Toby-
The whole setup looks very odd for Wikipedia. Why is Erik deciding by fiat how things are run?
He is the vote coordinator; somebody has to make choices on how to procede or nothing will happen. He has not been dictatorial and has been reasonably open to modifying schedules and procedures when a consensus forms to do so. But at the same time he hasn't been a complete pushover trying to accommodate everybody; if that were the case then we would be much further behind in the vote process than we are already.
I think Erik is doing an excellent job and think he should be thanked for the many hours of his /own/ time he has put into this effort instead of being accused of dictating terms. This is, after all, the largest vote in Wikipedia's history and we are all learning as we move along. But at the same time the vote does have to move along. Arguing over the vote method to use on the vote to decide what the second stage voting method should be, is, IMO a petty activity that tends to rerail the process instead of moving it along.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . till we *) . . .
Hi,
I'm a bit used to votings and elections in a party organization, and am a sociologist, so maybe my level of suspection is higher than that of other people. So, first of all -- it is a good thing, somebody put's time in the voting coordination, and it is thanksworthy.
But (you expected that, didn't you ;-)) ...
Toby-
The whole setup looks very odd for Wikipedia. Why is Erik deciding by fiat how things are run?
He is the vote coordinator; somebody has to make choices on how to procede or nothing will happen.
So, the obvious question is: who made Erik the vote coordinator? I don't ask this because I think someone else should do it or because I see an actual problem here, but because this may be a weak point of wikipedias organisation. (On the other hand, I really don't like to get a wikipedia with by-laws, so I'm a bit concerned and undecided at the same time).
I think Erik is doing an excellent job and think he should be thanked for the many hours of his /own/ time he has put into this effort instead of being accused of dictating terms.
Yes, even I find it quite unusual to think that way -- every "free" work works that way. So what? What about the people who submitted logos? What about the people who took their time and voted?
This is, after all, the largest vote in Wikipedia's history and we are all learning as we move along.
Right, and so I fear we set precedence. Wikipedia has the possibility to try condorcet voting, or some other more democratic and more fair voting system. So the vote on the voting system. This vote was made FPTP in a dictatorial ;-) decision by Erik, me thinks, and initially it wasn't even clear if it should go FPTP or approval. Someone else started condorcet as an alternative way shortly thereafter. If everybody votes FPTP and condorcet, we would see the difference -- same people, same interests, but maybe a different outcome!
But at the same time the vote does have to move along.
Right.
Arguing over the vote method to use on the vote to decide what the second stage voting method should be, is, IMO a petty activity that tends to rerail the process instead of moving it along.
Maybe it slows down the voting a bit, but also it helps us to find a voting system that fits wikipedia. So maybe this slow discussion is helpful after all, in the longer run.
Regards, __ . / / / / ... Till Westermayer - till we *) . . . mailto:till@tillwe.de . www.westermayer.de/till/ . icq 320393072 . Habsburgerstr. 82 . 79104 Freiburg . 0761 55697152 . 0160 96619179 . . . . .
Till Westermayer wrote:
So, the obvious question is: who made Erik the vote coordinator?
I did, ultimately. He started out organizing things on his own initiative, but I have fully endorsed what he's doing. (Not necessarily in every little detail, of course, but I trust he'll do the right thing. Trusting people is the wiki way.)
Yes, even I find it quite unusual to think that way -- every "free" work works that way. So what? What about the people who submitted logos? What about the people who took their time and voted?
They are all wonderful people, and I personally remain perpetually astonished at how wonderful this all is!
Maybe it slows down the voting a bit, but also it helps us to find a voting system that fits wikipedia. So maybe this slow discussion is helpful after all, in the longer run.
Sure! It's the wikipedia way to discuss everything to death in public forums for months until a rough consensus is achieved, and then of course to be accused of all decisions being made in secret, overnight, and by absolute fiat. :-)
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Maybe it slows down the voting a bit, but also it helps us to find a voting system that fits wikipedia. So maybe this slow discussion is helpful after all, in the longer run.
Sure! It's the wikipedia way to discuss everything to death in public forums for months until a rough consensus is achieved, and then of course to be accused of all decisions being made in secret, overnight, and by absolute fiat. :-)
It seems we don't have the same definition of what a consensus is.
This rigid vote where no alternative proposition can be submit is at the antipode of my vision of a consensus.
And I don't see anything encouraging in this discussion.
Hope I wrong...
Aoineko
--Jimbo
Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
This rigid vote where no alternative proposition can be submit is at the antipode of my vision of a consensus.
Well, this logo contest is an experiment in voting. It has gone well in some ways, and not so well in other ways. In any case, no matter how we evaluate it overall, we can all agree that it has been educational, exposing some of the issues that we are going to have to deal with as we form scalable, stable, consensus-driven decision methods.
And I don't see anything encouraging in this discussion.
What do you mean? I see a lot that's encouraging. Look at all the discussion that we are having. Look how hard people are working to try to find mutually agreeable solutions. Look how civilized and cautious the decisionmaking is.
