[Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Wikimedia Board Elections

Sun Sep 17 18:37:42 UTC 2006

On 9/16/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/16/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It's very long, but well worth reading if you're serious about your
> > vote: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Eloquence/Platform_2006
>
> Personally, I found Erik's verbosity to be inconsiderate and something
> of strike against him in this election.
>
> I think my reasoning was best explained by Erik on Wikien-l a few months
> back:
>
> On 06/27/2006, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> >There are good votes and there are bad votes. A good vote is one where
> voters
> >are presented with a concise summary of the different arguments that have
> come
> >up in a discussion that preceded the vote, where the _options_ in the
> vote have been
> >developed through consensus, and where there is a strong culture that
> pressures
> >voters to read and understand all arguments before voting. A bad vote
> is one that is
> >done ad hoc, out of process, with poor methodology and no clear
> prerequisites.
>
> Erik may have some views on the value of voting which are perhaps
> unusual in our community, but here he has stated something that we all
> agree with: A vote where the voters do not understand their choices is
> not a good vote.
>
> Between Erik's lengthy platform, his candidate statement, and other
> directly linked campaign materials there was a grand total of almost
> 20,000 words.
>
> I think that it is safe to say all our candidates have a lot to say
> about the election.. but  if all 17 of our candidates used as many
> words as Erik there would be a grand total of around 330,000 words to
> read.
>
> Could anyone expect any of the voters to spend *14 hours* of
> continuous reading on the election?

<snip>

I completely disagree with this; I would much, much rather know *more* about
the people I'm voting for, rather than less. I would also like to know that
they are capable of writing well in at least one language, and that they
have interesting ideas about the projects and are willing to take the time
to express them. Remember: whoever is elected will be a very public
representative of the projects and the Foundation in many situations, and
thus that person needs to be articulate about them. So far Erik, and Aaron
Swartz through his series of essays on Wikimedia (which are well worth
reading), have done the best job of demonstrating this. I'd love to see the
same from other candidates, though it's late in the game. No one is forcing
anyone to read the candidate's statements... but since it's unlikely that
anyone has had sustained personal interaction with all of the candidates,
the statements are the only thing we have to go on in many cases.

Effe's idea of a debate is also not terrible, though it is also late in the
game: perhaps next election?

-- phoebe

-- 
phoebe ayers | user:brassratgirl | brassratgirl /at/ gmail.com