Concerns over en.wikipedia.org ArbCom Election Process

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
13 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Concerns over en.wikipedia.org ArbCom Election Process

Stephanie Erin Daugherty-3
Having not participated in last years ArbCom elections, I was quite
shocked to see, that with the important role the Arbitraton Committee
has in safeguarding the ideals and policies of the English wikipedia,
these elections are being held with an open ballot.

I cannot have any confidence in such an election. Open ballots bring out
the worst in politics - bullying, fear of retaliation, groupthink, and
voting with the hope to gain political favor in the future. While an
open ballot appears open on the surface, as history has demonstrated, it
is anything but.

There is a reason that most free elections use secret ballots. Only in
secret can someone make their true opinion known, without fear of
bullying, fear of retaliation, undue influence of others, or hurt
feelings.

Secret ballots also allow for good judgement to be exercised in cases
where a moral dilemma would otherwise exist - how do you deal with
voting against someone who you are close friends with, or who is in a
position of power over you, be it actual or percieved? In an open
ballot, this at the very least means either hurt feelings, or votes that
do not reflect one's true beliefs as to right choice to make in an
election.

We have facilities for secret ballots and approval voting. Those
facilities work well, as demonstrated in the last board elections.
Why on-wiki voting was chosen in favor of this, I don't know, to me it
defies logical sense.

In conclusion, I condemn this election in the strongest possible terms,
as being flawed, subject to tampering, and as being anything other than
a free election. I would hope that I'm not the only person that it this
way, but even if I am, I know that I cannot in good concience stand for
such an unjust and flawed process.

I would encourage anyone else that feels strongly about this to make
their voice heard, and loudly, so that future elections do not follow
the same flawed path, and so that we can have confidence in our
elections process.

--
Stephanie Daugherty
[hidden email]
User:Triona on en.wikipedia.org


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerns over en.wikipedia.org ArbCom Election Process

Effe iets anders
Afaik has there never been a closed vote on the wiki for local policy. Even
more, there has in my memory never been a closed vote other then for the
boardelections. I guess it's not for nothing that the system we are voting
with for the board is called boardvote. I think it would indeed be
interesting to use the system on the one hand as it is more peacefull and
like we vote irl, but on the other hand it might require assistence from the
devs, or it might be very hard to track which votes are egligable, harder as
when using open voting (when everybody can help looking who might be
sockpuppet)
So it has it's pro's and con's. I think at least the community has to decide
herself whether she wants a open or closed voting, but as well the wmf has
prolly to agree on voting this way (as it requires dev assistence). Maybe it
would be best to ask the wmf first indeed :)

Effeietsanders

2006/12/6, Stephanie Erin Daugherty <[hidden email]>:

>
> Having not participated in last years ArbCom elections, I was quite
> shocked to see, that with the important role the Arbitraton Committee
> has in safeguarding the ideals and policies of the English wikipedia,
> these elections are being held with an open ballot.
>
> I cannot have any confidence in such an election. Open ballots bring out
> the worst in politics - bullying, fear of retaliation, groupthink, and
> voting with the hope to gain political favor in the future. While an
> open ballot appears open on the surface, as history has demonstrated, it
> is anything but.
>
> There is a reason that most free elections use secret ballots. Only in
> secret can someone make their true opinion known, without fear of
> bullying, fear of retaliation, undue influence of others, or hurt
> feelings.
>
> Secret ballots also allow for good judgement to be exercised in cases
> where a moral dilemma would otherwise exist - how do you deal with
> voting against someone who you are close friends with, or who is in a
> position of power over you, be it actual or percieved? In an open
> ballot, this at the very least means either hurt feelings, or votes that
> do not reflect one's true beliefs as to right choice to make in an
> election.
>
> We have facilities for secret ballots and approval voting. Those
> facilities work well, as demonstrated in the last board elections.
> Why on-wiki voting was chosen in favor of this, I don't know, to me it
> defies logical sense.
>
> In conclusion, I condemn this election in the strongest possible terms,
> as being flawed, subject to tampering, and as being anything other than
> a free election. I would hope that I'm not the only person that it this
> way, but even if I am, I know that I cannot in good concience stand for
> such an unjust and flawed process.
>
> I would encourage anyone else that feels strongly about this to make
> their voice heard, and loudly, so that future elections do not follow
> the same flawed path, and so that we can have confidence in our
> elections process.
>
> --
> Stephanie Daugherty
> [hidden email]
> User:Triona on en.wikipedia.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerns over en.wikipedia.org ArbCom Election Process

Sean Whitton (Xyrael)
In reply to this post by Stephanie Erin Daugherty-3
I would like to emphasise the issues with voting against people you
would normally support, as this has been an issue with me with the
current steward election. Alternatively, a secret ballot makes
everything infinitely more serious and this can cause problems with
honesty. You have people arguing about who can be trusted to handle
the information.