The current experiment is a good one because the choice of a logo from any of the fine leading contenders is not a life or death decision for the project. None of the choices available to us are bad, and so we can learn from this in a low-risk way.
Later, there will have to be some major policy decisions. In the past, these have always been made by consensus, which in reality boils down to us listening to all sides and encouraging different factions to accomodate each other so that we can find solutions that are better all around for everyone.
That process works, or at least it has so far. But there have always been concerns about how well it would scale. The more people we have involved, the more important it is that we have a more formalized _process_ that people can support even when they don't support the final _outcome_.
Let me explain that further with an example from the real world. I support, generally speaking, the processes of constitutionally limited democracy. So in that sense, I support the system *even when the candidate I don't prefer* gets elected.
In a small group, the consensus method works. When a final decision has to be made, then a benevolent dictator who really does look out for the interests of as many different people as possible also works. People can, and have, supported that process as effective, even when they didn't get their way on every last detail.
As we get bigger, we need to preserve and improve on our success in that area: when decisions are made, they need to be as inclusive as possible, i.e. to make as many people happy as possible, and at the same time, they need to be made by a process that people can support even when their exact preferences are not chosen.
Do we agree about that?
We've done a couple of experiments with voting. I've always been a skeptic of voting, but the one thing that voting can do is generate legitimacy for decisions. People can support the outcome of a vote, even when the vote doesn't go their way.
I like one of the logos best of all. I hope that it wins. But if it doesn't, I can live with that. They are all reasonable choices, and I like that we went through a process that people can live with.
But it is JUST A LOGO. So a serious amount of relaxation is probably in order. :-)
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
This rigid vote where no alternative proposition can be submit is at the antipode of my vision of a consensus.
Well, this logo contest is an experiment in voting. It has gone well in some ways, and not so well in other ways. In any case, no matter how we evaluate it overall, we can all agree that it has been educational, exposing some of the issues that we are going to have to deal with as we form scalable, stable, consensus-driven decision methods.
I just hope people concluded something about those discussions.
And I don't see anything encouraging in this discussion.
What do you mean? I see a lot that's encouraging. Look at all the discussion that we are having. Look how hard people are working to try to find mutually agreeable solutions. Look how civilized and cautious the decisionmaking is.
I didn't read all post (translate is fastidious for me), but in those I read I see words as "silly", "pushy French attitude" and other not so friendly sentence. Hope it's just translation mistake ;o). On the other hand, I didn't read any proposition to make vote process become more close to a consensus. For me, the vote method is not the real problem (average method & Condorcet are not so different in fact). Imho, the problem is a standard vote doesn't offer any dynamic solution. I mean, you select some solutions (before the vote start), then you start the vote and block any new proposition. For example, imagine you want to select a color. Favorite colors are black and white (just an example), so people propose those 2 colors to be voted. After some time you see both colors have closed score. With standard vote system you must select one of those colors (by any method) and make happy only half of people instead of be able to propose a gray that may satisfy more people (just an example). I think discussion, proposition and vote have better to take place concurrently. I mean allow participant to propose new solution and change vote during the decision process. I'm aware that is only a personal point of view but I expected to ear some alternative solution instead of the eternal debate on the best way of count vote. But perhaps I just miss those discussions.
The current experiment is a good one because the choice of a logo from any of the fine leading contenders is not a life or death decision for the project. None of the choices available to us are bad, and so we can learn from this in a low-risk way.
Later, there will have to be some major policy decisions. In the past, these have always been made by consensus, which in reality boils down to us listening to all sides and encouraging different factions to accomodate each other so that we can find solutions that are better all around for everyone.
That process works, or at least it has so far. But there have always been concerns about how well it would scale. The more people we have involved, the more important it is that we have a more formalized _process_ that people can support even when they don't support the final _outcome_.
Let me explain that further with an example from the real world. I support, generally speaking, the processes of constitutionally limited democracy. So in that sense, I support the system *even when the candidate I don't prefer* gets elected.
In a small group, the consensus method works. When a final decision has to be made, then a benevolent dictator who really does look out for the interests of as many different people as possible also works. People can, and have, supported that process as effective, even when they didn't get their way on every last detail.
As we get bigger, we need to preserve and improve on our success in that area: when decisions are made, they need to be as inclusive as possible, i.e. to make as many people happy as possible, and at the same time, they need to be made by a process that people can support even when their exact preferences are not chosen.
Do we agree about that?
I agree consensus become harder as we get bigger. But instead of switch decision process to a standard vote method, we can perhaps just create some rules to make consensus easier to achieve.
We've done a couple of experiments with voting. I've always been a skeptic of voting, but the one thing that voting can do is generate legitimacy for decisions. People can support the outcome of a vote, even when the vote doesn't go their way.
I like one of the logos best of all. I hope that it wins. But if it doesn't, I can live with that. They are all reasonable choices, and I like that we went through a process that people can live with.
