Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections/Board elections/2004/Candidates

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

I have removed Greenman from the election candidates page since his only edit was to add a crossed out "nomination", which is immediately followed by who he thinks people should vote for. Maximus Rex 02:08, 26 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two users have detailed listings of their Wikimedia contributions on this page. The candidate form only allowed a brief link for this. In the interest of fairness and equality, I suggest that these listings be moved to the respective user pages, with a brief link from the candidate list. Alternatively, every candidate should be informed that they are free to use an additional 500 characters on the candidate page to describe their contributions.--Eloquence

It's probably not worth worrying about. A lot of the people on here have gone way over the 500 characters for the other sections anyway, so you can't pick on one section without also asking the candidates to reduce the other sections to the allowed lengths. Angela 00:36, 28 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here is the number of characters for people who are above or near the 1000 character limit:

           Wikitext    Rendered (links as plaintext)
Delirium:  2386        2320
Anthere:   1879*       1821
Maveric:   1815*       1586
Chris:     1464        1464
Angela:    1211        987
Eloquence: 994         976
* includes characters of "contributions" list, which only these users have

According to Danny (on my user talk page), it is the rendered count which is the decisive one. I'm now at 976 chars. I have tried quite hard to stay within the limit. I think before we start the election, we should make sure that everyone else does, too. It's simply a matter of fairness. You wouldn't want one candidate in a democratic election to be assigned twice as much TV time as another.--Eloquence

When I decided to put more detailed information about my contributions, I checked with Danny whether I could or could not. He said I could and in case there was a problem, we could see later what to do. He did not mention anything like the fact this list should go within the 500 rule. So, I do not think we have to respect a rule that has been written no where. The organisers are Danny and Imran, and that is their opinion on the matter which will count. Besides, those who did that have been reasonable. It is not exactly like we used a full page to detail our contributions. In short, we have been acting in good faith.

Not only good faith is important, not only what you mention is NOT a rule written anywhere, but on top of it, I think it is really a petty fight. We are here talking of a major set of projects who will be a revolution in the world, and you are trying to change rules for a couple of alleged characters.

I'd like to add that the argument of unfairness is laughable imho. If these elections have been fair, there would have allowed all candidates to make statements in their own language, and a translator would have been provided to give their text a good look. Once we make our statement in poor language, we automatically give an image of non professionalism. That is unfairness. But that can't be avoided. This however, is much more important than a couple of characters potentially out of place.

Anthere 04:40, 28 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The space in the form where you added 700 characters of self-promotion was labeled link to user contribution page. What you added obviously goes far beyond that. If Danny and Imran decide that this space can also be used for information that goes beyond a link, then I have absolutely no problem with that and will add my own 500 or 700 or 1500 characters or whatever is allowed there, but every candidate should be informed about it, because that is not what the page currently states. On the other hand, the page cites clear size limits for the other parts of the candidate profile, so it is quite obvious that "size matters" for a fair and orderly process.
I agree everyone should do the same. When I did so, I asked Danny if I could, because the description was not clear, and I thought it important enough for readers to figure here, rather than in another page. I would rather support that you and others move your stuff in here because most voters will not go to the plateform.
Sorry, but the description is perfectly clear. "Link to user contribution page" means "link to user contribution page". A link is a link is a link, not a 600+ character list. That's why it is important that if we want to change the original, very clear definition to something else, everyone is given a chance to adapt their profiles. Of course I would prefer it if we wouldn't have to build our rules around people and people would instead just respect the rules, but I'm perfectly fine with accepting creative experimentation with our framework as long as this is done in an egalitarian manner.--Eloquence
By bringing up other potential issues of fairness, you do not address this one, and I must insist on it being addressed. Either we make it clear that every candidate can use additional space to describe their contributions, and how much, or we move this to your and Mav's user page. Profiles which exceed the allowed total space should be abridged. We can allow for maybe 100 characters of wiggle room, but there's no point in setting size limits if they aren't enforced, it just gives those who ignore them an advantage. If this is such a petty issue, then surely you should have no problem with this solution.--Eloquence
Correct. I thought I was below 500. It appears I am not. So, I guess the difference between your and my counting is probably quite low. I do not care if people get over the 500 y 50 or 100 words. What I care is that I will not spend hours to fit in the exact 500 words now. If that is not acceptable, I will entirely remove my statement, because I wish not that it be simply amputated. Alternatively, some one can rewrite it for me so that it fits. Now, I have heavy day of work ahead, and I guess that it is really more important than 20 characters. I perhaps won't be able to access tonight, and then the deadline will be over. So please choose one of the solution above (other candidates add in, and rewrite my stuff to remove 20 caracters in a meaninfull way), or just remove my candidacy if my candidacy does not fit the rules.
In another elections, I will insist on other rules of fairness, such as representativity of all projects, that are severely more serious than these. When all candidates are elected according to the audience which know them (ie, not english by 1/2 of voters and chinese by 1/100 of voters), or when people will have the opportunity to make their statement in mother languages, which will be translated in ALL languages used by voters, then we can speak of fairness. Right now, change the rules the way you see fit, but avoid using the word "fairness". There is litte fairness right now. It can't be avoided really, but this issue is really minor compared to other issues of real representativity. ant
This is not about 20 characters, it is about 820 characters in total in your case and even more in Delirium's. You are free to think that this is "laughable" and not a relevant issue, I disagree. I do believe that the space which each candidate is afforded to prominently introduce themselves does matter.
If you don't want to do it yourself, I will gladly move your contribution list to your user subpage linked from your candidate profile and will abridge the remaining profile. I will also do this for any other candidate who asks me to do so. I welcome any other initiatives to improve the fairness and equality of this election.--Eloquence

I will defer to the judgment of Danny and Imran on this since they are the ones who made up the rules. When I saw that Ant had added that information I thought that was a neat idea since it is a chance for the candidate to introduce him/her-self in a way that demonstrates relevant experience. --mav

My opinion is to combine Angela and Mav's thoughts on the matter - a) this is not so important as to warrant the fuss being made about it, and b) Danny and Imran are the election inspectors, and have been given the authority to make decisions about issues like these. I'm disappointed to see people getting distracted from the substantive issues of how to improve and develop the Wikimedia Foundation, which is what I believe this election should be about. I'm not complaining about the fact that other people have pictures on the page and I do not, even though the template doesn't provide for pictures. I will simply continue to run in the best way I know how, and I don't want to get dragged down into gamesmanship. I expect everyone else to run in the best way they know how, and I trust the voters to take into account whatever is important to them, which may or may not include character counts, lists of contributions, or pictures. --Michael Snow 16:03, 28 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since Danny and Imran do not intend to enforce the rules they have defined, I have modified the page accordingly and will now update my candidate statement as well.--Eloquence

I'm down to 943. Do I win? ;) Angela 23:02, 28 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We should know in about two weeks. ;-) --Eloquence

yet unconfirmed[edit]

When will I get confirmed? --TomK32 05:23, 28 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quick list of candidates[edit]

The Quick list in section 1 is wrong. It still includes Marcschulz who is no longer running. I didn't want to correct it myself as the page is now protected. Angela 06:20, 31 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply]