This is a horribly problematic election. Not only does it take hours to go through the candidates if you actually want to rank them, but you would also need to be willing to spend about a lot of time to enter them into the broken voting interface (which works great for up to 5 candidates - not for 70).
If anyone is planning to go through anyway - after some experimenting i found out that the silly random order of the ballot dropdown (making it impossible to find the candidate to input) can be worked around by clicking the dropdown, and then typing their first letter several times until the right candidate is selected. Then hit enter. This interface was non-userfriendly with the board elections but for this election it is prohibitively so. With this number of candidates, a 7-member district would have been much more userfriendly (even if it is suboptimal from the perspective of a mathematical modeling). Lodewijk On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 3:34 PM Guettarda <guetta...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 6:04 PM Mike Peel <em...@mikepeel.net> wrote: > >> Cool. How do we find those pages from the advertised tools? Were they >> shared here before (sorry if I missed them), or can we still vote on >> them somewhere? >> >> > The underlying problem is that we ended up with 70+ candidates for the > MCDC. We were allowed up to 400 words for our statements, so there is a lot > to work through. In a case like that, there's a tendency to only vote for > people you know, or only based on regional representation, or tenure, or > something similar. The Compass was an imperfect tool, and one that was put > together in response to the problem of too much participation (after all, > there was uncertainty initially as to whether 19 people would actually put > their names forward). > > I think there was a week at the end of September when people could > suggest statements (the final tally was 108). After that there was > another week in which people were able to vote for the statements they > wanted the candidates to answer. Not everyone got it right - there were > some responses that made it clear that some people were voting based on > their own opinions about the statement, rather than what they wanted to > hear. > > Once they were narrowed down, Cornelius created a Google sheet where the > candidates were able to give our opinions on the statements, based on a > five-point scale. We were also able to add up to 500 characters clarifying > our stances. (These were interesting, because it's obvious that some people > who voted "support" and some who voted "oppose" had pretty much the same > opinion, once you allowed for nuance. > > After that the Compass tool was created. But even that output is too much > to parse. I put together a Google sheet for myself, where I could split > people into arbitrary groups - for example, only 54 people gave their > opinions on the compass, so I decided to separate those from the rest of > the group. I also split Europe/US/Canada from the rest of the world because > I want to make sure that I wasn't too biased by *who* I knew well. Being > able to sort people by tenure (thanks to Andrew's table) also allows me to > be more cogniscent of my biases (as an old-timer, I'm likely to gravitate > to people just because I've seen them around for the last 17 years). > > Dusan's tool is great because it lets you compare responses to individual > questions, and lets you see the explanatory statements. Again, as I work my > way through the list and try to decide between people it helps me check > responses to individual questions. > > I think confirmation bias would be to pick people you know and like (or > and maybe not like so much, but think the committee could use some > bomb-throwers). I'm grateful for the tools and summaries that people have > created. Now if there was only some way to compare pairs of candidate > statements side-by-side > > Ian > > > >> Or would it be fairer now to the candidates to let their statements >> stand alone and for people to vote based on those alone, rather than >> trying to provide 'advanced tools' that are intrinsically biased? >> >> Thanks, >> Mike >> >> On 15/10/21 22:51:21, Guettarda wrote: >> > Hi Mike >> > >> > The questions were selected from this list: >> > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Election_Compass/Statements >> > < >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Election_Compass/Statements >> > >> > >> > People voted and the top ones were chosen. (A few near-duplicates that >> > ranked at the top were combined by Cornelius, iirc). The raw data >> > underlying both the Compass and Dusan's tool are here: >> > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Election_Compass/Raw_data >> > < >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Election_Compass/Raw_data >> > >> > >> > Ian >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 5:45 PM Mike Peel <em...@mikepeel.net >> > <mailto:em...