[Wikimedia-l] Next Language Engineering Office Hour is on 10th June 2015 (Wednesday) at 1430 UTC

[Runa Bhattacharjee]

Hello,

The next office hour of the Wikimedia Language Engineering team (now part
of Editing) is scheduled for next Wednesday, June 10th at 14:30 UTC.
However, this time instead of only IRC we are hosting it as an online
discussion over Hangout/Youtube. Given the limitation of Google Hangouts,
there will be limited seats for joining into the Hangout. Hence, do let us
know (on the event page
) if you
would like to participate on the Hangout. The IRC channel #wikimedia-office
and the Q&A channel for the youtube broadcast will also be open for
interactions during the session.

Our last online round-table session was held a few months back with the
editors of the Catalan Wikipedia. You can watch the recording here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHu3vdlE1X8 .

Please read below for the event details and do let us know if you have any
questions.

Thank you
Runa

== Details ==

# *Event*: Wikimedia Language Engineering office hour session

# *When*: June 10th, 2015 (Wednesday) at 14:30 UTC (check local time
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20150610T1430)

# *Where*: https://plus.google.com/u/0/events/cuunke6rbmqpetvslv6jlakbhnc
and on IRC #wikimedia-office (Freenode)

# *Agenda*: Content Translation
 updates and open Q & A



-- 
Language Engineering - Outreach and QA Coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes...

[Michael Peel]

> On 4 Jun 2015, at 00:41, Risker  wrote:
> 
> On 3 June 2015 at 19:11, Michael Peel  > wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> On 3 Jun 2015, at 23:48, Risker  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 3 June 2015 at 18:42, Michael Peel  wrote:
>>> 
 
> By the way, my understanding is that the practice of generating a
>> public
> list of voters who cast ballots, while keeping the nature of their
>> votes
> private, is relatively common in election processes in general. In the
> United States, political parties use this information for their "get
>> out
> the vote" campaigns so that they know which of their likely supporters
 have
> yet to vote.
 
 In UK political elections I think that would be illegal...{{citation
 needed}}
 
 They certainly exist in Canada, and I'm quite certain they exist in the
>> UK
>>> as well, because that's how the official poll watchers (or scrutineers,
>> as
>>> we call them in Canada) know who to "get out" when getting out the
>>> vote.  They don't get published online, but there is a right to examine
>>> the list of individuals who can vote at the office of the local senior
>>> election official for a few weeks afterward, and then at the national
>>> election office once any challenges have been completed.  Of course in
>>> places where voting is mandatory, the failure to vote is going to be
>> public.
>> 
>> Wow. I'm very far from being an expert on the UK voting system, but my
>> understanding is that although the list of who can vote may be made public
>> (where voters have agreed to this), who has not yet voted (or, after the
>> fact, who has not voted) would never be made public. In the UK, election
>> scrutineers would only be involved in reviewing votes that had been cast,
>> not who had not voted.
>> 
>> 
> It occurred to me that there's this really great online reference source
> called Wikipedia that's generally pretty accurate when it comes to things
> like this, so I looked up "Electoral roll".  In the UK, "[a]fter an
> election a 'Marked Register' can be inspected, which is a copy of the
> register used for the election with a mark by each elector that has
> voted."[1]
> 
> As I said...while it's generally accurate, sometimes it's incomplete.  I
> note the absence of any information about Canada there, although it is
> fairly close to the UK system as discussed in the article.
> 
> Risker/Anne

Interesting! It doesn't seem to be referenced in the enwp article (I've just 
tagged it as needing a citation), but I'll look into in on the morrow!

(All I wanted to do when I sent my first email was to point out that it wasn't 
clearly indicated that the record of who voted in this election would be made 
public, even though I have no issue with it being public, but let's argue about 
this anyway!)

Thanks,
Mike
(Apologies for the sarcasm. It's been a long day.)

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes...

