Erik,
I am a bit disturbed
You started the new logo contest. You made the pages, you set the rules. Some people are following all the cheating that is occurring along, and you have no reaction whatsoever. A certain degree of cheating is no big deal, but to my opinion, there are limits. I think as the organizer of the contest, you could at least react to some of the worse irregularities. Right now, anyone can vote under an ip, anyone can vote without anyone knowing them, anyone can replace the logo of someone else by his, in particular in the top 10. And perhaps a logo which was in the top 10 before being replaced by another won't be in the top 10 anymore, just because someone had fun replacing that top 10 logo.
And there are no reactions whatsoever.
The logo issue in itself is not important. But again, this case is an experiment. It is the experiment of how of whole organization could work together with a common decision process. With respect and honesty toward those who created the artwork, and respect and honesty toward those who came to vote, and have the belief we are all sharing something.
User:Kat left a couple of days ago, because too disgusted by the decision process on the en wiki, among other things. Right now, at wikipedia-wide level, community does not scale either. I think any of the international votes are important because they are big scale experiment of how a "big" community could take decisions together.
If we are so careless with these kind of decisions, I see not why we would be better with more important decisions. What is occuring is reflecting a broken organisation.
Since no one reacted except Olie himself, I will be bold. Whatever the outcome of the logo contest, if logo 124 is not in the top 10, there will be 11 logos in the top 10.
And I also think the next international vote will need to be much better organised.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
I dont think its all that much of a mess -- so much to blame Erik. It is a mess, though and there are some lessons to be sifted from all of this -- but I think for the most part -- as a preliminary round sort of thing, I think its gone fairly well. Only one will win out, and it looks like the puzzle concept is by far the strongest, all around. It looked like a winner from the beginning, and it still looks that way (though its way too damn busy and cluttered as it is).
All in all, the next time a big vote comes around, there needs to be *radiobutton and cgi-counted votes - *excluding repeat IPs *standard time deadlines --*votes on the deadlines - not just a day or twos discussion.
All is well that doesnt fall on your head at 4km/second. -S-
--- Anthere anthere6@yahoo.com wrote:
Erik,
I am a bit disturbed
You started the new logo contest. You made the pages, you set the rules. Some people are following all the cheating that is occurring along, and you have no reaction whatsoever. A certain degree of cheating is no big deal, but to my opinion, there are limits. I think as the organizer of the contest, you could at least react to some of the worse irregularities. Right now, anyone can vote under an ip, anyone can vote without anyone knowing them, anyone can replace the logo of someone else by his, in particular in the top 10. And perhaps a logo which was in the top 10 before being replaced by another won't be in the top 10 anymore, just because someone had fun replacing that top 10 logo.
And there are no reactions whatsoever.
The logo issue in itself is not important. But again, this case is an experiment. It is the experiment of how of whole organization could work together with a common decision process. With respect and honesty toward those who created the artwork, and respect and honesty toward those who came to vote, and have the belief we are all sharing something.
User:Kat left a couple of days ago, because too disgusted by the decision process on the en wiki, among other things. Right now, at wikipedia-wide level, community does not scale either. I think any of the international votes are important because they are big scale experiment of how a "big" community could take decisions together.
If we are so careless with these kind of decisions, I see not why we would be better with more important decisions. What is occuring is reflecting a broken organisation.
Since no one reacted except Olie himself, I will be bold. Whatever the outcome of the logo contest, if logo 124 is not in the top 10, there will be 11 logos in the top 10.
And I also think the next international vote will need to be much better organised.
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Steve-
It is a mess, though
In which respect? I agree that voting using the wiki is always somewhat ugly. When I first proposed adding voting support to the software I was met with wide disapproval for suggesting that voting should be used at all for decision making. Through months of lobbying I and others have managed to erode that opposition somewhat so I hope that eventually voting boxes will just be another tag in the wiki syntax.
All in all, the next time a big vote comes around, there needs to be *radiobutton and cgi-counted votes -
You are very welcome to submit changes to the MediaWiki software to support voting, an external CGI-based solution would be an ugly hack with many of the same problems as the current wiki-based voting.
*excluding repeat IPs
Sure, if you do the sifting of thousands of votes with no software support.
*standard time deadlines
We have them (except for the submission deadline, but we accepted all logos that were still submitted on the same day).
*votes on the deadlines - not just a day or twos discussion.
