action, so even though I can be verified http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Identification_noticeboard
and my old account will not log in, you thing I should not vote. Smells of retribution? You argument makes no sense. Try addressing my suggested changes.
Thanks, Jon
Oh my I used the wrong word. I apologize, retribution was incorrect.
Let me substitute that statement with
"Smells like "I don't agree with your action, completely your fault, and you knew better, so even though I can verify your story... I don't think we can help you out. No voting for you.
This was not a case of retribution and I misspoke.
Best, Jon
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFIXrZW6+ro8Pm1AtURAuDaAJ0eTNP5Fnn2A0u/MiUTde5zvTXE5ACdHUh0 BImVjwwLsemf9+l0cmSv5Gk= =bMHK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I'm speaking for the next round of elections. Nothing can be done for this time, I would not expect anything to be done for this round. I'm speaking of what we can do in the future.
Best, Jon
effe iets anders wrote:
I think we need to get worried if the problems are giving a systamic bias. For now, after voting closed, I think we can´t do much about it.
Best regards,
Lodewijk
2008/6/22 Jon scream@datascreamer.com: Jon wrote:
Ryan wrote:
For your particular case, I wouldn't support an exemption; while I certainly consider you an established community member, it's your fault alone that you scrambled the password and changed the e-mail details of your previous account. It's like shredding your driver's license in a country or state that requires a driver's license to vote. In general, I think that exceptions should certainly not be made once the election starts. If any case-based issues should arise, perhaps they could be looked at before the election starts, but I can't think of any scenario where I would support an account being specifically exempted.
If I read you correctly, you don't agree with my action, so even though I can be verified http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Identification_noticeboard
and my old account will not log in, you thing I should not vote. Smells of retribution? You argument makes no sense. Try addressing my suggested changes.
Thanks, Jon
Oh my I used the wrong word. I apologize, retribution was incorrect.
Let me substitute that statement with
"Smells like "I don't agree with your action, completely your fault, and you knew better, so even though I can verify your story... I don't think we can help you out. No voting for you.
This was not a case of retribution and I misspoke.
Best, Jon
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 7:00 AM, Jon scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I'm speaking for the next round of elections. Nothing can be done for this time, I would not expect anything to be done for this round. I'm speaking of what we can do in the future.
Best, Jon
You choose to discard your prior identity, and I am guessing that your new identity was unable to meet the March 1 deadline for having 600 edits because of the timing of the new identity.
Right to vanish ... is a right to ... _vanish_. It is inappropriate to tailor processes of corporate governance around the right to vanish, ... and then re-appear.
Your proposal would require an exceptional amount of additional work, as similar requests will come in from various languages, requiring translation assistance and introducing uncertainty into the process. There would be complaints that identity merging requests were not processed in time, and there will also be fraudulent attempts to usurp inactive accounts in order to gain suffrage.
A more suitable approach would be to encourage people to meet suffrage criteria with their new accounts before discarding their old account. Perhaps this should be mentioned on RTV.
-- John Vandenberg
On 6/22/08, Jon scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
I'm speaking for the next round of elections. Nothing can be done for this time, I would not expect anything to be done for this round. I'm speaking of what we can do in the future.
Well as a practical matter, if you plan to change accounts again you should do it now rather than in early 2009.
—C.W.
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Jon scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Oh my I used the wrong word. I apologize, retribution was incorrect.
Let me substitute that statement with
"Smells like "I don't agree with your action, completely your fault, and you knew better, so even though I can verify your story... I don't think we can help you out. No voting for you.
This was not a case of retribution and I misspoke.
Best, Jon
Not a problem.
What I'm saying isn't so much "completely your fault" as "there are serious consequences with allowing individual changes to the voter list, and I don't think it should be done unless there's a very, very dire case where the Foundation itself screwed up". There are many potential problems with allowing users to combine accounts, or use suffrage from an account they can't physically access. While your identity could be easily verified, others couldn't, and it would open up a huge can of worms to allow any such combinations.