[Risker]

On 3 June 2015 at 19:11, Michael Peel  wrote:

>
> > On 3 Jun 2015, at 23:48, Risker  wrote:
> >
> > On 3 June 2015 at 18:42, Michael Peel  wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>> By the way, my understanding is that the practice of generating a
> public
> >>> list of voters who cast ballots, while keeping the nature of their
> votes
> >>> private, is relatively common in election processes in general. In the
> >>> United States, political parties use this information for their "get
> out
> >>> the vote" campaigns so that they know which of their likely supporters
> >> have
> >>> yet to vote.
> >>
> >> In UK political elections I think that would be illegal...{{citation
> >> needed}}
> >>
> >> They certainly exist in Canada, and I'm quite certain they exist in the
> UK
> > as well, because that's how the official poll watchers (or scrutineers,
> as
> > we call them in Canada) know who to "get out" when getting out the
> > vote.  They don't get published online, but there is a right to examine
> > the list of individuals who can vote at the office of the local senior
> > election official for a few weeks afterward, and then at the national
> > election office once any challenges have been completed.  Of course in
> > places where voting is mandatory, the failure to vote is going to be
> public.
>
> Wow. I'm very far from being an expert on the UK voting system, but my
> understanding is that although the list of who can vote may be made public
> (where voters have agreed to this), who has not yet voted (or, after the
> fact, who has not voted) would never be made public. In the UK, election
> scrutineers would only be involved in reviewing votes that had been cast,
> not who had not voted.
>
>
It occurred to me that there's this really great online reference source
called Wikipedia that's generally pretty accurate when it comes to things
like this, so I looked up "Electoral roll".  In the UK, "[a]fter an
election a 'Marked Register' can be inspected, which is a copy of the
register used for the election with a mark by each elector that has
voted."[1]

As I said...while it's generally accurate, sometimes it's incomplete.  I
note the absence of any information about Canada there, although it is
fairly close to the UK system as discussed in the article.

Risker/Anne



[1]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_roll#United_Kingdom
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes...

[Michael Peel]

> On 3 Jun 2015, at 23:48, Risker  wrote:
> 
> On 3 June 2015 at 18:42, Michael Peel  wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> By the way, my understanding is that the practice of generating a public
>>> list of voters who cast ballots, while keeping the nature of their votes
>>> private, is relatively common in election processes in general. In the
>>> United States, political parties use this information for their "get out
>>> the vote" campaigns so that they know which of their likely supporters
>> have
>>> yet to vote.
>> 
>> In UK political elections I think that would be illegal...{{citation
>> needed}}
>> 
>> They certainly exist in Canada, and I'm quite certain they exist in the UK
> as well, because that's how the official poll watchers (or scrutineers, as
> we call them in Canada) know who to "get out" when getting out the
> vote.  They don't get published online, but there is a right to examine
> the list of individuals who can vote at the office of the local senior
> election official for a few weeks afterward, and then at the national
> election office once any challenges have been completed.  Of course in
> places where voting is mandatory, the failure to vote is going to be public.

Wow. I'm very far from being an expert on the UK voting system, but my 
understanding is that although the list of who can vote may be made public 
(where voters have agreed to this), who has not yet voted (or, after the fact, 
who has not voted) would never be made public. In the UK, election scrutineers 
would only be involved in reviewing votes that had been cast, not who had not 
voted.

Thanks,
Mike
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes...

[Risker]

On 3 June 2015 at 18:42, Michael Peel  wrote:

>
> > By the way, my understanding is that the practice of generating a public
> > list of voters who cast ballots, while keeping the nature of their votes
> > private, is relatively common in election processes in general. In the
> > United States, political parties use this information for their "get out
> > the vote" campaigns so that they know which of their likely supporters
> have
> > yet to vote.
>
> In UK political elections I think that would be illegal...{{citation
> needed}}
>
> They certainly exist in Canada, and I'm quite certain they exist in the UK
as well, because that's how the official poll watchers (or scrutineers, as
we call them in Canada) know who to "get out" when getting out the
vote.  They don't get published online, but there is a right to examine
the list of individuals who can vote at the office of the local senior
election official for a few weeks afterward, and then at the national
election office once any challenges have been completed.  Of course in
places where voting is mandatory, the failure to vote is going to be public.

Risker/Anne

>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes...

[Michael Peel]

> By the way, my understanding is that the practice of generating a public
> list of voters who cast ballots, while keeping the nature of their votes
> private, is relatively common in election processes in general. In the
> United States, political parties use this information for their "get out
> the vote" campaigns so that they know which of their likely supporters have
> yet to vote.

In UK political elections I think that would be illegal...{{citation needed}}

Thanks,
Mike


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes...

[Pine W]

Yes, I think that a disclosure up front would be appropriate, perhaps when
someone first access the SecurePoll interface.