You can vote on virtually every aspect of the contest -- logo format, number of pixels, number of colors, Wikipedia text or not, etc. In the wiki world we try to avoid voting and seek consensus instead. Someone proposes a specific guideline and if people do not agree with it they express their dissent. This was what happened here. Some people felt the deadline was too short, some people felt it was too long, in the end we voted and there was a majority for extending it. I see no point in wasting time on *voting* on the *voting* deadlines as well. And no matter what deadline you set, you can be sure that Anthere will complain about it.
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
Through months of lobbying I and others have managed to erode that opposition somewhat
I think that 'lobbying' unnecessarily disparages what you've done. "Calm and reasoned argument, discussion, and explanation" is more accurate.
I, for one, can still be counted among the skeptical with respect to voting, but I've been persuaded by Erik and others that it can properly play a much bigger role than I had previously imagined.
One of the advantges of a well-done vote is that it can become a focal point for consensus. On the other hand, one of the disadvantages of a poorly-done vote is that it can become a focal point for "party behavior" or rivalries.
You can vote on virtually every aspect of the contest -- logo format, number of pixels, number of colors, Wikipedia text or not, etc. In the wiki world we try to avoid voting and seek consensus instead. Someone proposes a specific guideline and if people do not agree with it they express their dissent. This was what happened here. Some people felt the deadline was too short, some people felt it was too long, in the end we voted and there was a majority for extending it. I see no point in wasting time on *voting* on the *voting* deadlines as well.
I don't know, maybe we should vote on whether we should have votes to determine voting deadlines? ha ha.
--Jimbo
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
Steve-
It is a mess, though
In which respect? I agree that voting using the wiki is always somewhat ugly. When I first proposed adding voting support to the software I was met with wide disapproval for suggesting that voting should be used at all for decision making. Through months of lobbying I and others have managed to erode that opposition somewhat so I hope that eventually voting boxes will just be another tag in the wiki syntax.
Yeah, its about time -- the purists lose me right around the area of obvious necessity (just like puritans are wacked about birth control) and so some added functionality is welcome.
You are very welcome to submit changes to the MediaWiki software to support voting, an external CGI-based solution would be an ugly hack with many of the same problems as the current wiki-based voting.
Il consider asking for CVS access. I may soon be too occupied in other aspects of my life to do this. But I think im ready to tinker ;-)
Sure, if you do the sifting of thousands of votes with no software support.
Well, some of this ought to be done -- if someone compiles a raw ip list from the recent changes list, and dishes it out to the other developers - Jimbo included, the five of you can do an easy tool for common/redundant ips. I dont know the best *nix software for this, since I dont run a nix yet.
We have them (except for the submission deadline, but we accepted all logos that were still submitted on the same day).
Im glad you were flexible and reasonable with that, and with other things.
*votes on the deadlines - not just a day or twos discussion.
You can vote on virtually every aspect of the contest -- logo format, number of pixels, number of colors, Wikipedia text or not, etc.
Yeah, but all of that is secondary to the issue of when. (Where is not an issue). Consensus is fine, and if somelike like you doesnt get ambitious with it and take the lead, it might never get done. 'Herding cats' is the applicable metaphor on wiki, (if your goal is control anyway) I think youve done a supremely fine job, and knowing this, you should take Antheres critiques with a grain of salt -- and consider them sincere and potentially helpful. Her English not so good, is why it comes off a little sticky ;-)
And no matter what deadline you set, you can be sure that Anthere will complain about it.
Haha. Now... lets be civil.
Seriously, -S-
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Anthere-
You started the new logo contest. You made the pages, you set the rules. Some people are following all the cheating that is occurring along, and you have no reaction whatsoever.
I have responded several times on [[Talk:International logo vote]] concerning specifically the matter of anonymous voting. My current suggestion is: Let's keep an eye on what's going on, and let's set a clear policy for the final vote that only people with existing user pages on Meta can vote (I'm not sure if we want to make it necessary to be logged in, because that's harder to control). With the amount of voting going on right now, it is neither practical nor useful to follow up on every edit, and the overall picture has not changed significantly since the vote has started.
The image swapping is of course annoying, but let's not assume maliciousness without good reason. Our software overwrites images without prompting, and in spite of my explicit warning not to use obvious filenames, several contestants have done so. The recent swapping seems to have been an act of deliberate vandalism, and it was reverted before I could react; the vote was adjusted accordingly. I myself have reverted two image uploads. What more do you want?
anyone can vote without anyone knowing them
Well, what do you propose as an alternative? People vote from all Wikipedias, including the very small ones, so it's very hard to track down individuals. I think the solution to require at least a redirect to an existing user page is a good one.
anyone can replace the logo of someone else by his,
And anyone can replace the text of the logo pages and the votes themselves, imagine that! ;-) That's not necessarily a bad thing, but the whole image uploading/deleting/reverting process is currently ugly as hell and in desperate need of recoding. I shall await your PHP patches.