Personally, I think that what we have now works as long as the
community is strict over the issues that you have hilighted - it is a
virtual world, so threats can be somewhat toned-down.

Just my thoughts.

On 06/12/06, Stephanie Erin Daugherty <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Having not participated in last years ArbCom elections, I was quite
> shocked to see, that with the important role the Arbitraton Committee
> has in safeguarding the ideals and policies of the English wikipedia,
> these elections are being held with an open ballot.
>
> I cannot have any confidence in such an election. Open ballots bring out
> the worst in politics - bullying, fear of retaliation, groupthink, and
> voting with the hope to gain political favor in the future. While an
> open ballot appears open on the surface, as history has demonstrated, it
> is anything but.
>
> There is a reason that most free elections use secret ballots. Only in
> secret can someone make their true opinion known, without fear of
> bullying, fear of retaliation, undue influence of others, or hurt
> feelings.
>
> Secret ballots also allow for good judgement to be exercised in cases
> where a moral dilemma would otherwise exist - how do you deal with
> voting against someone who you are close friends with, or who is in a
> position of power over you, be it actual or percieved? In an open
> ballot, this at the very least means either hurt feelings, or votes that
> do not reflect one's true beliefs as to right choice to make in an
> election.
>
> We have facilities for secret ballots and approval voting. Those
> facilities work well, as demonstrated in the last board elections.
> Why on-wiki voting was chosen in favor of this, I don't know, to me it
> defies logical sense.
>
> In conclusion, I condemn this election in the strongest possible terms,
> as being flawed, subject to tampering, and as being anything other than
> a free election. I would hope that I'm not the only person that it this
> way, but even if I am, I know that I cannot in good concience stand for
> such an unjust and flawed process.
>
> I would encourage anyone else that feels strongly about this to make
> their voice heard, and loudly, so that future elections do not follow
> the same flawed path, and so that we can have confidence in our
> elections process.
>
> --
> Stephanie Daugherty
> [hidden email]
> User:Triona on en.wikipedia.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
—Sean Whitton (Xyrael) [sean at silentflame dot com]
        Knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerns over en.wikipedia.org ArbCom Election Process

Brad Patrick
In reply to this post by Stephanie Erin Daugherty-3
The answer to "why" is discussed at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-11-13/Arbitration_series
:

Prior elections had used approval
voting<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting>,
but Jimbo Wales <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales> had
expressed interest in using an open method. In response to questions over
which method would be used this year, Jimbo replied:

*I have no objection in principle to a secret
ballot<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_ballot>,
but the standard wiki voting system is much more in line with our traditions
and appears to produce better results. When we used [private voting], we saw
a significant amount of trolling <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolling> and
negative campaigning <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_campaigning>.
... Additionally, even though [private voting] is theoretically "approval
voting", the fact of the matter is that people have tended to use it
incorrectly (in my opinion) leading to very low rates of approval. Wiki
voting tends to produce high levels of support, and this is important for
the confidence and credibility of the committee.

*Also, you may wish to reflect on the tradition of good faith and trust that
is at the core of what Jimbo is trying to reinforce here.  I utterly despise
approval voting, as it runs against everything in my political science
background (as an American lawyer, no less).  My Aussie friends just shake
their heads and laugh at me.  You may come to believe the same about open
elections for Arbcom, but keep in mind this is for a very different kind of
position than board or steward.  Discourse is required of these folks, as is
a cool head under fire.

Respectfully, I suggest gritting your teeth and voting the best way you can.


On 12/6/06, Stephanie Erin Daugherty <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Having not participated in last years ArbCom elections, I was quite
> shocked to see, that with the important role the Arbitraton Committee
> has in safeguarding the ideals and policies of the English wikipedia,
> these elections are being held with an open ballot.
>
> I cannot have any confidence in such an election. Open ballots bring out
> the worst in politics - bullying, fear of retaliation, groupthink, and
> voting with the hope to gain political favor in the future. While an
> open ballot appears open on the surface, as history has demonstrated, it
> is anything but.
>
> There is a reason that most free elections use secret ballots. Only in
> secret can someone make their true opinion known, without fear of
> bullying, fear of retaliation, undue influence of others, or hurt
> feelings.
>
> Secret ballots also allow for good judgement to be exercised in cases
> where a moral dilemma would otherwise exist - how do you deal with
> voting against someone who you are close friends with, or who is in a
> position of power over you, be it actual or percieved? In an open
> ballot, this at the very least means either hurt feelings, or votes that
> do not reflect one's true beliefs as to right choice to make in an
> election.
>
> We have facilities for secret ballots and approval voting. Those
> facilities work well, as demonstrated in the last board elections.
> Why on-wiki voting was chosen in favor of this, I don't know, to me it
> defies logical sense.
>
> In conclusion, I condemn this election in the strongest possible terms,
> as being flawed, subject to tampering, and as being anything other than
> a free election. I would hope that I'm not the only person that it this
> way, but even if I am, I know that I cannot in good concience stand for
> such an unjust and flawed process.
>
> I would encourage anyone else that feels strongly about this to make
> their voice heard, and loudly, so that future elections do not follow
> the same flawed path, and so that we can have confidence in our
> elections process.
>
> --
> Stephanie Daugherty
> [hidden email]
> User:Triona on en.wikipedia.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Brad Patrick
General Counsel & Interim Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
[hidden email]
727-231-0101
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerns over en.wikipedia.org ArbCom Election Process

geni
In reply to this post by Effe iets anders
On 12/6/06, effe iets anders <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Afaik has there never been a closed vote on the wiki for local policy. Even
> more, there has in my memory never been a closed vote other then for the
> boardelections.

First lot of arbcom elections on en.wikipedia.
--
geni
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerns over en.wikipedia.org ArbCom Election Process

Stephanie Erin Daugherty-3
In reply to this post by Effe iets anders
effe iets anders wrote:

>Afaik has there never been a closed vote on the wiki for local policy. Even
>more, there has in my memory never been a closed vote other then for the
>boardelections.
>
While I'd recomend that we look at secret ballots for some policy issues
too, they are more insulated from the problems
that make a public ballot unsuitable for this election. Elections of
individuals have much more at stake - both emotionally, and politically,
where as votes on policy are very straightforward. In an election such
as the arbcom election, there are factors such as personal relationships
that should take a back seat to what a voter thinks is best for
en.wikipedia - with the votes public, that's not possible. A lot of the
factors that influence a vote such as this are subtle and hidden, and
remain hidden even when voting in this format. The temptation to vote to
gain percieved political favor is one of the worst aspects of such a
system, and if it happens in RFA !votes, where much less is at stake,
then we can be sure that it happens in arbcom votes.

To put it quite bluntly, people are unwilling to risk the consequences
of voting their concience, going against the masses, going against their
friendships in an "open" or public election. People are only truely open
about their opinion when they can express  that opinion without
possibility of reprisal. Therefore open ballots are not ballots placed
under free will, and the election is subject to the worst kinds of
tampering.

I realize its too late to change this how this election run, however I
also hope that this is the last time we use such an opressive method for
an election in the name of "openness".

>I guess it's not for nothing that the system we are voting
>with for the board is called boardvote. I think it would indeed be
>interesting to use the system on the one hand as it is more peacefull and
>like we vote irl, but on the other hand it might require assistence from the
>devs, or it might be very hard to track which votes are egligable, harder as
>when using open voting (when everybody can help looking who might be
>sockpuppet)
>  
>
Boardvote has elegibility checks, and more importantly, the list of who
voted is public, so that votes can be stricken in a transparent manner
without knowing how they effect the outcom.

>So it has it's pro's and con's. I think at least the community has to decide
>herself whether she wants a open or closed voting, but as well the wmf has
>prolly to agree on voting this way (as it requires dev assistence). Maybe it
>would be best to ask the wmf first indeed :)
>
>Effeietsanders
>  
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerns over en.wikipedia.org ArbCom Election Process

Stephanie Erin Daugherty-3
In reply to this post by Effe iets anders
effe iets anders wrote:

>Afaik has there never been a closed vote on the wiki for local policy. Even
>more, there has in my memory never been a closed vote other then for the
>boardelections. I guess it's not for nothing that the system we are voting
>with for the board is called boardvote. I think it would indeed be
>interesting to use the system on the one hand as it is more peacefull and
>like we vote irl, but on the other hand it might require assistence from the
>devs, or it might be very hard to track which votes are egligable, harder as
>when using open voting (when everybody can help looking who might be
>sockpuppet)
>So it has it's pro's and con's. I think at least the community has to decide
>herself whether she wants a open or closed voting, but as well the wmf has
>prolly to agree on voting this way (as it requires dev assistence). Maybe it
>would be best to ask the wmf first indeed :)
>
>Effeietsanders
>
>2006/12/6, Stephanie Erin Daugherty <[hidden email]>:
>  
>
>>Having not participated in last years ArbCom elections, I was quite
>>shocked to see, that with the important role the Arbitraton Committee
>>has in safeguarding the ideals and policies of the English wikipedia,
>>these elections are being held with an open ballot.
>>
>>I cannot have any confidence in such an election. Open ballots bring out
>>the worst in politics - bullying, fear of retaliation, groupthink, and
>>voting with the hope to gain political favor in the future. While an
>>open ballot appears open on the surface, as history has demonstrated, it
>>is anything but.
>>
>>There is a reason that most free elections use secret ballots. Only in
>>secret can someone make their true opinion known, without fear of
>>bullying, fear of retaliation, undue influence of others, or hurt
>>feelings.
>>
>>Secret ballots also allow for good judgement to be exercised in cases
>>where a moral dilemma would otherwise exist - how do you deal with
>>voting against someone who you are close friends with, or who is in a
>>position of power over you, be it actual or percieved? In an open
>>ballot, this at the very least means either hurt feelings, or votes that
>>do not reflect one's true beliefs as to right choice to make in an
>>election.
>>
>>We have facilities for secret ballots and approval voting. Those
>>facilities work well, as demonstrated in the last board elections.
>>Why on-wiki voting was chosen in favor of this, I don't know, to me it
>>defies logical sense.
>>
>>In conclusion, I condemn this election in the strongest possible terms,
>>as being flawed, subject to tampering, and as being anything other than
>>a free election. I would hope that I'm not the only person that it this
>>way, but even if I am, I know that I cannot in good concience stand for
>>such an unjust and flawed process.
>>
>>I would encourage anyone else that feels strongly about this to make
>>their voice heard, and loudly, so that future elections do not follow
>>the same flawed path, and so that we can have confidence in our
>>elections process.
>>
>>--
>>Stephanie Daugherty
>>[hidden email]
>>User:Triona on en.wikipedia.org
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>foundation-l mailing list
>>[hidden email]
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>    
>>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>[hidden email]
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>  
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerns over en.wikipedia.org ArbCom Election Process

George William Herbert
In reply to this post by Stephanie Erin Daugherty-3
On 12/6/06, Stephanie <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> effe iets anders wrote:
>
> >Afaik has there never been a closed vote on the wiki for local policy.
> Even
> >more, there has in my memory never been a closed vote other then for the
> >boardelections.
> >
> While I'd recomend that we look at secret ballots for some policy issues
> too, they are more insulated from the problems
> that make a public ballot unsuitable for this election. Elections of
> individuals have much more at stake - both emotionally, and politically,
> where as votes on policy are very straightforward. In an election such
> as the arbcom election, there are factors such as personal relationships
> that should take a back seat to what a voter thinks is best for
> en.wikipedia - with the votes public, that's not possible. A lot of the
> factors that influence a vote such as this are subtle and hidden, and
> remain hidden even when voting in this format. The temptation to vote to
> gain percieved political favor is one of the worst aspects of such a
> system, and if it happens in RFA !votes, where much less is at stake,
> then we can be sure that it happens in arbcom votes.
>
> To put it quite bluntly, people are unwilling to risk the consequences
> of voting their concience, going against the masses, going against their
> friendships in an "open" or public election. People are only truely open
> about their opinion when they can express  that opinion without
> possibility of reprisal. Therefore open ballots are not ballots placed
> under free will, and the election is subject to the worst kinds of
> tampering.
>
> I realize its too late to change this how this election run, however I
> also hope that this is the last time we use such an opressive method for
> an election in the name of "openness".
>
> >I guess it's not for nothing that the system we are voting
> >with for the board is called boardvote. I think it would indeed be
> >interesting to use the system on the one hand as it is more peacefull and
> >like we vote irl, but on the other hand it might require assistence from
> the
> >devs, or it might be very hard to track which votes are egligable, harder
> as
> >when using open voting (when everybody can help looking who might be
> >sockpuppet)
> >
> >
> Boardvote has elegibility checks, and more importantly, the list of who
> voted is public, so that votes can be stricken in a transparent manner
> without knowing how they effect the outcom.
>
> >So it has it's pro's and con's. I think at least the community has to
> decide
> >herself whether she wants a open or closed voting, but as well the wmf
> has
> >prolly to agree on voting this way (as it requires dev assistence). Maybe
> it
> >would be best to ask the wmf first indeed :)



Looking at these concerns, I see where you are coming from, but I think that
this comes down to a difference in goals.  Is this an election?  If it's an
election, then it's not run well.  Is it an exercise in
consensus-gathering?  It works reasonably well for that.

I know it's a common desire to want Wikipedia to be more election-like, but
so far the policies say we aren't.  Exactly what the "pass" criteria are for
this election are sort of vague, for example; Jimbo could create more
positions if he wants more people on Arbcom, and select more than the top
five "winners".


--
-george william herbert
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerns over en.wikipedia.org ArbCom Election Process

Alphax (Wikipedia email)
George Herbert wrote:

> On 12/6/06, Stephanie <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> effe iets anders wrote:
>>
>>> Afaik has there never been a closed vote on the wiki for local policy.
>> Even
>>> more, there has in my memory never been a closed vote other then for the
>>> boardelections.
>>>
>> While I'd recomend that we look at secret ballots for some policy issues
>> too, they are more insulated from the problems
>> that make a public ballot unsuitable for this election. Elections of
>> individuals have much more at stake - both emotionally, and politically,
>> where as votes on policy are very straightforward. In an election such
>> as the arbcom election, there are factors such as personal relationships
>> that should take a back seat to what a voter thinks is best for
>> en.wikipedia - with the votes public, that's not possible. A lot of the
>> factors that influence a vote such as this are subtle and hidden, and
>> remain hidden even when voting in this format. The temptation to vote to
>> gain percieved political favor is one of the worst aspects of such a
>> system, and if it happens in RFA !votes, where much less is at stake,
>> then we can be sure that it happens in arbcom votes.
>>
>> To put it quite bluntly, people are unwilling to risk the consequences
>> of voting their concience, going against the masses, going against their
>> friendships in an "open" or public election. People are only truely open
>> about their opinion when they can express  that opinion without
>> possibility of reprisal. Therefore open ballots are not ballots placed
>> under free will, and the election is subject to the worst kinds of
>> tampering.
>>
>> I realize its too late to change this how this election run, however I
>> also hope that this is the last time we use such an opressive method for
>> an election in the name of "openness".
>>
>>> I guess it's not for nothing that the system we are voting
>>> with for the board is called boardvote. I think it would indeed be
>>> interesting to use the system on the one hand as it is more peacefull and
>>> like we vote irl, but on the other hand it might require assistence from
>> the
>>> devs, or it might be very hard to track which votes are egligable, harder
>> as
>>> when using open voting (when everybody can help looking who might be
>>> sockpuppet)
>>>
>>>
>> Boardvote has elegibility checks, and more importantly, the list of who
>> voted is public, so that votes can be stricken in a transparent manner
>> without knowing how they effect the outcom.
>>
>>> So it has it's pro's and con's. I think at least the community has to
>> decide
>>> herself whether she wants a open or closed voting, but as well the wmf
>> has
>>> prolly to agree on voting this way (as it requires dev assistence). Maybe
>> it
>>> would be best to ask the wmf first indeed :)
>
>
>
> Looking at these concerns, I see where you are coming from, but I think that
> this comes down to a difference in goals.  Is this an election?  If it's an
> election, then it's not run well.  Is it an exercise in
> consensus-gathering?  It works reasonably well for that.
>
> I know it's a common desire to want Wikipedia to be more election-like, but
> so far the policies say we aren't.  Exactly what the "pass" criteria are for
> this election are sort of vague, for example; Jimbo could create more
> positions if he wants more people on Arbcom, and select more than the top
> five "winners".
>
I actually see two problems with the current round of arbcom elections:

1. We're not using a secret ballot, which makes voting too easily
influenced by peer pressure

2. I don't believe that there are enough suitable candidates to fill the
vacant positions, and that the community will do a very poor job of
chosing the right people. Arbcom on en: is supposed to be made up of
senior, trusted, respected members of the community, but most of the
candidates could be described as anything but.

