I agree that negative votes have possibly too much weight in the current
system. But there is one other problem with what we have: people from some
cultures may be much more reluctant to cast tactical negative votes. If
this is so, because of cultural differences we privilege cultures more flex
about expressing dissent. James Alexander has promised to look into raw
data, as this effect would be observable. If it shows up, it is yet another
argument to drop the current voting method.
best,
dj
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 10:48 PM, James Alexander <jalexander(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
[For the record I'm running the vote dumps now
that should allow some of
that analysis to be done by those interested. No exact promises on timing
because while I'll send it out today it will take some time to approve for
anonymization etc.]
James Alexander
Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 10:13 PM, Tomasz Ganicz
<polimerek(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Well, the funny thing with current system is that if people had voted
in
most
rational way - i.e. to maximize the impact of their votes - the
results would have been negative for all candidates - as this year none
of
> them got more than 50% of positive votes. But in fact if all people
would
vote in
that way - negative votes would be negligible - as the result
will
> be simple exactly the same as if there will be no "no" votes - in both
> methods of calculation :-) What makes negative votes so important is
just
> because people are not voting in rational
way as they have some mental
> objections to vote "no". But those brave ones (or smart ones or bad
ones)
enough to
vote "no" have much higher impact on the results than the
others
> - which I think is not good by itslef.
>
> By the way would interesting to know how many voters voted only "yes"
and
"no", and how many voted "yes" for only one candidate and
"no" for all
others (the most impact for selected candidate).
Based on the numbers, it's likely that the voting was dominantly like:
"I want this candidate or two"; "I have no opinion about these
candidates"; and "I really really wouldn't like to see this one or two
as Board members".
I'd say that our democracy depends on such behavior of voters, as at
the end we are getting good people in the Board, no matter who has
been elected particularly. However, it could change and it could have
dramatic consequences, as we are operating with small numbers.
What's more likely to be seen as the outcome of "rational voting" is
to get one or few candidates with 50% less opposing votes and although
it wouldn't need to be bad in the sense of particular candidates, it
would make very negative consequences to the rest of the community.
First time such thing happens, next time we'd have bitter fight for
every vote. And that would be the changing point: from friendly to
competitive atmosphere. It would also mean that we'd get serious
hidden lobby groups. (We have them now, but it's relaxed and much more
about "it would be great if our candidate would pass", than about
serious fights for own candidates.)
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
__________________________
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i centrum badawczego CROW
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An
Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego
autorstwa