Talk:Abstract Wikipedia/Wiki of functions naming contest/Votes

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Test-voter reminders[edit]

Hi. You voted during the testing period. Also, some new information has now been added to the table of proposals.

Please see Special:MyLanguage/Abstract Wikipedia/Wiki of functions naming contest/Names and add your votes any time before 16 November.

Thank you for helping to test! Also, our apologies for the delayed start and any confusions it caused.

Note: The vote is a "soft-launch" today, with wider announcements planned for later in the week once more translations are available.

@ArthurPSmith, Verdy p, Patsagorn Y., Janezdrilc, Ferdi2005, Lluis tgn, Tiputini, UeArtemis, Fnielsen, 4nn1l2, and Marcmiquel: Ping FYI. --Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Setup[edit]

@Quiddity (WMF): Note: you've asked the full protection of the page on 22 October, it was applied without even notifying me, and without replyingf to my initial request I made to the initial author of the gadget that tested it on 21 october: I had contacted him on 21 October, before you reverted my change with an unfair comment, and with an unfair request to the wiki admins on 22 october. I had fuilly respected the project, and was the only one that created and maintained the translatibility of all these pages, that I had also properly categorized and really fixed for working links and navigatability in all languages. I also properly fixed the layouts for Bidi (e.g. in Hebrew and Arabic), and I had also made some announcements on some external communcaition channels.
The way the project goes now is that not enough things are tracked by the community and that it looks to be managed only internally by a working team at the WMF, with lot of decisions taken without informing the community (so there are questions appearing later in all communication channels that contest or challenge the proposals). As well the timeline is not properly maintained: I have fixed them as much as posisble where they were forgotten: I take care of maintaining all in sync to avoid discrepancies or contradictions. I've also managed to organize the weekly updates better than they were done initially (and not translated at all). Do you really think I really make things badly when I focused on the required community aspect ? I want the community to remain in full contact and that the project remains strongly tied with permanent contacts of the community, BEFORE long terms decisions are made that will be harder for you to change later: we must act proactively to minimize the impact and also save you some unnecessary works (such as what happened exactly for the round 2, that had to be delayed because it was not propared correctly, and you did NOT provide any link to the current progress or the early tests of the new gadget that could have been fixed to avoid the unfair revert, if there was a properly linked place to see what could be wrong: there was NOTHING that would allowed be to assert that what I did could break the gadget, when it was still NOT available on 21 October, but added only the next day, after my change that you reverted, and after I had contacted the initial testers I saw in a new pages registering votes using the tested, but still invisible (and not deployed and still not working) and unusable gadget.
Be cafeful: you make decisions without informing users, and making the correct contacts at least with those that really help you of that jsut ask you for help or clarifications about what you're doing and deciding via obscure "side" channels, then ask to wiki admins to take decisions, even if they did not help you at all for this project. The effect is that the page was fully protected so that only wiki admins can now modify it, not me, not even you or any translate admin, unless they are wiki admins. And there was NO emergency to block that page on 22 october, at a time where the votes for round 1 were already closed, and votes for round 2 still not open: you've then asked to block a page that was about an alpha stage that would necessarily change (but that you forgot to maintain completely: but now you don't want any external community help for this work?). verdy_p (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
@Verdy p: Hi. Sorry for any frustrations I may have caused. I have previously thanked you many times for your help with the translations and other documentation improvements. Thank you again! It is appreciated.
I made a mistake in my earlier comment, about the gadget breaking from the addition of the scope=col - it had actually been broken from the !header-row formatting, IIUC. The gadget also requires this page to be protected for security per this change by the original dev, in addition to simply avoiding breakages during the vote by goodfaith edits like that which don't work with the existing gadget code. We protected it a few days early simply because we were getting everything setup in exactly the way it was going to exist once live, so that we had time to find and resolve any technical problems. (whilst also multitasking with dozens of other things, as usual!)
The world is also a lot more stressful than usual for many people, at the moment. Please extend some extra patience to the other inherently-flawed humans, in these "interesting times"! :-) Thanks again. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Order of the voting[edit]

In the result page this is written but It should be clearly defined in the voting gadget if it is best->worst OR worst->best ordering. (ie. Left most is most favorite, Right most is least favorite (in left-to-right languages; and vice-versa in right-to-left languages in the result page) --Zache (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