So, like several people, I shall continue to boycott the current round
of elections.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

signature.asc (581 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerns over en.wikipedia.org ArbCom Election Process

Gerard Meijssen-3
Alphax (Wikipedia email) schreef:

> I actually see two problems with the current round of arbcom elections:
>
> 1. We're not using a secret ballot, which makes voting too easily
> influenced by peer pressure
>
> 2. I don't believe that there are enough suitable candidates to fill the
> vacant positions, and that the community will do a very poor job of
> chosing the right people. Arbcom on en: is supposed to be made up of
> senior, trusted, respected members of the community, but most of the
> candidates could be described as anything but.
>
> So, like several people, I shall continue to boycott the current round
> of elections.
Hoi,
 From where I stand, the English language Wikipedia arbcom, is very much
an issue of the English Wikipedia community. However, the arguments that
apply for the Arbcom elections are very much the same for the Steward
elections. The voting is done in a similar way and from the way you
approach it, you cannot know the people who stand for office like the
people who know them from their native projects.

Effeietsanders for instance has his roots very much in the Dutch
language projects. I have got to know him a great guy. He is senior in
the Dutch realm, he is trusted and he is respected. There is however no
chance for you to know him like I do. You can boycott the Steward
collections because you do not believe people to have these qualities
then again how do you know? You also have to measure people by a certain
yardstick. Never mind your sterling remark that got so many people
incensed because of the sensitivity towards women (was it a joke?), I
still believe and trust that even people like yourself will rise to the
occasion and prove to do better than expected and do good in a role as
arbcom member or steward.

What do you achieve by applying this "I vote with my feet" logic? The
vote will still go ahead. You earn some more "malcontent" points. You
/will /be able to say, "I always said it would be no good" when the
arbcom does things that you disapprove off. This is a negative behaviour
that does get you nowhere. When you do not want to vote, do not vote.
Voting does not necessarily get you the results that you want, but that
is exactly what voting is meant to do.

Thanks,
    GeradM
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerns over en.wikipedia.org ArbCom Election Process

Alphax (Wikipedia email)
Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> Alphax (Wikipedia email) schreef:
>> I actually see two problems with the current round of arbcom elections:
>>
>> 1. We're not using a secret ballot, which makes voting too easily
>> influenced by peer pressure
>>
>> 2. I don't believe that there are enough suitable candidates to fill the
>> vacant positions, and that the community will do a very poor job of
>> chosing the right people. Arbcom on en: is supposed to be made up of
>> senior, trusted, respected members of the community, but most of the
>> candidates could be described as anything but.
>>
>> So, like several people, I shall continue to boycott the current round
>> of elections.
> Hoi,
>  From where I stand, the English language Wikipedia arbcom, is very much
> an issue of the English Wikipedia community. However, the arguments that
> apply for the Arbcom elections are very much the same for the Steward
> elections. The voting is done in a similar way and from the way you
> approach it, you cannot know the people who stand for office like the
> people who know them from their native projects.
>
... and being "open", we're having exactly the same problems as with
Arbcom elections. People saying nasty things about candidates etc.

> Effeietsanders for instance has his roots very much in the Dutch
> language projects. I have got to know him a great guy. He is senior in
> the Dutch realm, he is trusted and he is respected. There is however no
> chance for you to know him like I do.

Doesn't mean I can't voice my opinion though. Stewards are also rather
more global than arbitrators, and don't have as much influence. Also,
you might want to check how I've voted wrt. stewards.

> You can boycott the Steward collections because you do not believe
> people to have these qualities then again how do you know?

No.

> You also have to measure people by a certain
> yardstick. Never mind your sterling remark that got so many people
> incensed because of the sensitivity towards women (was it a joke?),

That was a mistake, but all we can do about the past is learn from it.

> I still believe and trust that even people like yourself will rise to
> the occasion and prove to do better than expected and do good in a
> role as arbcom member or steward.
>

Again, stewards are very different to arbitrators. Arbitrators on en:
are directly appointed by Jimbo, and there is a quota to be filled -
it's not like we can say "oh, it doesn't matter that nobody got elected,
we've got enough to cover". We WILL have 5 new arbitrators whether we
like it or not; I don't know if you've experienced it on the projects
you're active on, but my experience on en: Wikipedia is that people vote
for their friends, and that stupid people tend to have lots of friends
who will vote for them, because the votes are visible to everyone.

