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

[Guillaume Blanchard]

Jake Nelson wrote:
> A lot of interesting points being made, hmm.
> Some replies, in no particular order:
> I'll note that the FPTP vote on voting method wasn't a great choice, but
eh,
> we can live with it. It shouldn't be a terribly different result with any
> decent system. I'd recommend establishing some sort of standards for
voting
> system... not 'we use X system always' (though if we could find one people
> consistently agree upon as good enough, that'd be /nice/ (I'm not holding
my
> breath here)) but maybe 'we use system X, Y, or Z' (Which to me are
> Condorcet, IRV, and Average, in no particular order). And if we really
feel
> the need, specify how we choose among X/Y/Z  (I'd say by average voting).
> I find it distressing that our French friends think 'silly' equates to
> 'idiot'. Silly is mostly a friendly term... it can be considered a little
> patronizing to have your idea called silly, but it's not really personally
> offensive, and being called silly as a person can almost be a compliment.
> I wouldn't vote in favor of a Miwki-ed logo, but I don't have an issue
with
> the existence of such variants. We really should have (or should have had)
> more variants... and I'd have liked to see some creation of new logos
after
> the Round 1 determination of what people want to see... more fusions of
> logos, etc. (The black/white/grey example is a good one.) I could make
more
> detailed suggestions, but it'd be academic now, the current system isn't
> bad, and suggestions of "I'd do it this way" would seem like undue
> criticism. I can understand if Erik gets very irritable about such things
> (Though he seems to show quite good restraint on this so far...)
> I definitely understand the concerns of the foreign-language Wikipedians
> about having to go through intermediaries, and possibly being ignored by
the
> English-only-speaking majority. For starters, I suggest that posting in
> their language may be better than staying quiet: translation can happen.
> Babelfish doesn't exactly produce brilliant prose, but it rarely fails to
> convey the gist, and has improved drastically from how it used to be...
and
> sometimes you'll be surprised who understands you. Also, try not to read
> American or Anglophonic conspiracies into things- any that exist are
likely
> unintentional. Remember Hanlon's Razor: 'Never attribute to malice that
> which can be adequately explained by stupidity.' (Though I don't think
> stupidity is necessarily the right word here, perhaps ignorance might be
> better.)
> I have a lot of thoughts on voting, governance, and including
> non-Anglophonic Wikipedians, but they're lengthy and scattered, so I'll
not
> burden you with them... maybe I'll post something on my userspace
later....
> though I'm still rather self-conscious about making such statements, not
> having been here terribly long.
>
> Anyway, in general, the best prescription for all of us is just to relax.
> I'll shut up for a while now ;).
>
> --Jake

Perhaps you can't imagine how sometime it is frustrating to don't be able to
get to the heart of something just because of a language lack. It's not a
problem to speak about weather, but for deeper subject it can be. Sure we
have to develop embassy, but found someone fluent in English who are agree
to read all post and make summary for those who don't speak English is not
an easy thing ;o) We have better to learn English that is the in facto
international language. In fact, this time we had a lack of information
inside the French Wikipedia, mainly because this vote occurred in a period
of many « main » French wikipedians were missing. I am very interesting to
hear your proposition to develop collaboration with non-Anglophonic
wikipedians.



Aoineko



Just for fun, here is the Babelfish translation of my text above:



Perhaps that you cannot imagine how much it is sometimes frustrating not to
be able to go at the bottom of the things simply because of a problem of
language. It is not a problem to speak about time, but that can be it for a
major subject. We must certainly develop the embassies, but finds somebody
who speaks usually English, and who is close with reading all the messages
and to make of them summaries for those which do not speak English, is not
an easy thing;o) One shoed to better learn English who is in facto, the
language international. In fact, this time there was a lack of information
inside French-speaking Wikipédia, in particular because owing to the fact
that the vote intervened at one period or much of the French-speaking
wikipédiens "major" missed. I am very interest to hear your proposals to
develop collaboration with the wikipédiens not english-speaking.