But it is JUST A LOGO. So a serious amount of relaxation is probably in order. :-)
--Jimbo
Sure, more friendly are relations, more easy are decisions ;o)
If I enter the debate it's just because I worried to see Oliezekat spend all his time to try to found alternative proposition (he really worked hard) and to be bother just because he didn't strictly respect the saintly rules. Imho, the wikipedians must to be more flexible and patient; especially with those you have difficulty to speak/understand English. Next time, a non-American organizer!?
Thanks for your answers.
Aoineko
Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
I didn't read all post (translate is fastidious for me), but in those I read I see words as "silly", "pushy French attitude" and other not so friendly sentence. Hope it's just translation mistake ;o).
Well, I hope so, too. I have not seen any such remarks, and I personally thought you were Japanese. :-)
On the other hand, I didn't read any proposition to make vote process become more close to a consensus. For me, the vote method is not the real problem (average method & Condorcet are not so different in fact). Imho, the problem is a standard vote doesn't offer any dynamic solution.
Well, I share this concern, and indeed this is one of my main objections to voting processes in general. As you may or may not know, I'm a longstanding skeptic of voting.
Here's the basic problem with voting -- voting is selection among alternatives. But often, rather than selecting from alternatives, we are better off being creative at addressing the concerns of everyone, of trying to combine options A and B to get C, which is preferred by almost everyone.
HOWEVER, I also think that voting does have some benefits, and it does at least scale well. The problem with consensus is simply that ultimately, it comes down to someone (me) saying what the consensus is -- and if I'm unfair or don't listen thoughtfully to everyone, then the entire process is a sham.
Of course I'm perfect in every way, ha ha, but still I can see how people could be concerned about this.
I'm aware that is only a personal point of view but I expected to ear some alternative solution instead of the eternal debate on the best way of count vote. But perhaps I just miss those discussions.
Maybe. It's an important topic, and I think your point of view is basically correct, i.e. we should be concerned about how a move towards voting can give rise to dangerous divisions within the community that wouldn't appear if we all continue in a commitment to find solutions that are widely accepted.
I agree consensus become harder as we get bigger. But instead of switch decision process to a standard vote method, we can perhaps just create some rules to make consensus easier to achieve.
I think that's a good idea.
And I also think that there need not be *one single* decision method for every decision that needs to be made.
There are some decisions, like technical decisions, that need to be made by technical people, period. A popular vote by nonprogrammers on whether to use ISAM tables or InnoDB tables would be silly. A popular vote on what kind of hardware to buy, or where to locate servers, would be silly. Those are primarily technical questions.
There are some decisions that don't even have to be made all at once -- most editing decisions, for example, can stand to be left undecided until experimentation shows us the way.
But sometimes there are decisions that are big, and that have to be made in a timely fashion, and have to be made in a transparent manner that takes into account as many views as possible, etc., and I think voting can be useful for that.
If I enter the debate it's just because I worried to see Oliezekat spend all his time to try to found alternative proposition (he really worked hard) and to be bother just because he didn't strictly respect the saintly rules. Imho, the wikipedians must to be more flexible and patient; especially with those you have difficulty to speak/understand English. Next time, a non-American organizer!?
Sure, maybe next time we'll choose a European? (This is a joke. Erik is not American, he's German.)
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
I didn't read all post (translate is fastidious for me), but in those I read I see words as "silly", "pushy French attitude" and other not so friendly sentence. Hope it's just translation mistake ;o).
Well, I hope so, too. I have not seen any such remarks, and I personally thought you were Japanese. :-)
According to Anthere it was just friendly moquery, so it's forgiven. I'm more and more japanese but still a smelly chesse adorer ;o)
On the other hand, I didn't read any proposition to make vote process become more close to a consensus. For me, the vote method is not the real problem (average method & Condorcet are not so different in fact). Imho, the problem is a standard vote doesn't offer any dynamic solution.
Well, I share this concern, and indeed this is one of my main objections to voting processes in general. As you may or may not know, I'm a longstanding skeptic of voting.
Here's the basic problem with voting -- voting is selection among alternatives. But often, rather than selecting from alternatives, we are better off being creative at addressing the concerns of everyone, of trying to combine options A and B to get C, which is preferred by almost everyone.
HOWEVER, I also think that voting does have some benefits, and it does at least scale well. The problem with consensus is simply that ultimately, it comes down to someone (me) saying what the consensus is -- and if I'm unfair or don't listen thoughtfully to everyone, then the entire process is a sham.
Of course I'm perfect in every way, ha ha, but still I can see how people could be concerned about this.
It's why I think we need a system to be able to see at any moment the point of view of each participant (have a place to debate and an other to give current summarized opinion (just like a vote)) and why I think dynamic vote may be a good solution.
I'm aware that is only a personal point of view but I expected to ear some alternative solution instead of the eternal debate on the best way of count vote. But perhaps I just miss those discussions.
Maybe. It's an important topic, and I think your point of view is basically correct, i.e. we should be concerned about how a move towards voting can give rise to dangerous divisions within the community that wouldn't appear if we all continue in a commitment to find solutions that are widely accepted.
I agree consensus become harder as we get bigger. But instead of switch decision process to a standard vote method, we can perhaps just create some rules to make consensus easier to achieve.
I think that's a good idea.