@mikepeel.net>> wrote: >> > >> > Both of these seem like a fantastic way to support your intrinsic >> > biases. >> > >> > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates/Table >> > < >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates/Table >> > >> > >> > - this supports your language or editor start date bias. Since you >> are >> > limited to ordering by name/username/region/languages/wiki/editor >> since. >> > >> > >> https://krehel.sk/Candidates_Drafting_Committee_Movement_Charter_Statements/ >> > < >> https://krehel.sk/Candidates_Drafting_Committee_Movement_Charter_Statements/ >> > >> > >> > - this seems to support selected question answers (from where?) and >> > encourages you to vote based on other people's views that decide on >> > their rankings (which aren't publicly available)? (Try ordering by >> Q2 - >> > or looking up where Q6 was posted). >> > >> > We need better tools to help voters. Neither of these tools do that. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Mike >> > >> > On 15/10/21 22:32:15, Andrew Lih wrote: >> > > To echo Risker, I'd encourage the use of more advanced tools by >> > voters. >> > > On meta, I've pointed to the two tools that hopefully help: >> > > >> > > >> > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Elections#Tools_for_examining_candidates >> > < >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Elections#Tools_for_examining_candidates >> > >> > >> > > >> > < >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Elections#Tools_for_examining_candidates >> > < >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Elections#Tools_for_examining_candidates >> >> >> > > >> > > The links point to: >> > > - A table of all the factual information supplied by the >> > candidates in a >> > > wiki table, in which each column is sortable. >> > > - A browsable interface to all the compass questions and >> responses, >> > > providing much better candidate comparisons. An issue Adam >> > brought up is >> > > that there may not be a good understanding of the variance in the >> > > answers of candidates. For that reason, this tool is valuable in >> > showing >> > > that the following questions had the most diverse responses and >> are >> > > likely to be the most useful for voters to examine directly. >> > > >> > > 6 - limit the role of WMF to "keep the servers running" >> > > 11 - democratic governance structure >> > > 20 - new forms of knowledge representation >> > > 24 - regional elections >> > > 27 - "counter-voice" >> > > 45 - "percentage of movement money" to be allocated >> > > 92 - ratification from all >> > > >> > > I'd encourage voters to experiment with these tools. >> > > >> > > -Andrew >> > > >> > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 9:39 AM Risker <risker...@gmail.com >> > <mailto:risker...@gmail.com> >> > > <mailto:risker...@gmail.com <mailto:risker...@gmail.com>>> >> wrote: >> > > >> > > Adam, you may find the tool discussed here >> > > >> > < >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates#Candidates_Compass:_One_statement,_all_answers >> < >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates#Candidates_Compass:_One_statement,_all_answers >> >> >> > > to be helpful. It is created by one of the candidates, is >> > based on >> > > the information submitted by candidates for the election >> compass, >> > > and is quite visual. (Disclosure: I am also a candidate.) >> > > >> > > I'd also suggest that the written answers illustrate the >> > differences >> > > between candidates a little more specifically than the >> general >> > > five-point compass. Perhaps, also, part of the reason that >> > there's >> > > some consensus amongst candidates (at least on the surface) >> > is that >> > > they could be representative of a pretty broad consensus >> > throughout >> > > the global community on some points. >> > > >> > > Risker/Anne >> > > >> > > On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 at 09:26, Adam Wight >> > <adam.m.wi...@gmail.com <mailto:adam.m.wi...@gmail.com> >> > > <mailto:adam.m.wi...@gmail.com >> > <mailto:adam.m.wi...@gmail.com>>> wrote: >> > > >> > > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 12:02 PM Kaarel Vaidla >> > > <kvai...@wikimedia.org <mailto:kvai...@wikimedia.org> >> > <mailto:kvai...@wikimedia.org <mailto:kvai...@wikimedia.org>>> >> wrote: >> > > >> > > Additionally, we are piloting a so-called “Election >> > Compass >> > > <https://mcdc-election-compass.toolforge.org/ >> > <https://mcdc-election-compass.toolforge.org/>>” for this >> > > election. Click yourself through the tool and respond >> > to the >> > > 19 statements, and you will see which candidate is >> > closest >> > > to you! >> > > >> > > >> > > Hi, thank you for facilitating this process and for >> > sharing the >> > > interesting "election compass" experiment. After trying >> the >> > > tool, I urge you to take it offline. Its algorithm is >> > opaque, >> > > and in my opinion very unlikely to give a helpful >> > result. It's >> > > explicitly meant to influence how we vote, but without us >> > having >> > > done any validation of what it's actually calculating. >> > If you >> > > want to test this tool, you could position it as an "exit >> > poll", >> > > to compare the tool's results with how each person >> actually >> > > voted, or you could turn off the "alignment" scoring. >> > > >> > > My suspicions started with the fact that I answered >> "strongly >> > > support" or "support" to