Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2022/Stats

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

Data makes no sense[edit]

I think this data is near meaningless and incomprehensible. I think it is reporting "home wiki" which is the wiki where people register, but not where they edit. I think this is not communicated and also that this communicates no useful information. If anyone is able to interpret this data then please say briefly what this means and how anyone should think about it.

For example, for Hindi Wikipedia, it says that only 37 people were eligible, and only 2 of those voted. I do not think it is possible to make any meaningful conclusion from that data. What probably happened is that Hindi Wikipedia editors are registering in another project, then they are not counted correctly here. I do not know what the real number are, but I know there are more than 37 active and eligible editors of Hindi Wikipedia.

For the future we need these stats sorted in some other way, like for example, sorting people into the project where they were most active by edit count in the last year.

If I am in error about some of my presumptions here then correct me; I am just trying to make sense of this and I think there is no sense to be made. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I said earlier, the concept of a single home wiki needs a caveat that it's often unreliable. For the UCoC vote, stats were published that used the concept of "qualifying wikis", which reflects what wiks someone is active on today, not when they registered. I think that would be a lot more meaningful. Legoktm (talk) 05:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes! That looks great! I do not see the documentation for how "qualifying" is defined, but I can see that the process assigns users to multiple wiki communities based on their count of edit counts there. That is a meaningful classification, whereas too often, classification by home wiki is not. I support developing that as a demographic classification system and deprecating home wiki reporting. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Bluerasberry and @Legoktm! The extended data was being prepared (as it takes time to be gathered, prepared and wikified) by our team and we planned to publish it as a part of the initial plan. It is now available here. Enjoy! MNadzikiewicz (WMF) (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bluerasberry if WMF provided a voter list similar to what was provided during the Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines/Voting?
  • For full transparency, we would need
  1. the list entries linked to the user page,
  2. an array of categories the editor has been added to. (to detect bloc voting,
  3. if there is a matching WMF user (they automatically receive a vote as do trustees)
  4. contributions edit count, char, first, last edit, per project
  5. whether they have access because of one of the special reasons
  6. date and time of vote
  7. Voters to be asked if they have a conflict of interest
The breakdown by project is needed because wikidata games means 100s of edits per hour is simple. Wakelamp (talk) 07:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wakelamp: Yes! This is the right idea. Here is what I like about your proposal:
  1. Yes, You have a list of voter characteristics where you want info. This is a good list! Also, if needed, the community can discuss adding or removing issues.
  2. Yes, we should have a list of voter data connected to demographic data. If we had that, then we could do data visualizations which communicate in pictures the information from that issues list.
Yes, you show that we need the same data for many circumstances. It is useful in elections, but also, useful in interpreting general calls for comment which are not elections. If there was a central process in place, we would not need to debate it many times, but could reuse it in many circumstances. In the Community open letter on renaming discussion for example, the community complained about the WMF interpretation of community commentators. If a standard process had been in place and applied then, then that a major conflict may have been prevented because of pre-agreement on how to report community participation.
This should happen! Also, I am not aware of anyone proposing what you are proposing here. Good idea! Bluerasberry (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update after struck votes[edit]

The statistics currently include some votes that have been struck (the total is now at 5,950 votes), it would be good to update the statistics once scrutineering finishes. Legoktm (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How come ja translation ja translation is not shown under Additional statistics? It's finished over five months now. (?_?) Cheers, -- Omotecho (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Same users appear multiple times in these charts?[edit]

For the "Sum of voters greater than 1000" chart, there were ~6000 total voters, but nearly 20,000 user accounts reported as qualifying for various eligibility criteria. If a users qualifies to vote by 10 different criteria, then that same user shows up 10 times in this chart, right?

thanks Bluerasberry (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]