We are now trying to create this kind of basic rules on the French Wikipedia. I will let you know if those rules survive to a real decision process ;o)
And I also think that there need not be *one single* decision method for every decision that needs to be made.
There are some decisions, like technical decisions, that need to be made by technical people, period. A popular vote by nonprogrammers on whether to use ISAM tables or InnoDB tables would be silly. A popular vote on what kind of hardware to buy, or where to locate servers, would be silly. Those are primarily technical questions.
There are some decisions that don't even have to be made all at once -- most editing decisions, for example, can stand to be left undecided until experimentation shows us the way.
But sometimes there are decisions that are big, and that have to be made in a timely fashion, and have to be made in a transparent manner that takes into account as many views as possible, etc., and I think voting can be useful for that.
I agree. In fact I think majority vote can also be useful in few case (essentially for quick decision). The most important is to use this method only in case all participants agree to use it. For very subjective choice, as colors for exemple, standard vote can be useful..
If I enter the debate it's just because I worried to see Oliezekat spend all his time to try to found alternative proposition (he really worked hard) and to be bother just because he didn't strictly respect the saintly rules. Imho, the wikipedians must to be more flexible and patient; especially with those you have difficulty to speak/understand English. Next time, a non-American organizer!?
Sure, maybe next time we'll choose a European? (This is a joke. Erik is not American, he's German.)
I tought about not well represented country (China, India, or why not Afghanistan). But I fact the more important is not the nationality but the competence and the trust you have in him. I have nothing to say against Erik, I think he do is best (even if I don't agree the decided rules). Sorry for my silly remark.
--Jimbo
Aoineko
Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
I mean, you select some solutions (before the vote start), then you start the vote and block any new proposition.
At some point that has to be right, as long as there initially were ample opportunities to present new alternatives
For example, imagine you want to select a color. Favorite colors are black and white (just an example), so people propose those 2 colors to be voted. After some time you see both colors have closed score. With standard vote system you must select one of those colors (by any method) and make happy only half of people instead of be able to propose a gray that may satisfy more people (just an example).
The question should really be, "Was there an opportunity to suggest gray before the voting started?" In a truly democratic system there is no excuse for negligence.
I think discussion, proposition and vote have better to take place concurrently. I mean allow participant to propose new solution and change vote during the decision process. I'm aware that is only a personal point of view but I expected to ear some alternative solution instead of the eternal debate on the best way of count vote. But perhaps I just miss those discussions.
When a large number of options are offered, there needs to be a way to narrow those options. When 10 options are offered the top vote getter can easily win a plurality of 15% which then means that 85% of the participants voted for something else. Several rounds of voting where the lowest vote getter(s) are dropped until someone has an absolute majority is a workable system. The second round of voting in French elections somewhat reflects that. Transferable ballots try to accomplish the same thing in one round.
Once something has been decided there still needs to be a process that allows for change. The conditions for change (in the current situation in relation to a logo) need to be made clear. This will allow newcomers to have a say, and it will allow others to change their vote. An overthrow threshhold needs to be established that prevents rapid changes in policy between two very equally supported alternatives. Thus '''changing''' an agreed logo could require that 60% of voters support the change. Voting could take place on any alternative proposal with minimal support (say 10 Wikipedians). Voting could remain open for an extended period of time: 90 days? 6 months? The threshhold would not be very easy to reach, but everyone's opportunity to having meaningful influence would be respected.
Later, there will have to be some major policy decisions. In the past, these have always been made by consensus, which in reality boils down to us listening to all sides and encouraging different factions to accomodate each other so that we can find solutions that are better all around for everyone.
At times a decision MUST be made to prevent everything from grinding to a halt. An excess of democracy was a fatal flaw for the Paris Commune of 1871. By contrast American Republicans deserve all the appropriate credit for having no fear of making the wrong decision. ;-)
That process works, or at least it has so far. But there have always been concerns about how well it would scale. The more people we have involved, the more important it is that we have a more formalized _process_ that people can support even when they don't support the final _outcome_.
The scaling problem is real. Nevertheless every formalization carries the risk that it will diminish the consensus process. The more hard-wired the formalization, the greater the risk. To support the implementation of a majority opinion, the minority must be able to see the result as fair and not unnecessarily diminishing their rights.
Let me explain that further with an example from the real world. I support, generally speaking, the processes of constitutionally limited democracy. So in that sense, I support the system *even when the candidate I don't prefer* gets elected.
Candidates in a "representative" democracy are different from issues. An elected representative must often decide on a very wide range of issues that were never a factor in his election. Inevitably he must take positions with which you do not agree.
As we get bigger, we need to preserve and improve on our success in that area: when decisions are made, they need to be as inclusive as possible, i.e. to make as many people happy as possible, and at the same time, they need to be made by a process that people can support even when their exact preferences are not chosen.
Do we agree about that?
I agree consensus become harder as we get bigger. But instead of switch decision process to a standard vote method, we can perhaps just create some rules to make consensus easier to achieve.
Voting only ''appears'' to make things easier. More rules seems just as anti-consensus.