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 4:33 AM, Jon scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Colleagues,
I'm concerned. I'll start off by saying I'm not sore, just concerned. I'll use my personal experience to illustrate the larger problem.
The elections require an account to have so many edits to gain eligibility to vote. Now, I believe the intent was to be sure that prior to voting, members are established. My previous account, which is established, has enough edits. The password is scrambled. I think everyone knows I'm established. My enwiki "NonvocalScream" does not meet criteria. The account is unified, and is my permanent account is not eligible on any project... yet.
I know you as NonvocalScream since very recent, just because he annoyed me on IRC every night just when I was going to bed, on the thing I've noted I will never deal with on such a way and urge to submit their requests on the wiki. I do not know your previous account. Not everyone therefore recognize you as an established user. Q.E.D.
I would like to esteem your feeling but have seen many similar unconvincing arguments when I served as an Election Official. You are better to seek more robust argument, I suppose.
For your information I have 2K+ edits on English Wikipedia since 2004 and active some areas.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Aphaia wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 4:33 AM, Jon scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Colleagues,
I'm concerned. I'll start off by saying I'm not sore, just concerned. I'll use my personal experience to illustrate the larger problem.
The elections require an account to have so many edits to gain eligibility to vote. Now, I believe the intent was to be sure that prior to voting, members are established. My previous account, which is established, has enough edits. The password is scrambled. I think everyone knows I'm established. My enwiki "NonvocalScream" does not meet criteria. The account is unified, and is my permanent account is not eligible on any project... yet.
I know you as NonvocalScream since very recent, just because he annoyed me on IRC every night just when I was going to bed, on the thing I've noted I will never deal with on such a way and urge to submit their requests on the wiki. I do not know your previous account. Not everyone therefore recognize you as an established user. Q.E.D.
I would like to esteem your feeling but have seen many similar unconvincing arguments when I served as an Election Official. You are better to seek more robust argument, I suppose.
For your information I have 2K+ edits on English Wikipedia since 2004 and active some areas.
?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Aphaia wrote:
- -snip- Not everyone therefore recognize you as an established user. Q.E.D. - -snip-
This is why I suggested a transparent wiki page. For such cases. This of course is a suggestion for future elections. The rest of your message with regards to irc nightly, I did not understand.
Best, Jon
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Jon scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Aphaia wrote:
- -snip-
Not everyone therefore recognize you as an established user. Q.E.D.
- -snip-
This is why I suggested a transparent wiki page. For such cases.
Can I write on this transparent wiki page with indelible wiki ink?
-- John
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
John Vandenberg wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Jon scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Aphaia wrote:
- -snip-
Not everyone therefore recognize you as an established user. Q.E.D.
- -snip-
This is why I suggested a transparent wiki page. For such cases.
Can I write on this transparent wiki page with indelible wiki ink?
-- John
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
No, the transparencies are to expensive to replace. :)
Best, Jon
I don't agree with the solution proposed, but the situation illustrates more generally some of the problems with our election system. Let me provide another illustration.
We had a meetup this past week attended by a number of people involved in Wikimedia projects. The group included several researchers who have worked on Wikipedia, studied its social dynamics, especially how policies are used and applied, and presented papers to academic conferences on these issues. These are people with a good understanding of the community and I think they would be well-suited to participate intelligently in the process of choosing board members. Nevertheless, some of these same people do not actually have enough edits to vote in the election, even though they've studied the community more closely than most of those who did vote.
Over time, the elections are also showing the same edit-count creep that manifests itself in the selection of administrators on mature projects. The effect is to increasingly exclude people who should have been considered part of the community. I don't have easy solutions for how to address this while still preventing manipulation through sockpuppet accounts and the like, but this is one reason we added a second method for the community to choose board members through the chapter selection process. In the chapter setting, participation is more clearly related to individual identity, and it goes some distance toward offering the membership system that was originally contemplated, whose failure to implement some people still lament.
--Michael Snow
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net wrote:
I don't agree with the solution proposed, but the situation illustrates more generally some of the problems with our election system. Let me provide another illustration.
