[Wikipedia-l] Vote on voting method for final round

[Till Westermayer]

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . till we *) . . .

Hi,

I'm a bit used to votings and elections in a party organization, and am
a sociologist, so maybe my level of suspection is higher than that of
other people. So, first of all -- it is a good thing, somebody put's
time in the voting coordination, and it is thanksworthy.

But (you expected that, didn't you ;-)) ...

>Toby-
>> The whole setup looks very odd for Wikipedia.
>> Why is Erik deciding by fiat how things are run?

>He is the vote coordinator; somebody has to make choices on how to
>procede or nothing will happen.

So, the obvious question is: who made Erik the vote coordinator? I don't
ask this because I think someone else should do it or because I see an
actual problem here, but because this may be a weak point of wikipedias
organisation. (On the other hand, I really don't like to get a wikipedia
with by-laws, so I'm a bit concerned and undecided at the same time).

>I think Erik is doing an excellent job and think he should be
>thanked for the many hours of his /own/ time he has put into this
>effort instead of being accused of dictating terms.

Yes, even I find it quite unusual to think that way -- every "free" work
works that way. So what? What about the people who submitted logos? What
about the people who took their time and voted?

>This is, after
>all, the largest vote in Wikipedia's history and we are all
>learning as we move along.

Right, and so I fear we set precedence. Wikipedia has the possibility to
try condorcet voting, or some other more democratic and more fair voting
system. So the vote on the voting system. This vote was made FPTP in a
dictatorial ;-) decision by Erik, me thinks, and initially it wasn't
even clear if it should go FPTP or approval. Someone else started
condorcet as an alternative way shortly thereafter. If everybody votes
FPTP and condorcet, we would see the difference -- same people, same
interests, but maybe a different outcome!

>But at the same time the vote does have
>to move along.

Right.

>Arguing over the vote method to use on the vote to
>decide what the second stage voting method should be, is, IMO a
>petty activity that tends to rerail the process instead of moving
>it along.

Maybe it slows down the voting a bit, but also it helps us to find a
voting system that fits wikipedia. So maybe this slow discussion is
helpful after all, in the longer run.

Regards,
 __ .
 / / / /                            ... Till Westermayer - till we *)
. .
  . mailto:till at tillwe.de . www.westermayer.de/till/ . icq 320393072
  . Habsburgerstr. 82 . 79104 Freiburg . 0761 55697152 . 0160 96619179
  . . . . .