But it is JUST A LOGO. So a serious amount of relaxation is probably in order. :-)
--Jimbo
Certainly
Next time, a non-American organizer!?
I don't think that Eric is American.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
I mean, you select some solutions (before the vote start), then you start the vote and block any new proposition.
At some point that has to be right, as long as there initially were ample opportunities to present new alternatives
For example, imagine you want to select a color. Favorite colors are black and white (just an example), so people propose those 2 colors to be voted. After some time you see both colors have closed
score.
With standard vote system you must select one of those colors (by any method) and make happy only half of people instead of be able to propose
a
gray that may satisfy more people (just an example).
The question should really be, "Was there an opportunity to suggest gray before the voting started?" In a truly democratic system there is no excuse for negligence.
For my, the question is, who can think about gray before the vote start if everybody prefere black or white and don't know what other prefere. It's juste after the vote begin that you can see both colors are appreciate at a close level and you can think about aleternative solution.
I think discussion, proposition and vote have better to take place concurrently. I mean allow participant to propose new solution and change vote during the decision process. I'm aware that is only a personal point of view but I expected
to
ear some alternative solution instead of the eternal debate on the best
way
of count vote. But perhaps I just miss those discussions.
When a large number of options are offered, there needs to be a way to narrow those options. When 10 options are offered the top vote getter can easily win a plurality of 15% which then means that 85% of the participants voted for something else. Several rounds of voting where the lowest vote getter(s) are dropped until someone has an absolute majority is a workable system. The second round of voting in French elections somewhat reflects that. Transferable ballots try to accomplish the same thing in one round.
Have a way to narrow many options is perhaps a good idea, but if you can't make new proposition according to 1st round result, the 2nd round is unnecessary. In fact, according to this 1st round, I'm almost sure the Paullus logo will won the final vote. So imho, artist had better to create Paullus logo's variant rather than go on create many new variant of their own logo that will not be used.
Once something has been decided there still needs to be a process that allows for change. The conditions for change (in the current situation in relation to a logo) need to be made clear. This will allow newcomers to have a say, and it will allow others to change their vote. An overthrow threshhold needs to be established that prevents rapid changes in policy between two very equally supported alternatives. Thus '''changing''' an agreed logo could require that 60% of voters support the change. Voting could take place on any alternative proposal with minimal support (say 10 Wikipedians). Voting could remain open for an extended period of time: 90 days? 6 months? The threshhold would not be very easy to reach, but everyone's opportunity to having meaningful influence would be respected.
It may be a good thing.
As we get bigger, we need to preserve and improve on our success in that area: when decisions are made, they need to be as inclusive as possible, i.e. to make as many people happy as possible, and at the same time, they need to be made by a process that people can support even when their exact preferences are not chosen.
Do we agree about that?
I agree consensus become harder as we get bigger. But instead of switch decision process to a standard vote method, we can perhaps just create
some
rules to make consensus easier to achieve.
Voting only ''appears'' to make things easier. More rules seems just as anti-consensus.
Sure, any limiting rules is anti-consensus. But I think there is a large gap between consensus and standard vote method. Perhaps we can create few rules thet just help organize a consensus. The first rules we created is "You must argue any opposition to a proposition". This avoid people who just said "I'm against!" but I don't think is very anti-consensus.
Thanks for your constructive comments.
Aoineko
Guillaume-
For example, imagine you want to select a color.
Your black/white/gray example is perfectly applicable to our process. There has been the possibility of discussion during the entire logo submission process (for more than a month); discussions continued during voting, and even now after the submission deadline has been closed you can still submit variants and try to convince the artist to put these variants up for final voting. So I fail to see how and when we could or should have been trying harder to find compromise solutions. Many logos have been modified based on viewer feedback, especially NcWiki, Stygian's logo and Paullusmagnus' puzzle sphere. Some people have created vector variants of existing logos, others have changed the colors, and others have added their favorite mascot (*cough*).
There have been some complaints (not by me) about Olie's attempts to get Miwiki integrated into virtually every logo. Are you saying these users should just shut up? What exactly are you asking for here? I think you should be glad that we have a formalized process in place to handle these variants, because otherwise we would now be knee deep in a flamewar about whether Olie should be allowed to do this or not.
I agree consensus become harder as we get bigger. But instead of switch decision process to a standard vote method, we can perhaps just create some rules to make consensus easier to achieve.
I fail to see how it will ever be possible to achieve "consensus" on which logo to pick from a selection of more than 130. Feel free to prove me wrong -- just leave a message on the user talk page of everyone who voted and tell them your arguments why you think a particular logo or compromise should be used.
Realistically, when you stop using voting for decisions like this, you will end up with a cabal that makes decisions for the majority of users. The funny thing is: I think the people who complain about voting would not complain about such a cabal -- because they know that the only alternative is voting, which they despise.
If I enter the debate it's just because I worried to see Oliezekat spend all his time to try to found alternative proposition (he really worked hard) and to be bother just because he didn't strictly respect the saintly rules.