We had a meetup this past week attended by a number of people involved in Wikimedia projects. The group included several researchers who have worked on Wikipedia, studied its social dynamics, especially how policies are used and applied, and presented papers to academic conferences on these issues. These are people with a good understanding of the community and I think they would be well-suited to participate intelligently in the process of choosing board members. Nevertheless, some of these same people do not actually have enough edits to vote in the election, even though they've studied the community more closely than most of those who did vote.
Over time, the elections are also showing the same edit-count creep that manifests itself in the selection of administrators on mature projects. The effect is to increasingly exclude people who should have been considered part of the community. I don't have easy solutions for how to address this while still preventing manipulation through sockpuppet accounts and the like, but this is one reason we added a second method for the community to choose board members through the chapter selection process. In the chapter setting, participation is more clearly related to individual identity, and it goes some distance toward offering the membership system that was originally contemplated, whose failure to implement some people still lament.
Knowing about the community is not the same as having contributed free content to the world.
600 edits is simple. It equates to about 10 hours worth of copy and pasting on English Wikisource; a task any novice could do. The same can be achieved in a few hours with AWB on Wikipedia (although the tasks to perform are a bit harder to find these day on English Wikipedia), or a few days on New page patrol. On Commons, [[Category:Media needing categories as of 18 November 2007]] has 425 images, which could be mostly cleared with a few hours using the HotCat Gadget.
-- John
Again why editcount-itis is bad. I have around 100 photos in my aperture library that are marked 3 stars or higher. If I upload them all to my flickr account and then use flickr tool to upload them to commons, then for each photo make separate edits for categories, description, data, etc.... you could have 600 edits in a couple of hours. You can take 3 or 4 pages, and make 20 edits to them screwing around with small stuff, moving spaces around, adding individual words or categories, instead of doing it all in bulk.
In short, edit count suffrage requirements, in theory at least, exclude legitimate voters, while not excluding people who want to game the system.
-Dan
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 1:41 AM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net wrote:
I don't agree with the solution proposed, but the situation illustrates more generally some of the problems with our election system. Let me provide another illustration.
We had a meetup this past week attended by a number of people involved in Wikimedia projects. The group included several researchers who have worked on Wikipedia, studied its social dynamics, especially how policies are used and applied, and presented papers to academic conferences on these issues. These are people with a good understanding of the community and I think they would be well-suited to participate intelligently in the process of choosing board members. Nevertheless, some of these same people do not actually have enough edits to vote in the election, even though they've studied the community more closely than most of those who did vote.
Over time, the elections are also showing the same edit-count creep that manifests itself in the selection of administrators on mature projects. The effect is to increasingly exclude people who should have been considered part of the community. I don't have easy solutions for how to address this while still preventing manipulation through sockpuppet accounts and the like, but this is one reason we added a second method for the community to choose board members through the chapter selection process. In the chapter setting, participation is more clearly related to individual identity, and it goes some distance toward offering the membership system that was originally contemplated, whose failure to implement some people still lament.
Knowing about the community is not the same as having contributed free content to the world.
600 edits is simple. It equates to about 10 hours worth of copy and pasting on English Wikisource; a task any novice could do. The same can be achieved in a few hours with AWB on Wikipedia (although the tasks to perform are a bit harder to find these day on English Wikipedia), or a few days on New page patrol. On Commons, [[Category:Media needing categories as of 18 November 2007]] has 425 images, which could be mostly cleared with a few hours using the HotCat Gadget.
-- John
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 1:46 AM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
In short, edit count suffrage requirements, in theory at least, exclude legitimate voters, while not excluding people who want to game the system.
They exclude people who want to game the system but not so much as to spend a couple of hours *per account* to do so... (combined with having to pass what is effectively a checkuser on all voters..) Voting twice isn't going to have a huge influence on the election... twenty times, otoh, is larger than the difference between some of the candidates in prior elections. :)
There are valid contributors who are excluded.. but we should figure out who they are and add criteria that allows them... Removing the "proof of work" check is not our only option for being reasonably inclusive, but "proof of work" checks are some of the very few mechanisms we have to dampen sock voting.