By the way, my understanding is that the practice of generating a public
list of voters who cast ballots, while keeping the nature of their votes
private, is relatively common in election processes in general. In the
United States, political parties use this information for their "get out
the vote" campaigns so that they know which of their likely supporters have
yet to vote.

Pine


On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Michael Peel  wrote:

> That's great! I'm not complaining about the list of voters being made
> public (I actually support this!). I'm just pointing out that this wasn't
> made clear when votes were being cast. Something to improve next time
> around?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> > On 3 Jun 2015, at 23:31, Risker  wrote:
> >
> > There's been a publicly viewable list of voters for every SecurePoll
> based
> > election or vote since the time of its creation.  Until 2013, BoT voter
> > lists were usually available for several months after the election, until
> > the external host cleared them off (usually just before the next
> > election).  The voter lists for English Wikipedia's arbitration committee
> > elections going back to 2009 are still available.  The 2013 WMF elections
> > (BoT, FDC, FDC ombud on a single ballot) continue to be publicly viewable
> > on votewiki.  There may have been other project-specific uses of which
> I'm
> > not aware.
> >
> > Risker/Anne
> >
> >
> >
> > On 3 June 2015 at 18:14, Michael Peel  wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>> At the link, you can find
> >>> List votes: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Elections 2015
> >>> https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/list/512
> >>
> >> I personally don't mind it being made public that I voted in this
> >> election, but this really is something that voters should be clearly
> >> informed about when they place their votes!
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Mike
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 
> >>
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes...

[Michael Peel]

That's great! I'm not complaining about the list of voters being made public (I 
actually support this!). I'm just pointing out that this wasn't made clear when 
votes were being cast. Something to improve next time around?

Thanks,
Mike

> On 3 Jun 2015, at 23:31, Risker  wrote:
> 
> There's been a publicly viewable list of voters for every SecurePoll based
> election or vote since the time of its creation.  Until 2013, BoT voter
> lists were usually available for several months after the election, until
> the external host cleared them off (usually just before the next
> election).  The voter lists for English Wikipedia's arbitration committee
> elections going back to 2009 are still available.  The 2013 WMF elections
> (BoT, FDC, FDC ombud on a single ballot) continue to be publicly viewable
> on votewiki.  There may have been other project-specific uses of which I'm
> not aware.
> 
> Risker/Anne
> 
> 
> 
> On 3 June 2015 at 18:14, Michael Peel  wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> At the link, you can find
>>> List votes: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Elections 2015
>>> https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/list/512
>> 
>> I personally don't mind it being made public that I voted in this
>> election, but this really is something that voters should be clearly
>> informed about when they place their votes!
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Mike
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> 
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes...

[Risker]

There's been a publicly viewable list of voters for every SecurePoll based
election or vote since the time of its creation.  Until 2013, BoT voter
lists were usually available for several months after the election, until
the external host cleared them off (usually just before the next
election).  The voter lists for English Wikipedia's arbitration committee
elections going back to 2009 are still available.  The 2013 WMF elections
(BoT, FDC, FDC ombud on a single ballot) continue to be publicly viewable
on votewiki.  There may have been other project-specific uses of which I'm
not aware.

Risker/Anne



On 3 June 2015 at 18:14, Michael Peel  wrote:

>
> > At the link, you can find
> > List votes: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Elections 2015
> > https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/list/512
>
> I personally don't mind it being made public that I voted in this
> election, but this really is something that voters should be clearly
> informed about when they place their votes!
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> 
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes...

[attolippip]

in my humble opinion, what's the big deal?

we usually vote openly in the projects
and everything bad/great about this or that user is revealed really openly
(sometimes too openly, but well... nothing to be done here)
it is our own decision whether to vote and how to vote, isn't it?


best,
antanana
ED of Wikimedia Ukraine

2015-06-04 1:14 GMT+03:00 Michael Peel :

>
> > At the link, you can find
> > List votes: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Elections 2015
> > https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/list/512
>
> I personally don't mind it being made public that I voted in this
> election, but this really is something that voters should be clearly
> informed about when they place their votes!
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes...

[Michael Peel]

> At the link, you can find
> List votes: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Elections 2015
> https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/list/512

I personally don't mind it being made public that I voted in this election, but 
this really is something that voters should be clearly informed about when they 
place their votes!

Thanks,
Mike
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes...