I did not "bother" Olie about anything. Which "saintly rules" do you think should be relaxed? Should Olie be allowed to submit his Miwiki variants for final voting even if the artists do not agree? What exactly do you want? If you just want to express your solidarity with the Miwiki campaign, well, maybe there are other places to do that.
Next time, a non-American organizer!?
I'm not an American, but perhaps it's a problem that I speak understandable English. In that case, maybe we should try to get Brion to organize the next contest in Esperanto. Or how about Volapük? I hear it's all the rage with the kids these days.
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
Guillaume-
For example, imagine you want to select a color.
Your black/white/gray example is perfectly applicable to our process. There has been the possibility of discussion during the entire logo submission process (for more than a month); discussions continued during voting, and even now after the submission deadline has been closed you can still submit variants and try to convince the artist to put these variants up for final voting. So I fail to see how and when we could or should have been trying harder to find compromise solutions. Many logos have been modified based on viewer feedback, especially NcWiki, Stygian's logo and Paullusmagnus' puzzle sphere. Some people have created vector variants of existing logos, others have changed the colors, and others have added their favorite mascot (*cough*).
Sorry, according to the discussion I read, I thought alternative logo was not welcome. I effectively saw many intresting variant of Paullus logo (as an example) on his own page, but they are not on the vote page. Do you planed to allow to vote on all those variant ? I just regret that the rules was not cleary defined before vote start and deadlines are so short. In other hand, I don't disagree the fact that have an unified logo before the big press relase may be a good thing.
There have been some complaints (not by me) about Olie's attempts to get Miwiki integrated into virtually every logo. Are you saying these users should just shut up? What exactly are you asking for here? I think you should be glad that we have a formalized process in place to handle these variants, because otherwise we would now be knee deep in a flamewar about whether Olie should be allowed to do this or not.
I don't undertand why the fact Olie tryed to make variant of all logo with his ant is a problem. Many people vote for logos where ants were (2 of the 10 finalist logos have ant inside). I suppose that mean many people think the ant is a good symbol of community work. So I think it's really positive to try to mix this symbol with other artist concept. It's the Wiki way, isn't it !? People who don't like this symbol just have to don't vote for it. Accuse Olie to only want to promote his mascot is as wrongful as deplorable.
I agree consensus become harder as we get bigger. But instead of switch decision process to a standard vote method, we can perhaps just create
some
rules to make consensus easier to achieve.
I fail to see how it will ever be possible to achieve "consensus" on which logo to pick from a selection of more than 130. Feel free to prove me wrong -- just leave a message on the user talk page of everyone who voted and tell them your arguments why you think a particular logo or compromise should be used.
Realistically, when you stop using voting for decisions like this, you will end up with a cabal that makes decisions for the majority of users. The funny thing is: I think the people who complain about voting would not complain about such a cabal -- because they know that the only alternative is voting, which they despise.
Please read the answer I made about "dynamic vote".
If I enter the debate it's just because I worried to see Oliezekat spend
all
his time to try to found alternative proposition (he really worked hard)
and
to be bother just because he didn't strictly respect the saintly rules.
I did not "bother" Olie about anything. Which "saintly rules" do you think should be relaxed? Should Olie be allowed to submit his Miwiki variants for final voting even if the artists do not agree? What exactly do you want? If you just want to express your solidarity with the Miwiki campaign, well, maybe there are other places to do that.
I didn't think especially to you about "bother" ;o) I thought that as puzzle-globe, sun-flower or dove (just few example), the ant is an intresting concept. I don't see any problem to allow artist to mix those concept to make new proposition. In fact, imho, I think we had better to first just decide what concept we want to represent Wikipedia and only after, allow artist to create logo on those themes. It may be great if people stop thinking all French wikipedians are just here to try to promote MiWiki just because it was designed by a French. Personaly, I like this concept very much, but I'm not sure it fit vey well as a logo. The very famous (at least in France) book "The Ants" is perhaps for something in the fact French like ants as much ;o)
Next time, a non-American organizer!?
I'm not an American, but perhaps it's a problem that I speak understandable English. In that case, maybe we should try to get Brion to organize the next contest in Esperanto. Or how about Volapük? I hear it's all the rage with the kids these days.
It was a stupid non-sens remark (wrote too late in the night). The positive point is that for me you speak as well english as I thought you was american :o)
Respekt.
Aoineko
Guillaume-
Sorry, according to the discussion I read, I thought alternative logo was not welcome. I effectively saw many intresting variant of Paullus logo (as an example) on his own page, but they are not on the vote page. Do you planed to allow to vote on all those variant ?
This is not my decision, it is the artist's decision. He/she can choose up to 5 versions of each logo. But it would be unfair if anyone could simply bypass the first voting round and put anything they want on the final, limited ballot. Miwiki is among the finalists anyway -- if Olie wants Miwiki to be part of *other* logos than his own, he needs to convince the artists. Olie has made clear that this is OK with him, so I don't see a problem.
I just regret that the rules was not cleary defined before vote start
That's simply not true. The voting rules have all been on [[International logo vote]] before the vote started. I have been careful not to change any rules during voting.
and deadlines are so short.