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 1:41 AM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
600 edits is simple. It equates to about 10 hours worth of copy and pasting on English Wikisource; a task any novice could do. The same can be achieved in a few hours with AWB on Wikipedia (although the tasks to perform are a bit harder to find these day on English Wikipedia), or a few days on New page patrol. On Commons, [[Category:Media needing categories as of 18 November 2007]] has 425 images, which could be mostly cleared with a few hours using the HotCat Gadget.
Again why editcount-itis is bad.
The suffrage requirement was 600 edits, and 50 in three months. That is not a reasonable example of editcount-itis.
I have around 100 photos in my aperture library that are marked 3 stars or higher. If I upload them all to my flickr account and then use flickr tool to upload them to commons, then for each photo make separate edits for categories, description, data, etc.... you could have 600 edits in a couple of hours.
Most users start off doing these tasks the laborious way. That you can uploading 100 images with a few strokes of your wand doesn't mean you should obtain suffrage after only 10 minutes effort.
The 600 edits is a simple requirement to ensure that a person is still active in a project. It keeps the voting community grounded in doing something useful.
You can take 3 or 4 pages, and make 20 edits to them screwing around with small stuff, moving spaces around, adding individual words or categories, instead of doing it all in bulk.
Maybe, however on many wikis that would swiftly result in guidance, followed by stern warnings, blocks and/or questions in peoples minds.
In short, edit count suffrage requirements, in theory at least, exclude legitimate voters, while not excluding people who want to game the system.
As I explained, anyone can meet the suffrage requirements by simply accepting them as they are, and putting in a few hours on a single wiki. Legitimate voters are those who actually do some real content creation. Even our sysadmins could easily attain this edit requirement without issue by contributing to our computer software and operating system wikibooks. (I mention them as they were a class of extraordinary people mentioned in foundation-l suffrage discussions before this years election period)
Rather than devoting resources to increase flexibility of who should have suffrage, I would rather the time is spent on excluding the likelihood of the system being gamed. Any gaming going on with a 600 edit requirement is likely affecting a real wiki somewhere. If someone is voting twice in board elections, they will likely be voting twice in other issues.
-- John Vandenberg
And you are quoting exactly my point. Anyone CAN gain the suffrage requirements with just a few hours on a wiki, meaning that they don't really do anything to keep out the people they are intended to keep out, but there is anectodal evidence that they ARE keeping out people we want to vote.
My point with the example about commons, was that it is easy for someone to get those 600 edits very quickly, but it requires a knowledge of our tools and how to work the system already. The average contributor who doesn't meet the suffrage requirement, but wants to vote may not know how to get those edits, and may get discouraged. Someone who wants to game the system, however, already knows the best ways to do so because they are generally part of our "internal community".
I think the more effective way of keeping the system's integrity is by increasing the number of legitimate users with suffrage, not by excluding potential gaming (notice, we can't even guarantee that we're actually succeeding at that) that simultaneously hurts legitimate users.
-Dan
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 3:57 AM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 1:41 AM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com
wrote:
600 edits is simple. It equates to about 10 hours worth of copy and pasting on English Wikisource; a task any novice could do. The same can be achieved in a few hours with AWB on Wikipedia (although the tasks to perform are a bit harder to find these day on English Wikipedia), or a few days on New page patrol. On Commons, [[Category:Media needing categories as of 18 November 2007]] has 425 images, which could be mostly cleared with a few hours using the HotCat Gadget.
Again why editcount-itis is bad.
The suffrage requirement was 600 edits, and 50 in three months. That is not a reasonable example of editcount-itis.
I have around 100 photos in my aperture library that are marked 3 stars or higher. If I upload them all to my
flickr
account and then use flickr tool to upload them to commons, then for each photo make separate edits for categories, description, data, etc.... you could have 600 edits in a couple of hours.
Most users start off doing these tasks the laborious way. That you can uploading 100 images with a few strokes of your wand doesn't mean you should obtain suffrage after only 10 minutes effort.