[Gregory Varnum]

Quick clarification. The discussion on open votes the committee had earlier was 
primarily about if the actual votes - as in who people voted for - should be 
public (as it is with Steward elections). The list of who voted has been and 
will remain public. Information on who someone voted for is - by design - not 
even available to the Elections Committee - and so obliviously not publicly 
available. The committee concluded that making that information public would 
deter a lot of people from voting.

-greg

___
Sent from my iPhone - a more detailed response may be sent later.

> On Jun 3, 2015, at 12:20 PM, Anders Wennersten  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> Nathan skrev den 2015-06-03 18:16:
>> 
>> What does it indicate if a vote record is displayed in gray instead of
>> black?
> 
> A vote that was recast later
> Anders
> 
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes...

[Anders Wennersten]

Nathan skrev den 2015-06-03 18:16:


What does it indicate if a vote record is displayed in gray instead of
black?


A vote that was recast later
Anders


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes...

[Nathan]

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter 
wrote:

> On 2015-06-03 17:42, Raymond Leonard wrote:
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> At the link, you can find
>> List votes: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Elections 2015
>> https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/list/512
>>
>> Yours,
>> Peaceray
>> --
>>
>
> Thank you. I am indeed listed as voting from Meta, where I barely qualify,
> and not from for example en.wp or ru.wv where I have tons of edits.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
>
What does it indicate if a vote record is displayed in gray instead of
black?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes...

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On 2015-06-03 17:42, Raymond Leonard wrote:

Folks,

At the link, you can find
List votes: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Elections 2015
https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/list/512

Yours,
Peaceray
--


Thank you. I am indeed listed as voting from Meta, where I barely 
qualify, and not from for example en.wp or ru.wv where I have tons of 
edits.


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes...

[Raymond Leonard]

Folks,

At the link, you can find
List votes: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Elections 2015
https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/list/512

Yours,
Peaceray
--
peace...@cascadia.wiki

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:37 AM, Fæ  wrote:

> On 3 June 2015 at 13:26, Anders Wennersten 
> wrote:
> ...
> > This is new information for me. We have had a similar but extended list
> like
> > this to have as base for vote checking. But I am not aware it will be
> > generally available.
> >
> > At the start this year we discussed what type of voting method to use,
> like
> > all open as done for stewardelection or with secure Poll with S/N/O. We
> had
> > an overwhelming majority for non-total open one. But we never discussed
> > general availability of this list.
> >
> > Anders
>
> Unless the wider community of Wikimedians has established a consensus
> to a process change, the list should be published as it has in past
> years. This has been my full expectation, I even ran some male/female
> analysis of past lists for research.
>
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Pywikipedia-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] API BREAKING CHANGE: Default continuation mode for action=query will change at the end of this month

[Amir Ladsgroup]

Can you name one?

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:02 AM John  wrote:

> This is something that the pywiki devs need to fix in compat. Please dont
> give me shit about moving to core. I have yet to have it not fatally error
> out in less than 10 minutes of using it. There are still a lot of features
> that core doesnt have, or that are poorly implemented.
>
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>
>> Forwarding because of the significance of the change for bots. My
>> understanding is that this affects all wikis, so please get this
>> information out to relevant bot operators on all wikis. Translated
>> messages
>> may be very much appreciated.
>>
>> Pine
>> -- Forwarded message --
>> From: "Brad Jorsch (Anomie)" 
>> Date: Jun 2, 2015 1:43 PM
>> Subject: [Wikitech-l] API BREAKING CHANGE: Default continuation mode for
>> action=query will change at the end of this month
>> To: "Wikimedia developers" , <
>> mediawiki-api-annou...@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Cc:
>>
>> As has been announced several times (most recently at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-April/081559.html),
>> the default continuation mode for action=query requests to api.php will be
>> changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly.
>>
>> *The date is now set:* we intend to merge the change to ride the
>> deployment
>> train at the end of June. That should be 1.26wmf12, to be deployed to test
>> wikis on June 30, non-Wikipedias on July 1, and Wikipedias on July 2.
>>
>> If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change
>> (as seen here
>> , for
>> example), it's time to fix your code!
>>
>>- The simple solution is to simply include the "rawcontinue" parameter
>>with your request to continue receiving the raw continuation data (
>>example
>><
>>
>> https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&rawcontinue=1
>> >).
>>No other code changes should be necessary.
>>- Or you could update your code to use the simplified continuation
>>documented at
>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Query#Continuing_queries
>>(example
>><
>> https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&continue=
>> >),
>>which is much easier for clients to implement correctly.
>>
>> Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it
>> works because you stop seeing the warning.
>>
>> I've compiled a list of bots that have hit the deprecation warning more
>> than 1 times over the course of the week May 23-29. If you are
>> responsible for any of these bots, please fix them. If you know who is,
>> please make sure they've seen this notification. Thanks.
>>
>> AAlertBot
>> AboHeidiBot
>> AbshirBot
>> Acebot
>> Ameenbot
>> ArnauBot
>> Beau.bot
>> Begemot-Bot
>> BeneBot*
>> BeriBot
>> BOT-Superzerocool
>> CalakBot
>> CamelBot
>> CandalBot
>> CategorizationBot
>> CatWatchBot
>> ClueBot_III
>> ClueBot_NG
>> CobainBot
>> CorenSearchBot
>> Cyberbot_I
>> Cyberbot_II
>> DanmicholoBot
>> DeltaQuadBot
>> Dexbot
>> Dibot
>> EdinBot
>> ElphiBot
>> ErfgoedBot
>> Faebot
>> Fatemibot
>> FawikiPatroller
>> HAL
>> HasteurBot
>> HerculeBot
>> Hexabot
>> HRoestBot
>> IluvatarBot
>> Invadibot
>> Irclogbot
>> Irfan-bot
>> Jimmy-abot
>> JYBot
>> Krdbot
>> Legobot
>> Lowercase_sigmabot_III
>> MahdiBot
>> MalarzBOT
>> MastiBot
>> Merge_bot
>> NaggoBot
>> NasirkhanBot
>> NirvanaBot
>> Obaid-bot
>> PatruBOT
>> PBot
>> Phe-bot
>> Rezabot
>> RMCD_bot
>> Shuaib-bot
>> SineBot
>> SteinsplitterBot
>> SvickBOT
>> TaxonBot
>> Theo's_Little_Bot
>> W2Bot
>> WLE-SpainBot
>> Xqbot
>> YaCBot
>> ZedlikBot
>> ZkBot
>>
>>
>> --
>> Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
>> Software Engineer
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>> ___
>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>> wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> 
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>
>
> ___
> pywikibot mailing list
> pywiki...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/pywikibot
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes...

[Fæ]

On 3 June 2015 at 13:26, Anders Wennersten  wrote:
...
> This is new information for me. We have had a similar but extended list like
> this to have as base for vote checking. But I am not aware it will be
> generally available.
>
> At the start this year we discussed what type of voting method to use, like
> all open as done for stewardelection or with secure Poll with S/N/O. We had
> an overwhelming majority for non-total open one. But we never discussed
> general availability of this list.
>
> Anders

Unless the wider community of Wikimedians has established a consensus
to a process change, the list should be published as it has in past
years. This has been my full expectation, I even ran some male/female
analysis of past lists for research.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes...

[Anders Wennersten]

Andrew Gray skrev den 2015-06-03 13:42:
I might be misremembering, but I thought that whether or not user X 
had voted was public information? It certainly was in 2013; digging 
through old emails turns up a link to 
https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/list/290 which 
seems to be the voter list from that election. Andrew. 
This is new information for me. We have had a similar but extended list 
like this to have as base for vote checking. But I am not aware it will 
be generally available.


At the start this year we discussed what type of voting method to use, 
like all open as done for stewardelection or with secure Poll with 
S/N/O. We had an overwhelming majority for non-total open one. But we 
never discussed general availability of this list.


Anders


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Spam] Re: While Election committee counts the votes...

[Fæ]

That's correct. The list of voters remains public, just not how
individuals voted. In this way we can work out who is openly
male/female, if they have a declared country of residence, if they are
associated with chapters or other groups etc.

Fae

On 3 June 2015 at 12:42, Andrew Gray  wrote:
> On 3 June 2015 at 12:32, Anders Wennersten  wrote:
>
>> As a number-crunching nerd myself I would love all my fellows with this
>> interest to also be able to study the detailed numbers. But in order to keep
>> secrecy of who voted, the figures for small  project can not be made general
>> available. And to work with the figures from the bigger and medium projects,
>> probably a more qualified analysis of the quality of the numbers used would
>> be needed, just along the reasoning you bring up.
>
> I might be misremembering, but I thought that whether or not user X
> had voted was public information? It certainly was in 2013; digging
> through old emails turns up a link to
> https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/list/290 which
> seems to be the voter list from that election.
>
> Andrew.
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Spam] Re: While Election committee counts the votes...

