Søren Kiersted | 1 Jul 01:17 2007

Don't waste your vote!

I am writing to ask all of you to think carefully when you vote.

The board election is very important and many good people are running.

But it is better for Wikipedia's future to keep a bad person off than
to have the best people on.

There are three seats open. When you make your three choices if you
think only to choose the best you risk making an opening for someone
bad, so '''you must also consider who can win'''.

Look at the endorsements:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2007/Endorsements

It is clear that only some have the standing to keep
a bad person off the board. So even if you know in your heart that
someone else is better, you should not pick them because if you do
your vote is WASTED.

If you have already voted and made the error of picking the wrong people you
can still change your vote but you must do it right away before the
election closes.
geni | 1 Jul 01:29 2007
Picon

Re: Don't waste your vote!

On 7/1/07, Søren Kiersted <wisewisard@...> wrote:
> I am writing to ask all of you to think carefully when you vote.
>
> The board election is very important and many good people are running.
>
> But it is better for Wikipedia's future to keep a bad person off than
> to have the best people on.
>
> There are three seats open. When you make your three choices if you
> think only to choose the best you risk making an opening for someone
> bad, so '''you must also consider who can win'''.
>
> Look at the endorsements:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2007/Endorsements
>
> It is clear that only some have the standing to keep
> a bad person off the board. So even if you know in your heart that
> someone else is better, you should not pick them because if you do
> your vote is WASTED.

Your model is flawed in that is ignores the issue of placing for
future elections.

--

-- 
geni
Alison Wheeler | 1 Jul 02:39 2007

Re: Don't waste your vote!

On Sun, July 1, 2007 00:17, Søren Kiersted wrote:
> Look at the endorsements:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2007/Endorsements
>
> It is clear that only some have the standing to keep
> a bad person off the board. So even if you know in your heart that
> someone else is better, you should not pick them because if you do
> your vote is WASTED.

Apart from finding much of this post objectionable, the number of people
endorsing each candidate is, in fact, irrelevant given that many editors
(myself included) were quite capable of reading the page concerned and,
having noted that there was a particular number of endorsements required
to validate a candidacy and noting that any candidates whom we supported
had already received the required number, could see no point in adding to
a 'beauty contest' there when it is the actual *votes* now that matter.

The number of supporters corralled into adding pointless endorsements just
shows who made the most noise, not who actually may have the most support
or would be the best for the future of Wikimedia and the projects.

One should always vote *for* a candidate, never against, imho.

Alison Wheeler
(writing purely personally)
Dmcdevit | 1 Jul 03:00 2007
Picon
Picon

Re: Don't waste your vote!

Søren Kiersted wrote:
> When you make your three choices if you
> [...]
>   
The election uses approval voting. You can vote for as many candidates 
as you like, not just three. See 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting>.

Dominic
Søren Kiersted | 1 Jul 03:02 2007

Re: Don't waste your vote!

On 6/30/07, Alison Wheeler <wikimedia@...> wrote:
> One should always vote *for* a candidate, never against, imho.
>
> Alison Wheeler
> (writing purely personally)

The people who write the rules do not agree with your personal view.

"Approval voting" is just a polite word for "disapproval voting". When
you do not select someone you are disapproving them and the ones with
the least disapproval win.  It is exactly equal only the name changes.
Thomas Dalton | 1 Jul 03:15 2007
Picon

Re: Don't waste your vote!

On 01/07/07, Søren Kiersted <wisewisard <at> googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 6/30/07, Alison Wheeler <wikimedia <at> alisonwheeler.com> wrote:
> > One should always vote *for* a candidate, never against, imho.
> >
> > Alison Wheeler
> > (writing purely personally)
>
> The people who write the rules do not agree with your personal view.
>
> "Approval voting" is just a polite word for "disapproval voting". When
> you do not select someone you are disapproving them and the ones with
> the least disapproval win.  It is exactly equal only the name changes.

Alison is talking about how one makes their choice of who to vote for,
she isn't talking about how the voting system works. Approval voting
is just a yes/no vote on each candidate and the one(s) with the most
yes's (or least no's, it is, indeed, the same thing) wins. If you
really hate one candidate, your best bet is to vote for everyone
except that candidate.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Søren Kiersted | 1 Jul 03:19 2007

Re: Don't waste your vote!

On 6/30/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@...> wrote:
> Alison is talking about how one makes their choice of who to vote for,
> she isn't talking about how the voting system works. Approval voting
> is just a yes/no vote on each candidate and the one(s) with the most
> yes's (or least no's, it is, indeed, the same thing) wins. If you
> really hate one candidate, your best bet is to vote for everyone
> except that candidate.

This would only be true if you had no idea who else had a chance of
winning. Even without the pre-election we are not so foolish.
Thomas Dalton | 1 Jul 03:25 2007
Picon

Re: Don't waste your vote!

> This would only be true if you had no idea who else had a chance of
> winning. Even without the pre-election we are not so foolish.

Not true. If your only aim is to prevent a particular candidate from
winning, you should vote to everyone else. That way, if, without your
vote, the candidate you dislike would win by one vote, they will now
draw, regardless of who is in 2nd place. If there is candidate other
than the one you dislike that you do not vote for, and that candidate
comes in 2nd, one vote behind the candidate you dislike, then you
could have stopped them winning by voting for them and have failed in
your objective.
Søren Kiersted | 1 Jul 04:05 2007

Re: Don't waste your vote!

On 6/30/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@...> wrote:
> Not true. If your only aim is to prevent a particular candidate from
> winning, you should vote to everyone else. That way, if, without your

But what person has only one aim?
There are people I think are best, people I think are good, people I
think are less good, people I think don't matter, and a person I think
is bad.

If I select the only best, if they do not have a good chance to win
then it creates a chance to let the bad in. If I select all but the
bad, I risk helping the less good win.

So the most desired result comes from picking only the good who are
likely to win. If I waste my selection on unlikely options then I am
not doing all I could to keep out the bad. If I vote for everyone
except the bad I am not expressing my preference for good.
Brianna Laugher | 1 Jul 04:50 2007
Picon

Re: just an idea: add motivation commentary line, anonymized?

On 30/06/07, oscar van dillen <oscarvandillen@...> wrote:
> [09:59]<oscar>it was just a thought, like last year i suggested a debate
> [09:59]<oscar>which now did take place more or less[10:00]<oscar>who knows
> what happens next year?[10:02]<oscar>there could be several reasons for
> doing this however, hints for the wmf or the board, for online elections in
> general and perhaps reading each other's comments is useful as well?[10:03]<
> oscar>afterwards of course[10:03]<oscar>not *during* an election
> (end of quote)

Did you mean comments on the election process, or comments on the
candidates, or possibly both?

I think comments on the election process is definitely a good idea
--to try and find ways to equalise the participation rates, as Aphaia
commented on.

cheers
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise

--

-- 
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
http://modernthings.org/

Gmane