Something should be said here about the importance of "oppose" votes.
Because of the way the votes are counted, oppose votes can have a huge
impact on the outcome.
Andrew Lih (Fuzheado) also has a very interesting voter guide, and explains
"strategic" voting in more detail.
As I'm up in the night with a cup of camomile to get me sleepy again,
I went and voted. Checking candidate statements and voting took me
about 5 minutes. It's easy and quick.
I skipped Smallbones' guide, and didn't bother with any others as
there are too many old griefs being waived about.
This
Just a head's up that the ArbCom election has started and you can now
officially go vote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/vote/398
Members of this list may be interested in Smallbones' voter guide for the
election:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smallbones/ACE2015
It focuses
one take away is how few voters there are.
we have a lot of feminist editathons coming up
should we consider recruiting at events to get new editors over 150 edits,
with a view of block voting in next year's election?
if we organize now, we could run a civility slate of candidates.
On Tue, Dec
-- Original message--
From: Risker
Date: Tue, Dec 9, 2014 11:20 AM
To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participation
of women within Wikimedia projects.;
Subject:Re: [Gendergap] Arbcom election
There have never been anywhere near that many people voting for Arbcom
On 9 December 2014 at 09:37, Jim Hayes slowki...@gmail.com wrote:
one take away is how few voters there are.
we have a lot of feminist editathons coming up
should we consider recruiting at events to get new editors over 150 edits,
with a view of block voting in next year's election?
if we
--
From: Risker
Date: Wed, Dec 10, 2014 9:43 AM
To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participation
of women within Wikimedia projects.;
Subject:Re: [Gendergap] Arbcom election
On 9 December 2014 at 09:37, Jim Hayes slowki...@gmail.com wrote:
one take away is how few
I bet the majority of people 1) have no clue what arbcom is 2) probably
don't care much if they do because most people won't end up there
So someone will surely have to invest a lot of time and money in educating
a lot of people who only edit occasionally about Arbcom.
I have been editing
Wikimedia projects.
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Arbcom election
I bet the majority of people 1) have no clue what arbcom is 2) probably
don't care much if they do because most people won't end up there
Exactly. I suspect the irrelevance of ArbCom to so many editors is perhaps a
good thing
What’s missing from this?:
I don’t think most disputes get “resolved”. I think one person simply gives
up. Maybe they don’t think the issue is that important, maybe they feel that
they don’t have the time to argue it, maybe they feel that the other person
involved is too unpleasant to want to
] Arbcom election
What’s missing from this?:
I don’t think most disputes get “resolved”. I think one person simply gives
up. Maybe they don’t think the issue is that important, maybe they feel that
they don’t have the time to argue it, maybe they feel that the other person
involved is too
Checking the votes at
https://vote.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?limit=1000title=Special%3ASecurePoll%2Flist%2F392dir=prev
against the English Wikipedia database, shows an interesting
statistic. Of the 590 votes cast only *one* voter has an account
marked with their gender as female.
Obviously many
What is your proposed solution?
On Dec 9, 2014 8:14 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
Checking the votes at
https://vote.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?limit=1000title=Special%3ASecurePoll%2Flist%2F392dir=prev
against the English Wikipedia database, shows an interesting
statistic. Of the 590
On 09/12/2014 13:14, Fæ wrote:
Checking the votes at
https://vote.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?limit=1000title=Special%3ASecurePoll%2Flist%2F392dir=prev
against the English Wikipedia database, shows an interesting
statistic. Of the 590 votes cast only *one* voter has an account
marked with their
What proportion of the rest had accounts explicitly marked as male? My
first thought is that most people of all genders probably get to that
section of Preferences, go Why would mediawiki want to know my gender in
the first place? This is dumb and skip it. Or they never fiddle with their
The statistic comes from querying the English Wikipedia database. This
includes a table of user preferences which itself is where the on-wiki
preferences stores information like preferred gender.
Here's the SQL for anyone interested (it includes other redundant
stuff, I was re-using something I
On 09/12/2014 13:45, Fæ wrote:
The statistic comes from querying the English Wikipedia database. This
includes a table of user preferences which itself is where the on-wiki
preferences stores information like preferred gender.
Here's the SQL for anyone interested (it includes other redundant
Going to be honest here, I think the more interesting statistic is that
there are only 590 voters in an active user base of about 30,000. I think
this may reflect a change in the degree of importance the community places
on the Arbitration Committee.
On the female editors participating front,
OOPS,
Absolutely correct, I had a programme error. Re-running this gives a
more credible set of numbers:
Total voted: 590
Total identified with gender: 255
Male 224
Female 31
So open males = 38%, open females = 5%. Which indicates that a good
*guesstimate* of the number of women voting was
On 12/9/2014 9:08 AM, Risker wrote:
Going to be honest here, I think the more interesting statistic is
that there are only 590 voters in an active user base of about
30,000. I think this may reflect a change in the degree of importance
the community places on the Arbitration Committee.
They
Per Fae's message:
OOPS,
Absolutely correct, I had a programme error. Re-running this gives a
more credible set of numbers:
Total voted: 590
Total identified with gender: 255
Male 224
Female 31
So open males = 38%, open females = 5%. Which indicates that a good
*guesstimate* of the number of
There have never been anywhere near that many people voting for Arbcom
elections; in fact, that's more people than voted in the last Board of
Trustees elections for the elected seats, and hugely more than get a vote
for the chapter/affiliate-selected Board seats.
The fact of the matter is that
There have never been anywhere near that many people voting for Arbcom
elections; in fact, that's more people than voted in the last Board of
Trustees elections for the elected seats, and hugely more than get a vote
for the chapter/affiliate-selected Board seats.
I wonder if the apparent
23 matches
Mail list logo