[Andrew Gray]

On 3 June 2015 at 12:32, Anders Wennersten  wrote:

> As a number-crunching nerd myself I would love all my fellows with this
> interest to also be able to study the detailed numbers. But in order to keep
> secrecy of who voted, the figures for small  project can not be made general
> available. And to work with the figures from the bigger and medium projects,
> probably a more qualified analysis of the quality of the numbers used would
> be needed, just along the reasoning you bring up.

I might be misremembering, but I thought that whether or not user X
had voted was public information? It certainly was in 2013; digging
through old emails turns up a link to
https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/list/290 which
seems to be the voter list from that election.

Andrew.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes...

[Anders Wennersten]

While the total number of eligible voters is reliable (and also made 
general available), the breakdown of numbers by project is much less 
reliable, of the reason you bring up.  And for the small, and even more 
the very small projects, the numbers could even be said to be unreliable.


For us in the Election Committee, this breakdown per project, even with 
non-perfect figures, has been of enormous help. One use is when we 
verify the result -  in order to understand inconsistencies in figures 
(and here we talk of a factor 2-3 in differences not in decimal points). 
Also to understand the general picture - The election to Board attracted 
voters evenly from all project all over the world, while the election of 
members to FDC got a much lower participation rate from  most medium and 
small project compared with participation rate from some of the biggest 
(note also the difference in total votes 5200+ vs 1100).


As a number-crunching nerd myself I would love all my fellows with this 
interest to also be able to study the detailed numbers. But in order to 
keep secrecy of who voted, the figures for small  project can not be 
made general available. And to work with the figures from the bigger and 
medium projects, probably a more qualified analysis of the quality of 
the numbers used would be needed, just along the reasoning you bring up.


I do hope, though, that some of these numbers will be made available in 
the election post-mortem work


Anders










Yaroslav M. Blanter skrev den 2015-06-03 11:49:

On 2015-06-01 11:17, Anders Wennersten wrote:

Just a clarification on numbers
In James (internal)  table enwps share of total number of eligible
votes is 35,4%
Participation rate state from enwp was 8,26% against mean for all
9,5%. If enwp is excluded the participation rate for all of the rest
stands at 10,2%

Enwp users also include users from non-en countries, and user from en
countries will also be found on other wikis like Commons (3,5% of
total eligible voters, with a turnout similar to enwp) but this does
not change the bottom line, participation rate from enwp has been
lower then from the rest of the communities (de, fr, it, ru, es, pl
rates being  a little above mean of rest, zh and pt a little below and
ja much below)

Anders




Hi Anders,

are there significant intersections between the project which can 
distort statistics? I believe I am eligible on at least 10 projects, 
and on a couple of them I might be the only eligible voter (making for 
them 100% participation), but my feeling is that this is rather an 
exception. Is let us say a high participation rate from it.wp 
significally affected by users who are also active on en.wp and are 
eligible there as well?


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines

Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] [Pywikipedia-l] Fwd: API BREAKING CHANGE: Default continuation mode for action=query will change at the end of this month

[John]

OK, just ones off hand that are already filed phab tickets for:

https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T57007
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T66835
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T66833
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T59995
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T57881

And honestly your response to the last ticket is uncalled for. The user
filed a report about missing features from compat, your response was
basically We dont care, fix it yourself.

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 4:20 AM, Amir Ladsgroup  wrote:

