[Foundation-l] Elections email

Jon Harald Søby jhsoby at gmail.com
Fri Jun 10 21:42:24 UTC 2011

As Shane said, there are built-in features in the SecurePoll software
that help us to control for sockpuppeting, so we are pretty safe.
Sockpuppeting in a large enough scale to influence an election of this
size would also be very difficult to pull through, and practically
impossible to do undetected.

2011/6/11, Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com>:
>> On 10 June 2011 22:19, Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I've received two invitations to vote -- also both at the same e-mail
>>> address -- so all I'd have to do now (if it were a user name that
>>> didn't make it obvious it was mine) is go somewhere else to vote. And
>>> given how low the voting requirements are the software must be sending
>>> out multiple invitations to quite a few people.
>>> I can't see how it benefits the project to have multiple accounts
>>> voting that only need to have made 300 edits and 20 recent ones, and a
>>> kind bot that reminds them of all the eligible account names. We're
>>> shooting ourselves in the foot with this, surely.
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 15:29, Thomas Morton
> <morton.thomas at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Perhaps. Although with that said nearly 1000 people have voted today -
>> compared to between 100-200 on the previous days (excepting the 29th,
>> first
>> day, which had about 600-800). So it's a case of; is the risk worth the
>> reward?
> It's more than a risk, though, it's a certainty that the software is
> inviting multiple alternate/sock accounts to vote. And there's no way
> of knowing what the percentage is. So the cost/benefit can't be
> addressed, because we have no figures.
> Sarah
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Jon Harald Søby <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jon_Harald_S%C3%B8by>

More information about the foundation-l mailing list