From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Possible to use for voting?[edit]

@AnisKoutsi, Valerio Bozzolan, and Ferdi2005:

Wikimedia community members vote and !vote for all sorts of things, including board members for chapters or to confirm adoption of organizational positions for chapters.

Can LimeSurvey make ballots?

A difference between ballots and surveys are that ballots need protection to just be used one time.

I am trying to organize a wiki chapter election. We have email addresses of ~100 members. I want to send each of them a survey with names for about 5 candidates. Voters can check boxes for any candidates they approve, whether one, all, or none. We add the votes in the end, and most votes wins.

Is LimeSurvey able to generate personal survey links in this way? If not, do you have a tool recommendation for something aligned with wiki community values?

Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: AFAIK LimeSurvey supports that kind of anonymous invitation system. You send 100 anonymous invites to 100 emails and they do the survey and you then process your 100 anonymous results. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, let me talk it over with others and read more about it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry: Having said that Wikimedia Italia uses w:Helios Voting for this stuff. It is a Free Software with cryptographic stuff in mind. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 12:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "Ethical values"[edit]

@AKlapper (WMF): Thank you for your interest in this topic but since this is the wiki of the community and not a personal wiki or the wiki of WMF staff, please restore the content you removed under your summary "... irrelevant to me ..." (diff), since I both don't think that ethic is irrelevant to an activist like you, and I also don't think that - even in that case - saying "irrelevant to me" can be considered a rational reason for removing an entire section from a collaborative wiki.

Also please restore the primary comparison table you deleted. I don't think you seriously don't know the target "100% data ownership" but also I don't think that - even in that case - somebody can troll saying "How would "78% ownership" look like?" (diff) without considering that, this behavior may seem like trolling and not so much respectful about previous contributors.

You also said "I first need the Features" and "Ethical Values are irrelevant to me anyway" diff. Again, in addition for what I already said, note that the fact that the data can remain exclusively at Wikimedia Italia, or the fact that there are no proprietary JavaScripts executed on client-side, these are tangible objective Features, whenever you subjectively like or not. Thank you for your understanding. Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Valerio Bozzolan Hi, which specific content did I "remove" in ? How is "100% data ownership" clearer than current "full data ownership"? Which specific comparison table do you have in mind?
We need pages with information that people can understand and allow people to make informed decisions - thus I had made some edits to improve the page.
(Also, splitting my sentence "If the tool simply doesn't do the job then any 'Ethical values' are irrelevant to me anyway" into two separate parts seems a bit misleading. There's a condition in that sentence for a reason.) AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]