> Can you name one?
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:02 AM John  wrote:
>
> > This is something that the pywiki devs need to fix in compat. Please dont
> > give me shit about moving to core. I have yet to have it not fatally
> error
> > out in less than 10 minutes of using it. There are still a lot of
> features
> > that core doesnt have, or that are poorly implemented.
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> >> Forwarding because of the significance of the change for bots. My
> >> understanding is that this affects all wikis, so please get this
> >> information out to relevant bot operators on all wikis. Translated
> >> messages
> >> may be very much appreciated.
> >>
> >> Pine
> >> -- Forwarded message --
> >> From: "Brad Jorsch (Anomie)" 
> >> Date: Jun 2, 2015 1:43 PM
> >> Subject: [Wikitech-l] API BREAKING CHANGE: Default continuation mode for
> >> action=query will change at the end of this month
> >> To: "Wikimedia developers" , <
> >> mediawiki-api-annou...@lists.wikimedia.org>
> >> Cc:
> >>
> >> As has been announced several times (most recently at
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-April/081559.html
> ),
> >> the default continuation mode for action=query requests to api.php will
> be
> >> changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly.
> >>
> >> *The date is now set:* we intend to merge the change to ride the
> >> deployment
> >> train at the end of June. That should be 1.26wmf12, to be deployed to
> test
> >> wikis on June 30, non-Wikipedias on July 1, and Wikipedias on July 2.
> >>
> >> If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming
> change
> >> (as seen here
> >> , for
> >> example), it's time to fix your code!
> >>
> >>- The simple solution is to simply include the "rawcontinue"
> parameter
> >>with your request to continue receiving the raw continuation data (
> >>example
> >><
> >>
> >>
> https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&rawcontinue=1
> >> >).
> >>No other code changes should be necessary.
> >>- Or you could update your code to use the simplified continuation
> >>documented at
> >> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Query#Continuing_queries
> >>(example
> >><
> >>
> https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&continue=
> >> >),
> >>which is much easier for clients to implement correctly.
> >>
> >> Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it
> >> works because you stop seeing the warning.
> >>
> >> I've compiled a list of bots that have hit the deprecation warning more
> >> than 1 times over the course of the week May 23-29. If you are
> >> responsible for any of these bots, please fix them. If you know who is,
> >> please make sure they've seen this notification. Thanks.
> >>
> >> AAlertBot
> >> AboHeidiBot
> >> AbshirBot
> >> Acebot
> >> Ameenbot
> >> ArnauBot
> >> Beau.bot
> >> Begemot-Bot
> >> BeneBot*
> >> BeriBot
> >> BOT-Superzerocool
> >> CalakBot
> >> CamelBot
> >> CandalBot
> >> CategorizationBot
> >> CatWatchBot
> >> ClueBot_III
> >> ClueBot_NG
> >> CobainBot
> >> CorenSearchBot
> >> Cyberbot_I
> >> Cyberbot_II
> >> DanmicholoBot
> >> DeltaQuadBot
> >> Dexbot
> >> Dibot
> >> EdinBot
> >> ElphiBot
> >> ErfgoedBot
> >> Faebot
> >> Fatemibot
> >> FawikiPatroller
> >> HAL
> >> HasteurBot
> >> HerculeBot
> >> Hexabot
> >> HRoestBot
> >> IluvatarBot
> >> Invadibot
> >> Irclogbot
> >> Irfan-bot
> >> Jimmy-abot
> >> JYBot
> >> Krdbot
> >> Legobot
> >> Lowercase_sigmabot_III
> >> MahdiBot
> >> MalarzBOT
> >> MastiBot
> >> Merge_bot
> >> NaggoBot
> >> NasirkhanBot
> >> NirvanaBot
> >> Obaid-bot
> >> PatruBOT
> >> PBot
> >> Phe-bot
> >> Rezabot
> >> RMCD_bot
> >> Shuaib-bot
> >> SineBot
> >> SteinsplitterBot
> >> SvickBOT
> >> TaxonBot
> >> Theo's_Little_Bot
> >> W2Bot
> >> WLE-SpainBot
> >> Xqbot
> >> YaCBot
> >> ZedlikBot
> >> ZkBot
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
> >> Software Engineer
> >> Wikimedia Foundation
> >> ___
> >> Wikitech-l mailing list
> >> wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> <
> https://meta.wikimedi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes...

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On 2015-06-01 11:17, Anders Wennersten wrote:

Just a clarification on numbers
In James (internal)  table enwps share of total number of eligible
votes is 35,4%
Participation rate state from enwp was 8,26% against mean for all
9,5%. If enwp is excluded the participation rate for all of the rest
stands at 10,2%

Enwp users also include users from non-en countries, and user from en
countries will also be found on other wikis like Commons (3,5% of
total eligible voters, with a turnout similar to enwp) but this does
not change the bottom line, participation rate from enwp has been
lower then from the rest of the communities (de, fr, it, ru, es, pl
rates being  a little above mean of rest, zh and pt a little below and
ja much below)

Anders




Hi Anders,

are there significant intersections between the project which can 
distort statistics? I believe I am eligible on at least 10 projects, and 
on a couple of them I might be the only eligible voter (making for them 
100% participation), but my feeling is that this is rather an exception. 
Is let us say a high participation rate from it.wp significally affected 
by users who are also active on en.wp and are eligible there as well?


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,