The 600 edits is a simple requirement to ensure that a person is still active in a project. It keeps the voting community grounded in doing something useful.
You can take 3 or 4 pages, and make 20 edits to them screwing around with small stuff, moving spaces around, adding individual words or categories, instead of doing it all in bulk.
Maybe, however on many wikis that would swiftly result in guidance, followed by stern warnings, blocks and/or questions in peoples minds.
In short, edit count suffrage requirements, in theory at least, exclude legitimate voters, while not excluding people who want to game the
system.
As I explained, anyone can meet the suffrage requirements by simply accepting them as they are, and putting in a few hours on a single wiki. Legitimate voters are those who actually do some real content creation. Even our sysadmins could easily attain this edit requirement without issue by contributing to our computer software and operating system wikibooks. (I mention them as they were a class of extraordinary people mentioned in foundation-l suffrage discussions before this years election period)
Rather than devoting resources to increase flexibility of who should have suffrage, I would rather the time is spent on excluding the likelihood of the system being gamed. Any gaming going on with a 600 edit requirement is likely affecting a real wiki somewhere. If someone is voting twice in board elections, they will likely be voting twice in other issues.
-- John Vandenberg
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 10:46 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
In short, edit count suffrage requirements, in theory at least, exclude legitimate voters, while not excluding people who want to game the system.
-Dan
On the other hand, since the board elections are an internal process, should it not be limited to active participants? The suffrage is fair in that its as mentioned incredibly easy to get.
Who should be voting but users of one of the sites that the Board oversees and employees of the corporation? Certainly not any of the following:
1. Charitable financial contributors 2. "Partners" such as (possibly) Creative Commons people/staff, Answers.com people, etc. 3. General public 4. ?
It should be somewhat exclusive. I've given to the ASPCA, I've given to the Democratic party here in the US, I've given to the local library here in my city. That doesn't give me a board vote on any of those, even though I'm an active participant to some degree in all three.
In reply to Scream in general on this thread, no one ever is forced to scramble their account login. I'd been very, very tempted in the past to do just that on my EN account, but in hindsight I'm very glad that I never did.
Joe
Ant makes a good point - one way to get around all these technical requirements is to have people vote as people, not accounts, and membership is one way to do that. Even if there are legal or other reasons to not have membership specifically, it is still possible to develop a real person voter roll. Obviously it raises the bar for voters - while they wouldn't need to be disclosed to the public, they would need to disclose in some material way to the Foundation. That's a bit more of a hurdle than an hour with Huggle (you guys who mention AWB are missing the boat these days), but it isn't undoable and its not obviously unreasonable to ask people to register to vote with a copy of a legal ID. Still open to gaming, of course, but seemingly less so and no more vulnerable than most other elections.
Nathan
Nathan wrote:
Ant makes a good point - one way to get around all these technical requirements is to have people vote as people, not accounts, and membership is one way to do that. Even if there are legal or other reasons to not have membership specifically, it is still possible to develop a real person voter roll. Obviously it raises the bar for voters - while they wouldn't need to be disclosed to the public, they would need to disclose in some material way to the Foundation. That's a bit more of a hurdle than an hour with Huggle (you guys who mention AWB are missing the boat these days), but it isn't undoable and its not obviously unreasonable to ask people to register to vote with a copy of a legal ID. Still open to gaming, of course, but seemingly less so and no more vulnerable than most other elections.
Under Florida law, a membership list does have to be available to other members, which has been pointed out as a concern in the past. I wasn't involved in the decision to remove membership from the bylaws. I like the chapter model, though, as a way to provide an extra layer of shielding for privacy while still indicating commitment to the movement based on individual identity. If there are better ways to balance this with privacy concerns, I wouldn't mind revisiting direct membership, but in the meantime I encourage people to organize and join chapters.
--Michael Snow
A very old idea was to have enfranchisement based on membership of a Chapter. It is one that I very much like in theory, as it strengthens the bonds of community and gives us all a rational focal point for change proposals (e.g. structural change, long-term mission, vision creep, etc.).
