[Foundation-l] How was the "only people who averaged two edits a week in the last six months can vote" rule decided?

[Steven Walling]

Recentist? Ignoring the, ahem, fanciful language you've chosen, I'd like to
throw my support behind the voting qualifications wholeheartedly.
For me, the analogy is simple: just because you get a driver's license once
doesn't entitle you to drive for the rest of your life. This isn't just
about what will "skew the results" with ballot stuffing. It's about giving
suffrage to people who can make an informed decision that will positively
affect the work of the community by getting adequate representation on the
Board.
Steven Walling

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Brian <Brian.Mingus at colorado.edu> wrote:

> The Wikimedia Foundation was originally envisaged as a membership
> organization. Per my recollection, everyone who ever edited would become a
> member. That didn't happen for legal reasons, however, I believe in the
> spirit of it being a membership organization. Unfortunately we now
> subscribe
> to the recentist perspective that only those that maintain a certain pace
> of
> editing are eligible to vote. We ignore, not only new editors who do not
> yet
> have 600 edits, but all editors who have 600 edits but have contributed to
> the projects in other ways recently, or have lapsed into just using the
> projects as a useful information resource.
>
> I highly doubt that a statistical analysis was carried out which found that
> editors that don't meet this requirement skew the results. I also highly
> doubt that editors that don't meet this requirement are incapable of
> comprehending the statements created by those seeking election, ranking
> them
> and making a perfectly valid choice that increases the power of the result.
>
> In my view, the only reason to limit voting to editors with a certain
> number
> of edits is to limit the effects of ballot stuffing. However, technical
> measures can easily counteract this effect. Additionally, the more people
> you allow to vote the more effective your anti-ballot stuffing
> countermeasures will be, as the larger number of votes mutes the effect of
> those who vote for the same person from several ip addresses.
>
> Thus, I must conclude that this rule was created arbitrarily. And if it was
> voted on, I seriously consider the result of that vote suspect, given
> present knowledge.
>
> /Brian
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>