Honestly, I don't think they are short. Just think about all the complaining you could do before the deadline even has elapsed! That alone shows it's long enough ;). As I said earlier: We can always work on optimizing the final logo.
I don't undertand why the fact Olie tryed to make variant of all logo with his ant is a problem.
Some people perceive it as such. This has more to do with the logo/mascot distinction than with the contest as such. But if the artists accept the Miwiki variants, then they will be voted on like all other logos. For example, Paullusmagnus has accepted one Miwiki variant.
Regards,
Erik
Guillaume-
Sorry, according to the discussion I read, I thought alternative logo
was
not welcome. I effectively saw many intresting variant of Paullus logo
(as
an example) on his own page, but they are not on the vote page. Do you planed to allow to vote on all those variant ?
This is not my decision, it is the artist's decision. He/she can choose up to 5 versions of each logo. But it would be unfair if anyone could simply bypass the first voting round and put anything they want on the final, limited ballot. Miwiki is among the finalists anyway -- if Olie wants Miwiki to be part of *other* logos than his own, he needs to convince the artists. Olie has made clear that this is OK with him, so I don't see a problem.
I didn't speak about submit whatever people want, but just propose alternative logo based on elected concept.
I just regret that the rules was not cleary defined before vote start
That's simply not true. The voting rules have all been on [[International logo vote]] before the vote started. I have been careful not to change any rules during voting.
I don't specially like to be treat as lier especially when I'm not ;o) When the vote begun, the rules of the second round didn't allowed variants. This (good) rule was add by you the 6th of september at 12:55 (to be precise). http://meta.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=International_logo_vote&dif... Imho, 4 variants is verry few, but perhaps no much varants may be produce until the deadline so it's not a problem.
and deadlines are so short.
Honestly, I don't think they are short. Just think about all the complaining you could do before the deadline even has elapsed! That alone shows it's long enough ;). As I said earlier: We can always work on optimizing the final logo.
Sure I had better to work hard on logo variants instead of speaking in the wind :o) But I didn't wanted to work on something I may be unable to submit, so I waited to much... In fact, Olie kindly released my idea that I will put on my own page over the logo :op
I don't undertand why the fact Olie tryed to make variant of all logo
with
his ant is a problem.
Some people perceive it as such. This has more to do with the logo/mascot distinction than with the contest as such. But if the artists accept the Miwiki variants, then they will be voted on like all other logos. For example, Paullusmagnus has accepted one Miwiki variant.
Paullus seem open to alternative idea. It's nice. Hope to see 5 variants of his logo.
Regards,
Erik
Aoineko
Guillaume-
I didn't speak about submit whatever people want, but just propose alternative logo based on elected concept.
You're free to propose whatever you want. You're just not free to add it to the final ballot. That's the artists' decision.
I just regret that the rules was not cleary defined before vote start
That's simply not true. The voting rules have all been on [[International logo vote]] before the vote started. I have been careful not to change any rules during voting.
I don't specially like to be treat as lier especially when I'm not ;o) When the vote begun, the rules of the second round didn't allowed variants. This (good) rule was add by you the 6th of september at 12:55 (to be precise).
That's incorrect. I made clear before the first voting round on the vote page that variants would be voted upon in the final stage ("What about variants? ... In the second [now third] voting stage, you will have an opportunity to grade each logo variant individually." That part was written together with the other rules on Aug 27, right before the vote started.) I just clarified the number of variants after the first round closed and before the second one began. This was not a change of rules during voting.
Regards,
Erik
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
This is not my decision, it is the artist's decision. He/she can choose up to 5 versions of each logo.
Well, the interesting thing to me is whether Pallusmagnus feels like hes under some kind of pressure to go along with or humour the rather charismatic Olie, and whether there may or may not be an argument between them over Pallus' choice of finals.
That's simply not true. The voting rules have all been on [[International logo vote]] before the vote started. I have been careful not to change any rules during voting.
Yes, they the contest has been rather smooth so far and has avoided most or all of Murphy's laws altogether.
Some people perceive it as such. This has more to do with the logo/mascot distinction than with the contest as such. But if the artists accept the Miwiki variants, then they will be voted on like all other logos. For example, Paullusmagnus has accepted one Miwiki variant.
Ah - so its only one variant -- but its been a while since I looked.
~S~
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Jimmy Wales wrote in part:
Well, this logo contest is an experiment in voting. It has gone well in some ways, and not so well in other ways. In any case, no matter how we evaluate it overall, we can all agree that it has been educational, exposing some of the issues that we are going to have to deal with as we form scalable, stable, consensus-driven decision methods.
In many ways, the nature of Wikipedia makes scalability moot for most -- almost all -- of the decisions that we make. We make thousands of decisions every day on updating articles and these rarely even reach the stage where they are contentious. When they do, they are normally discussed on talk pages, and a consensus is, almost always, quietly reached there. Then there are a few occasions where some issue of debate spills out into the entire Wikipedia, or at least several pages, and that requires a wiki-wide (one language) discussion. Issues like the logo, which affect all Wikipedias, are extremely rare indeed! And this is as it should be, because it is for these issues that consensus doesn't scale well.