However, it is plainly clear that the Wikimedian community in the United States lacks either the will or the ability - or perhaps both - to form a membership organisation. Given that there would (understandably) be civil war if under the current situation we refocused on the above plan when Wikimedia US remains a distant dream, there is nothing we really can do. The ball is in their court, and we must all wait, impatiently. :-)
It's a catch 22 to be sure. I'm not against the suffrage requirements per se. I just would like to see more turnout. I think Greg Maxwell is actually stating my point better and more accurately.
-Dan
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 10:46 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
In short, edit count suffrage requirements, in theory at least, exclude legitimate voters, while not excluding people who want to game the
system.
-Dan
On the other hand, since the board elections are an internal process, should it not be limited to active participants? The suffrage is fair in that its as mentioned incredibly easy to get.
Who should be voting but users of one of the sites that the Board oversees and employees of the corporation? Certainly not any of the following:
- Charitable financial contributors
- "Partners" such as (possibly) Creative Commons people/staff, Answers.com
people, etc. 3. General public 4. ?
It should be somewhat exclusive. I've given to the ASPCA, I've given to the Democratic party here in the US, I've given to the local library here in my city. That doesn't give me a board vote on any of those, even though I'm an active participant to some degree in all three.
In reply to Scream in general on this thread, no one ever is forced to scramble their account login. I'd been very, very tempted in the past to do just that on my EN account, but in hindsight I'm very glad that I never did.
Joe _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
John; Your observation is all inclusive except, including my observation of the constitutional provision for "congress to coin money and regulate the value thereof". This was set out in the constitution as Ratified "In the Year of our Lord" 1787. If we can return to that course we may salvage the fruits of our endeavors from the terrorists bankers who, for printing our own money, relieve us of over on billion dollars a day, called "interest on the debt" Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Vandenberg" jayvdb@gmail.com To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 10:41 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Voting suffrage criteria (established membersshould be able to vote)
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net wrote:
I don't agree with the solution proposed, but the situation illustrates more generally some of the problems with our election system. Let me provide another illustration.
We had a meetup this past week attended by a number of people involved in Wikimedia projects. The group included several researchers who have worked on Wikipedia, studied its social dynamics, especially how policies are used and applied, and presented papers to academic conferences on these issues. These are people with a good understanding of the community and I think they would be well-suited to participate intelligently in the process of choosing board members. Nevertheless, some of these same people do not actually have enough edits to vote in the election, even though they've studied the community more closely than most of those who did vote.
Over time, the elections are also showing the same edit-count creep that manifests itself in the selection of administrators on mature projects. The effect is to increasingly exclude people who should have been considered part of the community. I don't have easy solutions for how to address this while still preventing manipulation through sockpuppet accounts and the like, but this is one reason we added a second method for the community to choose board members through the chapter selection process. In the chapter setting, participation is more clearly related to individual identity, and it goes some distance toward offering the membership system that was originally contemplated, whose failure to implement some people still lament.
Knowing about the community is not the same as having contributed free content to the world.
600 edits is simple. It equates to about 10 hours worth of copy and pasting on English Wikisource; a task any novice could do. The same can be achieved in a few hours with AWB on Wikipedia (although the tasks to perform are a bit harder to find these day on English Wikipedia), or a few days on New page patrol. On Commons, [[Category:Media needing categories as of 18 November 2007]] has 425 images, which could be mostly cleared with a few hours using the HotCat Gadget.
-- John
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Michael Snow wrote:
Over time, the elections are also showing the same edit-count creep that manifests itself in the selection of administrators on mature projects. The effect is to increasingly exclude people who should have been considered part of the community. I don't have easy solutions for how to address this while still preventing manipulation through sockpuppet accounts and the like, but this is one reason we added a second method for the community to choose board members through the chapter selection process. In the chapter setting, participation is more clearly related to individual identity, and it goes some distance toward offering the membership system that was originally contemplated, whose failure to implement some people still lament.
--Michael Snow
And what if... we tried making the Foundation a membership based organization ?
