Talk:Board of Trustees/Election results discussion
But — where are the election results? In any election I know, the final results (which candidate got how many votes) are published together with the announcement of the winner(s). Lupo 08:43, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I have heard some rumours (see mailing list and IRC) that the results may not be published. If this is the case I think it would be a travesty. It would be great if the board could be run in as open as a manner as its projects are, with as much accountability as possible. It might be helpful if all the candidates could say that they have no objections to the results being published; this might mitigate any reasons for withholding them. Pcb21| Pete 16:31, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Openess is essesial for the trust of the Elections and the board ✏ Sverdrup 16:55, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaattttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt? Come on, someone please refute/confirm this rumour, because THIS WOULD BE THE END OF TRANSPARENCY. Good grief! Pfortuny 18:51, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- It's no rumor, Danny has explicitly said on IRC that the results won't be published. There were many many complaints, but apparently the desire for openness is being overruled by a desire not to hurt people's feelings.
- Man, I have seen better excuses... I guess anyone standing up for a post is aware that it may prove quite shameful. But I will not believe the results until I see the statistics. Otherwise this is not fair play -to say the very least. How/who can verify the results?
- And this is no complaint about the results (I am happy with the elected candidates), it is a basic procedural need. What is this, my schoolyard? Come one, people!.
- Yes, I AM GOING TO SHOUT OUT LOUD about this. Good intentions do not lead necessarily to good deeds. There is no shame in getting 0 votes (if that is the problem), it is simply that nobody voted for you. And?
- Oh, dear what is this about?
- And then we talk about information and NPOV and facts. Well, where are the facts here? What did the people say?
- Yes, I am quite annoyed. YES. Shameful behaviour. YES Pfortuny 19:43, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Hmm, I don't think hurt feelings is a sufficient reason, nor do I really think there's much to worry about in that regard. Firsly, folks standing for any election need to perpare themselves for rejection (and all our candidates are highly experienced, mature individuals who I'm sure can take it, even if they got zero). Secondly, a low vote doesn't mean much - there were a couple of candidates I essentially didn't know anything about (mostly because they're active on wikipedias I'm not), and so certainly wasn't going to vote for. That doesn't mean they're not worthy, indeed for all I know they'd be better choices than the ones I did vote for, so one can't infer unpopularity from a low vote. I think it's unacceptable that the tallies of each election aren't published, and I don't consider the election valid in their absence. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:49, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think most candidates agreed to results being published, except for those who are not often on the mailing list, and did not see people requests. Danny is busy getting these last agreements. Hopefully, results will be visible in a few hours.
I also agree that low results do not mean the candidate was bad at all. They may be little known, or the votes may have been strongly political. Sorry to hear that some people do not recognise the validity of Angel and I elections though :-) SweetLittleFluffyThing 23:29, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Good grief. I would have thought it obvious that if you have an election that you announce the results, not just the winners, otherwise we'll just have variations on the old Soviet election jokes ("thieves broke into the Kremlin last night and stole next years' election results"). I stood for my council in last weeks elections and got 165 votes; my Conservative opponent got 608 -- I'm not in the least embarrassed (not least because it was a no-hope ward and we didn't spend a penny on the campaign!) to have the result in all the local newspapers and on the web. -- Arwel 23:36, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Well, I'm with Pfortuny here, all the way. Compromising openness for such silly things as believing it will hurt their feelings (you are underestimating them and possibly hurting their feelings by believing such things about (confirmed, even) grown adults), will seriously hurt the credibility of the Board, Jimbo and our Wikimedia governance in whole. ✏ Sverdrup 00:01, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Imran let some of the results for top vote-getters out on IRC, having gotten permission from the candidates involved. As they were stated:
- For contributing rep:
- Anthere (Florence Nibart-Devouard) 269
- Eloquence (Erik Möller) 258
- Maveric149 (Daniel Mayer) 163
- For volunteer rep:
- Angela (Angela Beesley) 345
- Maveric149 (Daniel Mayer) 159
- Well, thanks to Cyrius some of the numbers are published now. However, these numbers are incomplete and inofficial, which may be worse than not having any numbers at all. (No offense meant, Cyrius.) I'm still waiting for Danny or Imran to publish the official results: number of voters; total number of votes; tally for all candidates, summary statement who has been elected. Maybe even with a breakdown by language: candidate X got that many votes on en:, that many on fr:, and so on. That's standard practice! (At least where I live.)
- The (temporary) summary statement in Wikipedia:Recentchanges won't do; there will need to be a more permanent record on a page over on Meta and an announcement telling us "common folk" where to find these results. Announcing it on IRC or the mailing list is not sufficient; only a small percentage of contributors to the Wikipedias follow these channels.
- And what's this business of having to get the candidates' permission to publish the results? I've never heard such utter nonsense. You stand in an election, you'll have to live with the fact that the results are published. If they're not, this whole election's credibility is seriously undermined. Lupo 07:28, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not ready to get in a lather about this, but it seems utterly bizarre not to have the complete numerical results, listing all candidates and the number of votes they received. I've never heard of any other election where this was done. I'm not enough of a conspiracy theorist to see any suspect motives in this. If the candidates in this election were promised in advance that the numerical results would be confidential then they should not be released—this one time—but we should not have further elections with confidential results. Of course, Wikipedia is eccentric, but I am totally unconvinced that there's any good purpose served by not publishing the results, or if there is the case hasn't been made. As for hurt feelings, it seems to me that those who do not get elected will have hurt feelings anyway. Dpbsmith 14:53, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Once we have approval from the candidates we will publish official results. But if a candidate wants us not to disclose their results I can't see a good reason for us to do so. --Imran 09:17, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- The reason is that it is absolutely not their results, but the elections'. Once one stands up for a post, the result is no longer his property. Sorry to be harsh, but this is as clear as water to me. You would be hiding the voters' oppinion, not the candidate's property. Pfortuny 10:22, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I totally agree. The opposite to Imran's statement is that if anyone wants to see the full results, I can't see a good reason why they should be hidden. That someone might be embarrassed by lack of support is not a good reason. The votes belonged to the voters orginally, not to the candidates. By what rules of Wikipedia or general election procedure does any individual candidate have the right to veto full disclosure of the election results? Where and when and by whom and on what authority was the rule adopted that a candidate must give permission for full relection results to be released? jallan 14:10, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)