The current experiment is a good one because the choice of a logo from any of the fine leading contenders is not a life or death decision for the project. None of the choices available to us are bad, and so we can learn from this in a low-risk way.
I agree entirely. I called the process "farcical" in an earlier post, but that should not be interpreted as despair, or even criticism. Democracy is farcical by nature, but people can learn to do it better. (And it's no more farcical than a certain "real life" political election that I, as a registered California voter, will see in less than a month. Since Californians can also learn, the next recall will be handled better.)
Later, there will have to be some major policy decisions. In the past, these have always been made by consensus, which in reality boils down to us listening to all sides and encouraging different factions to accomodate each other so that we can find solutions that are better all around for everyone.
What major policy decisions will have to be made for all Wikipedias? Very few, I hope. That's the best solution to scalability problems.
-- Toby
I wrote:
Later, there will have to be some major policy decisions.
Toby responded:
What major policy decisions will have to be made for all Wikipedias? Very few, I hope. That's the best solution to scalability problems.
Well, that's a very good point. The one thing that I have in mind will be the final selection of a method of driving towards 1.0, as well as parameters for what that means, exactly.
It's a systemwide thing because of (in my mind, legitimate) concerns about what any sort of approval process will do to our community.
Here's a more detailed example, and I bring it up not so we can debate it right now, but just as an example of the sort of legitimate big picture debates we might expect to see in the future.
Let's say we have a good, solid 1.0 approval process well underway, to the point that we are rapidly approaching a situation where we have a high quality 'stable' release that we can all be proud of. The question naturally arises: what should random visitors to our site see?
1. The currenty live Wikipedia, as we have now? -or- 2. The stable release?
I am in favor of #1, but I do think that there are legitimate arguments for either. I can see that a lot of people might be of very different opinions about it. #1 has the virtue of being more naturally evolution, so it will probably happen by default. But suppose I find that lots and lots of respected contributors are campaigning that we switch to #2, i.e. that random visitors see an approved version of the article, with live edits available by a link to "click here to see the live version".
In such a case as that, my own opinion is not strong enough that I would have any interest in forcing it on everyone against a developing contrary consensus. And it's such a big thing that I can't imagine that we'd get near unanimity.
So that's a big picture decision where I can easily see how a vote could legitimize what we ultimately decide, in such a fashion that even those who 'lost' the vote could support the process as being a fair one. At least *potentially*.
One reason to discuss all this so far in advance is to help to avoid people taking sides on whether or not we are voting based on how they think the outcome of the vote will be. I mean, it wouldn't be good for people to be tempted to say "I think we should just do what Jimbo thinks is best" just because I happen to be taking one side in that particular dispute. And, it wouldn't be good for people to be tempted to say "It's time for Jimbo to step down as benevolent dictator, this is unjust and unfair" just because they don't agree with one particular decision.
As usual, I guess my discussion here is inconclusive but I hope gives some good perspective on why I do take an interest in introducing some more formalized decision procedures.
--Jimbo
"Jimmy Wales" skribis:
I wrote:
Later, there will have to be some major policy decisions.
Toby responded:
What major policy decisions will have to be made for all Wikipedias? Very few, I hope. That's the best solution to scalability problems.
Well, that's a very good point. The one thing that I have in mind will be the final selection of a method of driving towards 1.0, as well as parameters for what that means, exactly.
Do you want a multi-language-1.0, or is this (now) a English-only thing?
Paul
Paul Ebermann wrote:
Do you want a multi-language-1.0, or is this (now) a English-only thing?
I want a 1.0 in each language, yes. And the drive to create a 1.0 in each language will depend on the organic growth of that language's encyclopedia. I think that there's a natural time to look at what has been accomplished and to say "yes, this is now getting close to a degree of breadth that would justify trying to get to a stable release".
It'll naturally be primarily up to the people who are working in any given language as to when there's enough interest in the partial shift of focus. (I say 'partial' because while I expect some of us to get really excited and active in finalizing articles for a 1.0 release, I also expect others to just keep doing the same wonderful things they've been doing all along.)
I think it would be needlessly English-centric of us to assume that all wikipedia languages should be doing the same thing at the same time.
--Jimbo
Mav wrote in part:
I think Erik is doing an excellent job and think he should be thanked for the many hours of his /own/ time he has put into this effort
Yes, that is true.
instead of being accused of dictating terms.
To reiterate, I do not make that accusation. (Well, there's a nonjudgmental literal sense in which it's a clear fact. But one should avoid the term "dictating" for that sense!)
This is, after all, the largest vote in Wikipedia's history and we are all learning as we move along. But at the same time the vote does have to move along. Arguing over the vote method to use on the vote to decide what the second stage voting method should be, is, IMO a petty activity that tends to rerail the process instead of moving it along.
Yes, just as choosing the Round 2 voting method by FPTP, when that is known to be unpopular among just about everybody, would tend to derail the process. Accidentally, of course. I don't believe that anybody is /trying/ to derail the process.
-- Toby
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org