Ant
Ant; Your observation only lacks noticing the treatment of Sherry Peel Jackson, the former IRS ageng that has been encarcerated for her political stance. Google her and Joe Banister also a former Criminal investigator, IRS. They worked him over too. Then Google Peter Hendrickson or Tom Cryer, both of whom are experts on the issue. Please help het Sherry released and this matter out to the public. Thanks Ron Moss ----- Original Message ----- From: "Florence Devouard" Anthere9@yahoo.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 8:35 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Voting suffrage criteria (established members should be able to vote)
Michael Snow wrote:
Over time, the elections are also showing the same edit-count creep that manifests itself in the selection of administrators on mature projects. The effect is to increasingly exclude people who should have been considered part of the community. I don't have easy solutions for how to address this while still preventing manipulation through sockpuppet accounts and the like, but this is one reason we added a second method for the community to choose board members through the chapter selection process. In the chapter setting, participation is more clearly related to individual identity, and it goes some distance toward offering the membership system that was originally contemplated, whose failure to implement some people still lament.
--Michael Snow
And what if... we tried making the Foundation a membership based organization ?
Ant
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
That's the second spam that we've gotten from Ron Moss. Why are these posts going through/not being moderated.?
-Dan
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Ron Moss ronmoss@dslnorthwest.net wrote:
Ant; Your observation only lacks noticing the treatment of Sherry Peel Jackson, the former IRS ageng that has been encarcerated for her political stance. Google her and Joe Banister also a former Criminal investigator, IRS. They worked him over too. Then Google Peter Hendrickson or Tom Cryer, both of whom are experts on the issue. Please help het Sherry released and this matter out to the public. Thanks Ron Moss ----- Original Message ----- From: "Florence Devouard" Anthere9@yahoo.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 8:35 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Voting suffrage criteria (established members should be able to vote)
Michael Snow wrote:
Over time, the elections are also showing the same edit-count creep that manifests itself in the selection of administrators on mature projects. The effect is to increasingly exclude people who should have been considered part of the community. I don't have easy solutions for how to address this while still preventing manipulation through sockpuppet accounts and the like, but this is one reason we added a second method for the community to choose board members through the chapter selection process. In the chapter setting, participation is more clearly related to individual identity, and it goes some distance toward offering the membership system that was originally contemplated, whose failure to implement some people still lament.
--Michael Snow
And what if... we tried making the Foundation a membership based organization ?
Ant
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, When you replace the current model where involvement is replaced by being a member, there will be people who will not become members for all kinds of reasons. Involving people in the processes of our organisation is tricky. There is no silver bullit.
What should be obvious though is that when a profile is associated with an e-mail account, something that people are explicitly urged to do in order to be able to help with lost passwords, this whole particular issue would not exist. When people use the existing methods that allow for this issue, there is no need for membership or anything..
Largely the original issue is a non issue. Or what is it that I am missing ? As to sock puppets, they have a high nuisance value. There are few good reasons to have them and they do more harm then good.
Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Michael Snow wrote:
Over time, the elections are also showing the same edit-count creep that manifests itself in the selection of administrators on mature projects. The effect is to increasingly exclude people who should have been considered part of the community. I don't have easy solutions for how to address this while still preventing manipulation through sockpuppet accounts and the like, but this is one reason we added a second method for the community to choose board members through the chapter selection process. In the chapter setting, participation is more clearly related to individual identity, and it goes some distance toward offering the membership system that was originally contemplated, whose failure to implement some people still lament.
--Michael Snow
And what if... we tried making the Foundation a membership based organization ?
Ant
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Since there is SUL now wouldn't it be just easier to apply the edit count threshold to the unified account? If no one but active participants on the projects should be voting that would I'd imagine pretty much give anyone who may be active a bit here, and a bit there, access to vote. I'm sure someone can make a tool that will trivially do counts of someone's top x number of accounts, and apply the count threshold to the lifetime total of the SUL'd account. Drop the "must edit so many times" by such and such date requirement-- if someone has been inactive for some months, it doesn't negate their standing, right? The system would be much simpler then and global accounts would essentially get lifetime suffrage then.
