[Foundation-l] for the future...

[Ben McIlwain]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> dear greg,
> 
> to the questions below i know not of any answers as yet, could you please
> provide them, thanks.
> today another graph was published on meta
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Board_elections/2007/en&curid=60802&diff=624895&oldid=624137 showing
> a significantly different balance in the voting as compared to last
> year, or am i misinterpreting arno lagrange's graph perhaps?

That graph looks to be either entirely in error or deliberately
distorted, so I wouldn't put too much trust in it.  According to Arno's
own numbers (seen here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Elections_statistics_2006 ), he had
en-wiki at either 45% or 48% last year, depending on what "Uzuloj" and
"Redaktoj" mean.  Graphs are pretty meaningless if they are fabricated.

Until the real data from last election are provided, all of these
guessing games are meaningless.  May I ask, by the way, where are the
data?!  The voter rolls are supposed to be public information, but they
disappeared around the time of the start of the 2007 election, and now
no one but those making biased graphs seem to know where they are.

Also, all of these examinations are meaningless without comparison
against the growth of the English Wikipedia.  En-wiki's growth rate is
higher than the average growth rate of all other languages, so it's only
natural that it would have more voter participation this year.  Also, we
have a lot of people who speak other languages but choose to contribute
primarily on en-wiki (including current Board member Erik Moeller), so
it may be that if participation in other languages is low, the only
people they have to blame are themselves.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFGk+RXvCEYTv+mBWcRAkgMAJ4u2nAlnTunHBVVFgjWsggWgjERtgCfUfab
ixOsTFHgXHTbqhn9q/KNvUk=
=VITX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----