Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2022/Community Voting/Election Compass
Upvoting poll?
editWhere is the statement ranking poll which was supposed to start yesterday? I'm wondering if we even need one. Even the full 43 Likert questions shouldn't take more than a couple hours at worst, although I wouldn't be opposed to staff or the committee eliminating the duplicates and unworkably ambiguous. But limiting to just 15 seems pointless and wasteful of potentially valuable information. New4Q (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- @CKibelka (WMF): Any update? Andreas JN466 21:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm wondering the same thing and would like to note I feel like we're living in one of the worst possible worlds with how we're doing elections. A fully staff run election would mean that the opportunity for community input would be less than it has historically been, if only because the staff are unaccountable to the community (and rightly so). The benefit of that should be that more things can be done (i.e. the compass), things happen on the timetables that they're supposed to, and issues that pop up are dealt with reasonably quickly. A fully community run election would mean there's more chance for community input, because the people running the election are answerable to and part of the community but with the downside that because it's volunteers things might not happen on the promised timetable even with everyone trying their best and the overall capacity might be less than the staff option. Instead we have some unhappy amalgamation where there are more things (i.e. the compass) but things don't happen on time and everyone is unaccountable because staff are relying on the election commissioners and the election commissioners are relying on staff. I'm hoping that we can break out of this unhappy status quo before our next election. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- A big +1 to BK49's general point to go along with the specific point beneath it Nosebagbear (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Upvoting is now open. Mailing list post this afternoon (unanswered to date). Andreas JN466 20:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- A big +1 to BK49's general point to go along with the specific point beneath it Nosebagbear (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm wondering the same thing and would like to note I feel like we're living in one of the worst possible worlds with how we're doing elections. A fully staff run election would mean that the opportunity for community input would be less than it has historically been, if only because the staff are unaccountable to the community (and rightly so). The benefit of that should be that more things can be done (i.e. the compass), things happen on the timetables that they're supposed to, and issues that pop up are dealt with reasonably quickly. A fully community run election would mean there's more chance for community input, because the people running the election are answerable to and part of the community but with the downside that because it's volunteers things might not happen on the promised timetable even with everyone trying their best and the overall capacity might be less than the staff option. Instead we have some unhappy amalgamation where there are more things (i.e. the compass) but things don't happen on time and everyone is unaccountable because staff are relying on the election commissioners and the election commissioners are relying on staff. I'm hoping that we can break out of this unhappy status quo before our next election. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi all! I'm just popping in here to share what I shared on Wikimedia-l as a response: "Community members can upvote the statements for the Election Compass on Meta-wiki. The Elections Committee needed more time to review the statements than anticipated. Voting opened on July 25. To address this delay, the Elections Committee and the Board Selection Task Force will extend the community voting on Election Statements through August 3." Also, Barkeep49 and Nosebagbear, I have noted your feedback. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Compass still needs work
edit@CKibelka (WMF): We currently have Question #6 coming twice (as the second and third questions); the second question should be Question #23. Andreas JN466 18:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- Can you please specify? The updated version of the Election Compass -- including all 18 translations -- went live shortly before the election opened. --Cornelius Kibelka (WMF) (talk to me) 02:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Looks okay now, error has been fixed. Andreas JN466 08:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
@CKibelka (WMF): Actually, now the problem is back. I am on my desktop (this morning I was on mobile), and this is a straight copy of what I am looking at on my screen:
Thesis 2 / 15 – More technical support
‘6: I am uncomfortable with the way the WMF increasingly assigns itself unilateral authority to make decisions about the Wikimedia projects which then affect the community’
This is followed by:
Thesis 3 / 15 – Unilateral authority
‘6: I am uncomfortable with the way the WMF increasingly assigns itself unilateral authority to make decisions about the Wikimedia projects which then affect the community’
--Andreas JN466 11:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, running through to the end, the candidates' statements given for "thesis 2" (which should be about "more technical support") also don't match. For example, Tochi is said to have said in response to thesis 2: "I know this has happened at various unfortunate times in the past. I am not convinced that this is increasing, however I am generally uncomfortable about any unilateral decisions. Wikimedia works by consensus, not by authority." I believe this is in fact an answer given by Mike to thesis 3.
- Thesis 2 urgently needs to be fixed. Andreas JN466 11:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- I can't reproduce what you're talking about, Andreas.
- 2/15 is: #2: The Wikimedia Foundation should provide more technical support to meet the demand of the community’
- 3/15 is: #3: I am uncomfortable with the way the WMF increasingly assigns itself unilateral authority to make decisions about the Wikimedia projects which then affect the community’
- The answers for 2 match. (see also Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Community_Voting/Election_Compass/Answers)
- I'm wondering where this mismatch between your and my view comes. Could you please refresh? --Cornelius Kibelka (WMF) (talk to me) 12:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- I clicked on the banner link this morning and got the above results. However, it is fine now – I now get what you describe, with the question numbers matching the thesis numbers and the correct wording. Let's hope that sorts it. Best, Andreas JN466 14:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Name mismatch
editHello, on the compass results one of the candidates is named as Tochi, a/k/a Tochiprecious. However, this name does not match any of the names of the candidates on the ballot. I'm assuming this is Tobechukwu, however such an assumption shouldn't be necessary for something as simple as a name. — xaosflux Talk 10:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: Indeed, valid point. I've fixed that with the last update. --Cornelius Kibelka (WMF) (talk to me) 23:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Question #9 translated incorrectly
editWhile running through the compass in english, question #9 comes through in Portuguese:
#9: 9: Assentos futuros da comunidade no Conselho de Administração deveriam ser ocupados puramente pelo voto de uma pessoa contribuidora (editor ou editora, desenvolvedor voluntário ou desenvolvedora voluntária e por aí vai) para todas as pessoas indicadas
GreatEgret (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- @GreatEgret Thanks! That's funny and weird at the same time. I've fixed it. Cornelius Kibelka (WMF) (talk to me) 23:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Odd because this was fine for me each time I went through it in English. Andreas JN466 00:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Candidates agree with (almost) everything
editThe candidate's positions are heavily skewed towards Support. Some candidates don't "Strongly oppose" anything and one doesn't even "Oppose" anything. There is not a single statement that has all possible positions, and only statements 5, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 14 have an "Oppose". Only 9 and 10 have "Strongly oppose" (1 each). It seems that the best way to pick a candidate that you're most comfortable with is to look for statements that you disagree with most strongly and exclude Candidates who "Strong support" those. Looking for people you agree with does not yield meaningful results. Vexations (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Vexations part of this issue occurs (and occurred last time with the ECs) is that people tend to endorse statements for candidates that they agree with, not those they'd like to know candidates' positions on. However, for those not making their decisions purely on the % match, and I can hope that is most editors, then the position answers offer a fair amount of nuance on most (though not all) statements. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- people tend to endorse statements for candidates that they agree with I don't understand. Isn't the whole point of this exercise that it will will help you find the people you agree with without having any a priory knowledge of what positions these people take? Vexations (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Typo in candidate comparisons
editWhen comparing the candidates' opinions, questions which I answered 'neutral' say 'You we're neutral'. It should be 'You were neutral'.
As an aside, I appreciated not having to log in to use the Compass, and the tool's very reasonable page size - well done on keeping it under 900 kB. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)