And because of this whole results may be a garbage. WMF works as usual. — Vort (talk) 06:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
The complexity is that the gadget is also adapted to work for Right-to-Left (RTL) languages, so "first" choice is "left" in LTR languages and "right" in RTL languages. And on top of that, an editor could arrive via a link directly to the translated page (e.g. Abstract Wikipedia/Wiki of functions naming contest/Names/ar) but could have their language-preferences for this wiki set to English or another LTR language (or vice-versa), so we cannot make assumptions about whether the instructions should match the content-text or the interface-text, for any individual.
We used the same setup and wording that was used for the mw:Project:Proposal for changing logo of MediaWiki, 2020/Round 2, and there were no comments there about confusion. But I understand your concerns and will continue trying to make it clearer. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
user:Quiddity (WMF), results, which are written to this page by this gadget, must be uniform. So gadget at some point should reverse order for RTL variant of input. And if it knows which order is used while interacting with user, then it can show correct description (either to put preferred option on the left side or on the right side). — Vort (talk) 06:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
If gadget make no reversion, then data will be wrong even if correct description will be shown. How it will be possible to process results without asking user "In what language your digits were written?". — Vort (talk) 06:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Also I think RTL-LTR support is unneded complexity and considering lack of correct description it will only add confusion. You may obtained correct results before just because of luck (low amount of RTL-users & common understanding of what "order of preference" means). — Vort (talk) 06:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Note that I made yesterday the test with the Arabic user locale, and there was NO bug (this caused me to post a second vote, that I removed): the reading order on the first page is correctly from right to left, the first item select is on the right, the items are correctly ordered in logical order, but when you submit on this page (which is LTR) the logical order is preserved (so it is automatically reversed): note that posts on this page place the user name at start of line, and the user name may contain Arabic/Hebrew. However the user name is displayed with its prefix "User:" (or "lang:User:"), so the item in the list is properly ordered with a LTR start direction which makes the default for the whole line. Then there's a colon (which is neutral, but the list of votes contains only European digits and neutral punctuation up to the end of line. The problem is that the list may "look" wrong with these user names, that should have been surreounded by "bdi" element, so their direction do not change the reading order of the rest of the line.
  • IMHO, the numeric votes should have been posted AT START of the posted list item, before the user name (or signature), just like in regular talks. People voting manually with the mobile UI (where the gadget does not work) would have then used a standard signature, and we would have had no problem as well with dates. But in the votes above, this has not occured: all user names visible above are LTR-only, even for those users that have an RTL UI.
  • The tools should still have note made any assumption: to build the row of votes in a table, there should have been a header row just above saying which one is the "best ", and which one is the "worst": then no problem at all if this is rendered in RTL order because of the UI, and no reason to force the horizontal table to rearrange to be LTR-only.
Unfortunately the tool was not properly tested, it was made in emergency and was not even ready just a few days before the start of the vote. we know it was used for the votes of logos for MediaWiki, but this occured in an English-only page, not properly announced to other projects, and the decision to use this tool for this project here was taken privately, not announced at all. So these quirks were unavoidable. If it was too late to test it and you wanted the name in mid-December (even if there was still no emergency, we are far from the final release or even the first public beta, and still don't need a stable domain name...), you should have used traditional votes: the votes and a signature.
But it's not too late to fix these quirks for the coming vote for the new logo... verdy_p (talk) 10:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Antivote[edit]

May I remove numbers from my vote? I actually like none of the options. I assigned as “top-priority” suggestion the name that, in my opinion, “sucks” the most. I don’t think it’s a good sign of a voting process if people, like me, start thinking about “sabotaging” the result, instead of expressing their consent, what proposal they in fact support. Kays (talk) 00:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Kai Burghardt: Hi. Yes, you can remove numbers from your own vote. I'm sorry you don't like any of the options that people supported in round 1, but please do vote for the name you think is best out of the available proposals. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
@Kai Burghardt: Just curious - why do you dislike all of the options, and / or which kind of names would you prefer? --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I used a 0 for the last three options, as I find all of them not good. I hope that's fine for the evaluation. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 09:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
@Sänger: With the current rules documented, if none of your first options pass, all the others will not count to the sum and in that case your vote will be void for other proposals (so you accept that this would be decided by other: such 0 at ranks 4,5,6 is an abstention for these automatic rounds when counting the totals).
I've left it as is, the WMF may have another view and could decide to reject your vote as not strictly following the rules.
I think it is still valid, as long as the 0 are not in the middle of ranked choices, but all grouped at end (we would use the same if someone manually submitted a shorter list of choices than the 6 ones). Posting a list of 6 choices at once is equivalent to 6 successive rounds (except they are done all at once): you just chose to not participate to the last 3 rounds. verdy_p (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Voting system[edit]

Which specific ranked voting system will be used to aggregate users' preference orderings? PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, I found it on the parent page. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)