Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections/Board elections/2015/Questions/1
Section editing busted?[edit]
FYI when I click edit for each of the individual questions I get the source for... a different question :) I think it may be an artifact of the old randomizer code? -- phoebe | talk 01:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Phoebe: This is an artifact of the translation extension which can do some incredible oddness with headers edit links if they are not marked just right. These appear to be working now after some adjustments. I'll keep an eye out. Jalexander--WMF 10:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Jalexander! -- phoebe | talk 03:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Missing information[edit]
So why it is nearly impossible to see any of Pete Forsyth's answers, instead of simply noting he dropped out or using a strikethrough. Yes, he dropped out of the elections, but some candidates reference what he wrote, & the only way I have found to see what Pete wrote is to look at the source of the page. Even looking at older drafts from before he dropped out, Pete's answers still are not visible. Considering Pete's role in recent controversies, hiding his answers to questions makes it appear that the Foundation is discouraging dissent in this election. -- Llywrch (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Llywrch: I think it was just a well-intentioned try to reduce the length of the page, not a diabolical plan to discourage dissent. Also, Pete actually archived his answers here, this should be a bit more easier to read than the source of the page. Cheers, Denny --denny (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- My comment was more to appearance than to intent. (I've been on the Internet a long time. Long enough to know how easily messages can be misunderstood.) But that you misinterpreted my comment as assuming malice does speak volumes for the relationship between the Foundation & average volunteers. -- Llywrch (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- True, touché. --denny (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- This decision was made by volunteers (the Elections Committee) in the 2 hours that we had to decide what to do with Pete withdrawing right before the start of the election. We decided that the questions page was already very long, and concluded that a withdrawn candidate's statements being added to that would not provide enough benefit. I recognize not everyone will agree with that conclusion, but clearly not everyone would agree with the other option. We are also considering ways to improve the questions process, and encourage people to post feedback or ideas on the post mortem page. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 23:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- For whatever it's worth, I support the Election Committee's choice without qualification. Exactly as Varnent said, there was no perfect solution, and it's their job to make judgment calls like that. I do wish my answers were easier for voters to find, but I don't see any compelling reason why they should be. (And for what it's worth, I'm planning to republish some of them as blog posts.) -Pete F (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- This decision was made by volunteers (the Elections Committee) in the 2 hours that we had to decide what to do with Pete withdrawing right before the start of the election. We decided that the questions page was already very long, and concluded that a withdrawn candidate's statements being added to that would not provide enough benefit. I recognize not everyone will agree with that conclusion, but clearly not everyone would agree with the other option. We are also considering ways to improve the questions process, and encourage people to post feedback or ideas on the post mortem page. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 23:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- True, touché. --denny (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- My comment was more to appearance than to intent. (I've been on the Internet a long time. Long enough to know how easily messages can be misunderstood.) But that you misinterpreted my comment as assuming malice does speak volumes for the relationship between the Foundation & average volunteers. -- Llywrch (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)