almost every question, which >> > suggests >> > > that the axes were not chosen in a way that >> differentiates >> > > between the candidates. Instead, it seems like it's >> going to >> > > amplify tiny differences like "strongly" vs "support"—is >> > this true? >> > > >> > > Was the tool analyzed with this sort of concern in >> mind? Are >> > > there reasons to believe that the "alignment" scores are >> > > meaningful in our scenario? >> > > >> > > Kind regards, >> > > Adam Wight >> > > [[mw:User:Adamw]] >> > > Writing in my volunteer capacity. >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- >> > wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto: >> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> >> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> > <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>>, guidelines at: >> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> >> > > < >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines>> and >> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> >> > > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l>> >> > > Public archives at >> > > >> > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/ORUIO7XSLVBBW57GIVPG53LJA3CIBNDG/ >> > < >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/ORUIO7XSLVBBW57GIVPG53LJA3CIBNDG/ >> > >> > > >> > < >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/ORUIO7XSLVBBW57GIVPG53LJA3CIBNDG/ >> < >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/ORUIO7XSLVBBW57GIVPG53LJA3CIBNDG/ >> >> >> > > To unsubscribe send an email to >> > > wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org> >> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org>> >> > > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> > <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> >> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> > <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>>, guidelines at: >> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> >> > > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines>> and >> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> >> > > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l>> >> > > Public archives at >> > > >> > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/KKNSAX5FKNUYRRKIZQJZP4OAURUN2JZ5/ >> > < >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/KKNSAX5FKNUYRRKIZQJZP4OAURUN2JZ5/ >> > >> > > >> > < >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/KKNSAX5FKNUYRRKIZQJZP4OAURUN2JZ5/ >> < >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/KKNSAX5FKNUYRRKIZQJZP4OAURUN2JZ5/ >> >> >> > > To unsubscribe send an email to >> > > wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org> >> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org>> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > -Andrew Lih >> > > Author of The Wikipedia Revolution >> > > US National Archives Citizen Archivist of the Year (2016) >> > > Knight Foundation grant recipient - Wikipedia Space (2015) >> > > Wikimedia DC - Outreach and GLAM >> > > Previously: professor of journalism and communications, American >> > > University, Columbia University, USC >> > > --- >> > > Email: and...@andrewlih.com <mailto:and...@andrewlih.com> >> > <mailto:and...@andrewlih.com <mailto:and...@andrewlih.com>> >> > > WEB: https://muckrack.com/fuzheado >> > <https://muckrack.com/fuzheado> <https://muckrack.com/fuzheado >> > <https://muckrack.com/fuzheado>> >> > > PROJECT: Wikipedia Space: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WPSPACE >> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WPSPACE> >> > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WPSPACE >> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WPSPACE>> >> > > >> > > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> > <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, guidelines at: >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> >> > > Public archives at >> > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/PHJ3SYO6B4ILQ4N5YRMNJ6UYLLGGORPX/ >> > < >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/PHJ3SYO6B4ILQ4N5YRMNJ6UYLLGGORPX/ >> > >> > > To unsubscribe send an email to >> > wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org> >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> > <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, guidelines at: >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> >> > Public archives at >> > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/2L4RG5H6XAQ2YPF3NMS4XZDGKQWJPFTD/ >> > < >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/2L4RG5H6XAQ2YPF3NMS4XZDGKQWJPFTD/ >> > >> > To unsubscribe send an email to >> > wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org> >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, >> guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> > Public archives at >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/ZTD7FPP5DRFYOBHID4CXGNJ4BGFKIL2W/ >> > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/2AREDSLSGTDMWOMBXFNDNY7S7SEFN62D/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/ILSBIZ3H53VXOWLZ56OM5MPYE6VKV6AI/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
