Milos Rancic skrev den 2015-06-06 21:00:
I think also that it's valid idea that EC chooses voting system
according to the needs of particular point of time. For example, this
time it was about giving opportunity to the new candidates. Next time
it could be more balanced. If you notice that
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
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 10:13 PM, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@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
Congratulations to the winners!
However I must say that the results of this election are hilarious. The
person with the most support votes doesn't win because of oppose votes :D
El sáb., 6 de jun. de 2015 3:22, Johan Jönsson brevlis...@gmail.com
escribió:
Congratulations, Dariusz, James and
I felt that this year's elections went remarkably smoothly. I believe that
we have the Elections Committee and its tireless leader Varnet, project
manager James Alexander, and the SecurePoll devs to thank. There were a few
technical issues but overall I feel that everyone did a very fine job.
David Cuenca Tudela skrev den 2015-06-06 09:01:
However I must say that the results of this election are hilarious. The
person with the most support votes doesn't win because of oppose votes :D
Why hilarious? We had a full consensus in the election Committee to go
for S/N/O voting, it is a
Hoi,
When we are to assess the quality of Wikidata, there are a few criteria we
need to assess.
- accuracy
- bias
- timeliness
- completeness
Arguably Wikidata needs to improve a lot on all four points.Whatever
approach we take all four criteria are essential. Making Wikidata more
many thanks! I extend my warm congratulations to Denny and James, and would
like to sincerely thank SJ, Maria, and Phoebe, and hope to be able to draw
on their tremendous experience and knowledge.
best,
dj
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 1:14 AM, Gregory Varnum gregory.var...@gmail.com
wrote:
Congratulations to the new Board members - I am sure you will do a great
job. And commiserations to those who will be leaving the Board - thank you
for all your hard work over many years.
Also it is good to see a much higher turnout in this year's elections than
in 2013 - well done to those
Hi,
Just for your information, the last issue of The Signpost has been quoted
in an article in *El Periódico*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Periódico_de_Catalunya about gender gap
;)
http://www.elperiodico.com/es/noticias/opinion/mujeres-wikipedia-4249746
David Parreño Mont
Communications
Hi Jane,
Thanks for trying ContentTranslation and providing feedback. Replies inline.
I decided to translate a short article from Spanish to English
Currently the extension is configured for translation *from* English, but
not *to* English. This will probably be changed soon to allow
[ Split from Results of 2015 WMF Board elections ]
2015-06-06 13:19 GMT+03:00 Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com:
2) There is nothing in the process to produce any diversity in the result.
Indeed. I don't see much active effort to encourage diversity in gender,
professional skills,
On 6 jun. 2015, at 17:25, Quim Gil q...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi, just in case you have missed this thread in Wikimedia where I mentioned
you, and now SJ asks.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Sam Klein sjkl...@hcs.harvard.edu mailto:sjkl...@hcs.harvard.edu
Date: Sat, Jun
Again, the same problem with the infobox and lead image, but there
was a gallery that popped over and I was quite pleased with that.
I'm glad to hear, thank you :)
I published the article with no categories, because the categories didn't
line up this time as they did in the Spanish-Dutch
I think this is dancing around the perceived problem. You can either have
open, democratic, and fair elections with a result that represents the will
of the electorate, or you can have a group of people who are diverse in
terms of nationality, gender, ethnicity, etcetera. Not both. And I don't
I still think it was a big mistake (of the electcom? I don't remember, but
/someone/ pushed it through without discussions) in the 2013 election to
abolish the Schulze method.
Am 06.06.2015 19:16 schrieb Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com:
Moving this discussion into a separate thread, to leave the
The result could also be interpreted as a thundering success for the
voting method being used.
We have now the last year and two seen major improvement in
professionalism in WMF (thanks Lila) and the chapters and their boards
(thanks local ECs and boards, FDC members, Katy and Winnifred).
News and notes: Three new community-elected trustees announced, incumbents out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-06-03/News_and_notes
Blog: How Wikipedia covered Caitlyn Jennerâs transition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-06-03/Blog
On 06.06.2015 20:30, Risker wrote:
I find it interesting that nobody seems all that worried about the FDC
election (where 5 of 11 candidates got seats) or the FDC Ombud election
(where both candidates came forward in the last 24 hours before nominations
closed). These two elections suggest
I'm happy with S/N/O and with the election winners, but concerned about the
diversity of the Board. I wonder if rethinking the entire board structure
is in order, for example we could have:
1. One seat per continent, elected by the whole voting community
2. Two affiliate seats chosen by all
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 8:26 PM, Anders Wennersten
m...@anderswennersten.se wrote:
The result could also be interpreted as a thundering success for the voting
method being used.
Just to be clear: I think you (Election committee) did very good job.
Inside of the stable circumstances, like they
I basically agree with the whole of Risker's post but want to expand in
this bit:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
There are not very many systems, though,
that are specifically designed to give multiple winners when one of the
conditions is that they *not*
On 6 June 2015 at 14:58, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm happy with S/N/O and with the election winners, but concerned about the
diversity of the Board. I wonder if rethinking the entire board structure
is in order, for example we could have:
1. One seat per continent, elected by the
Thanks for your thoughtful answerrs, which are certainly enlightening. I
tried it again today, this time to translate an article from English to
Dutch. Again, the same problem with the infobox and lead image, but there
was a gallery that popped over and I was quite pleased with that. I
published
Negative votes exist for a reason.
Or, let's make voters choose between support and support?
Il 06/06/2015 19:15, Milos Rancic ha scritto:
Moving this discussion into a separate thread, to leave the main one
for best wishes and similar :)
Before I start talking about the voting system itself,
The Schulze method that was being used is the one that is specifically
intended to give only one winner; probably most people don't know that
Schulze also created a separate system that was intended to give multiple
winners. It is a very confusing system and many people unintentionally
gave
26 matches
Mail list logo
