Re: Schulze method
Thanks for spotting my mistake. Feel free to strike my statement in the archive and correct it. The WMF election committee never revisited that decision, nor they ever consulted experts. They said they were too busy to check whether the system made sense, and they felt they were expert enough on their own (both arguments are ridiculous, of course). The Schulze method is still the most appreciated one, as it was originally chosen with quite wide agreement and reasoning; make sure to choose the correct variant, though. Alternatively, the French Wikipedia poll system uses w:Condorcet method, which is often considered easier to understand: you might consider it as alternative. Nemo 21:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, of course Condorcet has its issues. They use it only for polls, which can only have one outcome oout of several options, if I remember correctly. Should be explained at w:fr:Aide:Prise de décision, no time to check now. Nemo 21:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Mentor for GSoC Project : Reading List
Hello! I am a second-year computer science student from India. I hope to work upon the project Reading List as a part of GSoC-2016. I am being guided by Joaquin Oltra Hernandez and I have started gathering information on how the reading List looks like. As the project lacks one more mentor for getting selected for "Featured for GSoC" we require a community member who could shepered this process and as you are the one who proposed this idea, it would be great if you could co-mentor me.
Hi! You voted for improving plagiarism detection as an important suggestions in the community wishlist survey last year. I'm pinging people who showed interest in that task to tell them we have some suggestions for how things could look, if you'd like to glance at them and give us some feedback. They're available here: phab:T120435#2266283. It's easiest if comments are left in Phabricator, since that's where much of the development is happening, but they can be left on Meta too, of course. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 17:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi! You voted for the cross-wiki watchlist as an important suggestions in the community wishlist survey last year. I'm pinging editors who showed interest in that task to tell them we have some suggestions for how things could look, if you'd like to glance at them and give us some feedback. You can find them on the project page on Meta. If you'd like to share any comments, you're very welcome to do so on the talk page. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 00:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
2016 Community Wishlist Survey
You’re getting this message because you participated in the 2015 Community Wishlist Survey and we want to make sure you don't miss it this year – or at least can make the conscious choice to ignore if it you want to. The 2015 survey decided what the Community Tech team should work on during 2016. It was also the focus of Wikimedia hackathons and work by other developers. You can see the status of wishes from the 2015 wishlist at 2015 Community Wishlist Survey/Results.
The 2016 Community Wishlist Survey is now open for wishes. You can create proposals until November 20. You will be able to vote on which wishes you think are best or most important between November 28 and December 12. /Johan (WMF) (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)