Joe
There are a couple of problems with doing it that way.
1) Global accounts go inactive in some cases because a user has begun using a different account. It wouldn't be difficult, in that case, to acquire over time multiple eligible accounts if there is no "recent edits" requirement.
2) As far as I know there is no centralised edit list or counter for unified accounts. This could be remedied technologically, but I think we'd have to establish a value for that ahead of time.
3) On the issue of inactivity negating standing... The problem is that Wikimedia is a self-selecting community, and membership in the community is based on continuing participation. If you go inactive you stop performing the activity that made you part of the community to begin with. If someone has been inactive for a year, two years, can we expect them to be in touch with community values? Do we regard them, still, as "members" of the community in which they have not recently participated? The "residence" requirement in this sense is activity, and just like you need to be a resident (or citizen) to vote in government elections you need to be reasonably active in the Wikimedia community to retain suffrage.
I still think the best option is to register voters as people and not accounts. Whether by membership or a simple voter roll of users identified to the Foundation its the best way to limit abuse and ensure that voters are active and "civic minded" members of the community.
Nathan
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Since there is SUL now wouldn't it be just easier to apply the edit count threshold to the unified account? If no one but active participants on the projects should be voting that would I'd imagine pretty much give anyone who may be active a bit here, and a bit there, access to vote. I'm sure someone can make a tool that will trivially do counts of someone's top x number of accounts, and apply the count threshold to the lifetime total of the SUL'd account. Drop the "must edit so many times" by such and such date requirement-- if someone has been inactive for some months, it doesn't negate their standing, right? The system would be much simpler then and global accounts would essentially get lifetime suffrage then.
Joe _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Michael Snow wrote:
I don't agree with the solution proposed, but the situation illustrates more generally some of the problems with our election system. Let me provide another illustration.
We had a meetup this past week attended by a number of people involved in Wikimedia projects. The group included several researchers who have worked on Wikipedia, studied its social dynamics, especially how policies are used and applied, and presented papers to academic conferences on these issues. These are people with a good understanding of the community and I think they would be well-suited to participate intelligently in the process of choosing board members. Nevertheless, some of these same people do not actually have enough edits to vote in the election, even though they've studied the community more closely than most of those who did vote.
This is very interesting. Have many of them been approached to join the advisory committee?
Over time, the elections are also showing the same edit-count creep that manifests itself in the selection of administrators on mature projects. The effect is to increasingly exclude people who should have been considered part of the community. I don't have easy solutions for how to address this while still preventing manipulation through sockpuppet accounts and the like, but this is one reason we added a second method for the community to choose board members through the chapter selection process. In the chapter setting, participation is more clearly related to individual identity, and it goes some distance toward offering the membership system that was originally contemplated, whose failure to implement some people still lament.
--Michael Snow
I think one of the biggest positive sides for the current restructuring is that it prevents the "eggs in one basket" problem. Staying with a sole method of gaining trusteeship, that method itself could have with time morphed into quite unrepresentative, and not just for the reasons you cite, but for too various reasons to even enumerate.
If we are lucky, the three different methods of board entry will vie to not be the one to draw most ire from our resident loudmouths. <invokes generic charm for good luck>
I think another good point you make is the one that by default, chapters will be immune from socking in the sense in which we know it on wikipedia, though of course infiltration by real world organisations is not forever out of the question, once the real world begins to consider us important enough.
It is a mistake though to consider the chapter route to specifically redress the problem of exclusion from the system of many people who should be in it.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
2008/6/28 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com:
I think another good point you make is the one that by default, chapters will be immune from socking in the sense in which we know it on wikipedia, though of course infiltration by real world organisations is not forever out of the question, once the real world begins to consider us important enough.
Oh yeah. Hostile takeovers of charities by other charities is well-known in the real world. We should expect the chapters route to increase this risk, not decrease it.
- d.
2008/6/28 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
Oh yeah. Hostile takeovers of charities by other charities is well-known in the real world. We should expect the chapters route to increase this risk, not decrease it.
Or rather, by groups of people. No, no cites.
- d.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org