And perhaps a logo which was in the top 10 before being replaced by another won't be in the top 10 anymore, just because someone had fun replacing that top 10 logo.
The regularly updated top 20 page which someone started is of no relevance whatsoever. I will do the real final count later today (today is the voting deadline for the first round) and may throw out some votes as irrelevant.
The logo issue in itself is not important. But again, this case is an experiment. It is the experiment of how of whole organization could work together with a common decision process. With respect and honesty toward those who created the artwork, and respect and honesty toward those who came to vote, and have the belief we are all sharing something.
Sure. I think it's working fine. We have over 130 logos, many of them excellent, and a very very interested and active Wikipedia community that is currently expressing its opinion on their quality. It works exactly as expected and the level of vandalism or cheating I have noticed is very low.
User:Kat left a couple of days ago,
People leave all the time and whenever they do, they become the fodder for other people's arguments. Frankly, I'm getting tired of this. Please don't speak for others.
Right now, at wikipedia-wide level, community does not scale either.
Yeah, we've only managed to create 150,000 articles on en:. We'll never grow past 300,000 ;-)
I think any of the international votes are important because they are big scale experiment of how a "big" community could take decisions together.
Using wiki for voting is a bit like using a trout as a hammer; it's very messy and you end up smelling like fish. Well, not exactly, but it is certainly not the best way to organize a large vote. But until we have voting support in our software, it's the best we can do and necessarily limited. These limitations become visible here, but I see no reason to assume that they have a significant impact on the outcome. Except for the fish smell.
Since no one reacted except Olie himself, I will be bold. Whatever the outcome of the logo contest, if logo 124 is not in the top 10, there will be 11 logos in the top 10.
The votes that were added after the logo was changed were moved and the individual users contacted. What's your problem?
And I also think the next international vote will need to be much better organised.
If there will be another international vote, I'll be sure to recommend you as an organizer.
Regards,
Erik
Anthere wrote:
Right now, anyone can vote under an ip, anyone can vote without anyone knowing them, anyone can replace the logo of someone else by his, in particular in the top 10. And perhaps a logo which was in the top 10 before being replaced by another won't be in the top 10 anymore, just because someone had fun replacing that top 10 logo.
Has this actually happened? Has someone removed a logo from the top 10 and replaced it with another? That's pure and simple vandalism of the worst sort.
As for voting under ips or votes from people "we" don't all know, how significant are the numbers? Is there really any reason to think that anyone is stuffing the ballot box?
That would be very unwiki behavior.
And I also think the next international vote will need to be much better organised.
I would love to see some specific recommendations, because I think this has been run in an excellent fashion.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Anthere wrote:
Right now, anyone can vote under an ip, anyone can vote without anyone knowing them, anyone can replace the logo of someone else by his, in particular in the top 10. And perhaps a logo which was in the top 10 before being replaced by another won't be in the top 10 anymore, just because someone had fun replacing that top 10 logo.
Has this actually happened? Has someone removed a logo from the top 10 and replaced it with another? That's pure and simple vandalism of the worst sort.
As for voting under ips or votes from people "we" don't all know, how significant are the numbers? Is there really any reason to think that anyone is stuffing the ballot box?
Choosing the top ten for the short list was based on an arbitrary number. If 10th and 11th place are close in votes why not include the 11th? If the occasional bit of improper voting happens, it is then marginalized. It would take massive vote fraud to make a difference. I prefer marginalizing the casual cheater to spending enormous energy developing elaborate systems to catch them.
As for what to do with the short list (which also includes candidates with multiple variants) perhaps they should be first reviewed for technical workability. Some of the high vote getters strike me as very complicated designs that may not scale down very well for low-resolution situations.
Ec
Ec
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 11:25:23AM -0700, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Choosing the top ten for the short list was based on an arbitrary number. If 10th and 11th place are close in votes why not include the 11th? If the occasional bit of improper voting happens, it is then marginalized. It would take massive vote fraud to make a difference. I prefer marginalizing the casual cheater to spending enormous energy developing elaborate systems to catch them.
As for what to do with the short list (which also includes candidates with multiple variants) perhaps they should be first reviewed for technical workability. Some of the high vote getters strike me as very complicated designs that may not scale down very well for low-resolution situations.
*IF* we use Condorcet method, then you're right - one more option doesn't change anything. But if we go with some voting method prone to tactical voting, like FPTP, Average, or IRV, then it isn't so simple.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org