> What do you achieve by applying this "I vote with my feet" logic? The
> vote will still go ahead. You earn some more "malcontent" points. You
> /will /be able to say, "I always said it would be no good" when the
> arbcom does things that you disapprove off. This is a negative behaviour
> that does get you nowhere. When you do not want to vote, do not vote.
> Voting does not necessarily get you the results that you want, but that
> is exactly what voting is meant to do.
>

... what good has it done people who opposed things they didn't agree
with all throughout history?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

signature.asc (581 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerns over en.wikipedia.org ArbCom Election Process

Stephanie Erin Daugherty-3
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>  
>> Alphax (Wikipedia email) schreef:
>>    
>> Hoi,
>>  From where I stand, the English language Wikipedia arbcom, is very much
>> an issue of the English Wikipedia community. However, the arguments that
>> apply for the Arbcom elections are very much the same for the Steward
>> elections. The voting is done in a similar way and from the way you
>> approach it, you cannot know the people who stand for office like the
>> people who know them from their native projects.
>>
>>    
>
> ... and being "open", we're having exactly the same problems as with
> Arbcom elections. People saying nasty things about candidates etc.
>  
That will happen regardless... however, with secret ballots, people are
more inclined to form their own opinions, and are empowered to act on them.

>  
>> Effeietsanders for instance has his roots very much in the Dutch
>> language projects. I have got to know him a great guy. He is senior in
>> the Dutch realm, he is trusted and he is respected. There is however no
>> chance for you to know him like I do.
>>    
>
> Doesn't mean I can't voice my opinion though. Stewards are also rather
> more global than arbitrators, and don't have as much influence. Also,
> you might want to check how I've voted wrt. stewards.
>  
>
Voicing of opinions are a healthy part of the process political process.
However, to be truly free elections, we need secret ballots.
For every one person that will publicly oppose a given candidate, there
are probably 10 others that feel as strongly, but don't want those views
to be make public.

The same goes, although not as strongly, for supporting.

> Again, stewards are very different to arbitrators. Arbitrators on en:
> are directly appointed by Jimbo, and there is a quota to be filled -
> it's not like we can say "oh, it doesn't matter that nobody got elected,
> we've got enough to cover". We WILL have 5 new arbitrators whether we
> like it or not; I don't know if you've experienced it on the projects
> you're active on, but my experience on en: Wikipedia is that people vote
> for their friends, and that stupid people tend to have lots of friends
> who will vote for them, because the votes are visible to everyone.
>
>  
In an election, when you can't say how you really feel about someone,
thats a problem. Just because I'm friends with someone does NOT mean I
think their suitable for arbcom, steward, board, or even adminship. I
should be able to vote without risk to friendships, or the influence of
various wikipedia cabals.
>> What do you achieve by applying this "I vote with my feet" logic? The
>> vote will still go ahead. You earn some more "malcontent" points. You
>> /will /be able to say, "I always said it would be no good" when the
>> arbcom does things that you disapprove off. This is a negative behaviour
>> that does get you nowhere. When you do not want to vote, do not vote.
>> Voting does not necessarily get you the results that you want, but that
>> is exactly what voting is meant to do.
>>    
My refusal to vote in this election has to do with the fact that were I
to vote my conscience, I cannot do so without causing
my decisions being openly questioned and argued, and that were I to vote
as I feel I should, quite a few people would be offended.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerns over en.wikipedia.org ArbCom Election Process

George William Herbert
On 12/8/06, Stephanie Erin Daugherty <[hidden email]> wrote:
> In an election, when you can't say how you really feel about someone,
> thats a problem. Just because I'm friends with someone does NOT mean I
> think their suitable for arbcom, steward, board, or even adminship. I
> should be able to vote without risk to friendships, or the influence of
> various wikipedia cabals.

A lot of people seem to be voting conscience in the arbcom election.
Some very well known people have gotten a lot of negative votes,
including from people who I percieve as their friends in the admin and
senior editor community.

If you truly believe that your vote needs to be not attrbuted, then
it's perfectly fair play to create a second account and not vote from
your known account.  As long as you don't double-vote, it's perfectly
"legal" and completely functional at disguising you.


--
-george william herbert
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l