[Foundation-l] spamming of the english wikipedia users detected

[Gregory Maxwell]

On 7/3/07, Matthew Britton <matthew.britton at btinternet.com> wrote:
> You didn't even manage to email the right set of users.
>
> For example, you sent the message to Qxz, one of my alternate accounts.
> Qxz *does not qualify to vote*; it was registered in January 2007, and
> thus fails the "You must have been a contributor to at least one
> Wikimedia project for one year prior to June 1, 2007" criterion by a mile.
>
> I wonder just how much of the "less than 16%" turnout can be accounted
> for by this mass-mailing of ineligible users.

I appreciate your concern, but you are in error.  Your alternative
account is technically qualified to vote. I'm not sure where you got
the 1 year number, but the starting time requirement was March 1st.
If you can figure out the cause of that confusion, please ask someone
to fix it or point me to it and I will do so.

The requirements have confused a great many people including, apparently, you.

Had that been a real account and not an alternate, I could have quite
well saved you from missing the election. Other people tell me I saved
them from that kind of error.

I've also found people who thought the word "contributor" meant they
had to be a donor, and people who thought "contributor ... to a
project" means they had to participate in a Wikiproject.   These
people are not foolish. Wikimedia is many different things to many
different people, and crafting a message which makes sense to all of
them is HARD.

Directly contacting people is a robust form of communication which
cuts through misunderstandings. People who don't understand can reply.
The same doesn't happen with notices, and mailing list
announcements... at least not to the same extent.

And besides, with nothing in the anon-notice people who don't log in
ever week and don't read the lists would miss the election entirely.
Talk about systemic bias! Is it fair that only obsessive editors can
vote? ;)

There are, however, a few people I emailed who are not eligible. For
example, I did not apply the "you are not blocked" requirement because
blocking changes moment to moment and I do not know who will be
unblocked by the time my email arrives.  I figured that few were
probably ineligible due to being blocked.   In the earliest emails I
sent out I was testing for first edit date in a  somewhat sloppy
manner, and I might have emailed a few users who were close but failed
that criteria applied strictly. However, there are not that many users
who meet the 400 edit criteria and who don't meet the account age
criteria.

As far as my turnout numbers went, they were the most conservative
possible, rounded up at every stage, it holds true even with
assumptions like "every person who has voted is a eligible enwiki
voter".  I did this because I started sending the mail before I double
checked my numbers, so I only stated what I could be absolutely sure
of...  Even greatly understated the problem of turnout for Wikimedia
is a cause for great embarrassment.