|
|
|
2009 ArbCom elections |
|
|
Shalom |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 880
Joined:
Member No.: 5,566
|
I was just fooling around, wondering if WP:ACE2009 is a blue link. It is, sort of. What's more interesting is that the discussion page is a blue link. Already before the final votes are in, lessons are being learned for next year. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:ACE2009
|
|
|
|
Lifebaka |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 95
Joined:
Member No.: 9,305
|
QUOTE(Viridae @ Tue 9th December 2008, 11:57pm) Well no, if i I couldnt see the ranking/votes as the election progressed I would have just opposed everyone that I wasn't supporting, not just those who had a hope of beating them.
The other part of a suggestion I've seen thrown around by a few people is to eliminate oppose voting. This would remove the ability to do easy tactical voting, and would make the elections much easier to track. At the same time, it'd be difficult to tell if a candidate is controversial simply by number of supports. A candidate who is well liked by many can also be hated by many, and our current system allows oppose votes to show this (assuming they're used correctly). A further idea I've seen tossed around is to limit the number of votes each user gets to the number of seats to be filled. Seven, in this election. Whether with or without oppose voting, it certainly be an interesting one to try.
|
|
|
|
Viridae |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,319
Joined:
Member No.: 1,498
|
QUOTE(Lifebaka @ Wed 10th December 2008, 4:43pm) QUOTE(Viridae @ Tue 9th December 2008, 11:57pm) Well no, if i I couldnt see the ranking/votes as the election progressed I would have just opposed everyone that I wasn't supporting, not just those who had a hope of beating them.
The other part of a suggestion I've seen thrown around by a few people is to eliminate oppose voting. This would remove the ability to do easy tactical voting, and would make the elections much easier to track. At the same time, it'd be difficult to tell if a candidate is controversial simply by number of supports. A candidate who is well liked by many can also be hated by many, and our current system allows oppose votes to show this (assuming they're used correctly). A further idea I've seen tossed around is to limit the number of votes each user gets to the number of seats to be filled. Seven, in this election. Whether with or without oppose voting, it certainly be an interesting one to try. Most votes doesn't bode well for those without name recognition.
|
|
|
|
Lifebaka |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 95
Joined:
Member No.: 9,305
|
QUOTE(Viridae @ Wed 10th December 2008, 12:59am) QUOTE(Lifebaka @ Wed 10th December 2008, 4:43pm) The other part of a suggestion I've seen thrown around by a few people is to eliminate oppose voting. This would remove the ability to do easy tactical voting, and would make the elections much easier to track. At the same time, it'd be difficult to tell if a candidate is controversial simply by number of supports. A candidate who is well liked by many can also be hated by many, and our current system allows oppose votes to show this (assuming they're used correctly).
A further idea I've seen tossed around is to limit the number of votes each user gets to the number of seats to be filled. Seven, in this election. Whether with or without oppose voting, it certainly be an interesting one to try.
Most votes doesn't bode well for those without name recognition. No system bodes well for those without name recognition, really. I do agree that a simple most votes system is probably not ideal, though.
|
|
|
|
UserB |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 63
Joined:
Member No.: 4,555
|
QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Wed 10th December 2008, 1:28am) while a good idea in theory, I see significant problems with it, in that 95% of WP's users... probably won't do jury duty.
Even if you only have a pool of 200, that's like 1 case/year.
|
|
|
|
Shalom |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 880
Joined:
Member No.: 5,566
|
QUOTE(Lifebaka @ Wed 10th December 2008, 12:43am) QUOTE(Viridae @ Tue 9th December 2008, 11:57pm) Well no, if i I couldnt see the ranking/votes as the election progressed I would have just opposed everyone that I wasn't supporting, not just those who had a hope of beating them.
The other part of a suggestion I've seen thrown around by a few people is to eliminate oppose voting. This would remove the ability to do easy tactical voting, and would make the elections much easier to track. At the same time, it'd be difficult to tell if a candidate is controversial simply by number of supports. A candidate who is well liked by many can also be hated by many, and our current system allows oppose votes to show this (assuming they're used correctly). A further idea I've seen tossed around is to limit the number of votes each user gets to the number of seats to be filled. Seven, in this election. Whether with or without oppose voting, it certainly be an interesting one to try. I observed after the last election on wiki that different methods would produce different results. A "support-only" method would have given us a second term of Raul654. I voted for him last year. That's one of many edits I'd like to have back. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) We would have also elected Giano, whom I opposed. That's another edit I'd like to have back. Ah, the wisdom of hindsight!
|
|
|
|
Lifebaka |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 95
Joined:
Member No.: 9,305
|
QUOTE(Shalom @ Wed 10th December 2008, 3:19pm) I observed after the last election on wiki that different methods would produce different results. A "support-only" method would have given us a second term of Raul654. I voted for him last year. That's one of many edits I'd like to have back. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) We would have also elected Giano, whom I opposed. That's another edit I'd like to have back. Ah, the wisdom of hindsight! One of the more interesting suggestions is to use a preferential voting system such as the Schulze method or single transferable vote instead of a support/oppose system. One of these systems was used in the last Board election (if I remember right) and it seemed to work there, so it should work for ArbCom elections. A preferential voting system would also help a lot to get candidates without as much name recognition to be able to "win". Only downsides (which I have thought of) to these systems is that it's difficult without some sort of special page to do it on (or an outside website doing it) and it's difficult to do live tracking of the election due to the complexity of calculating the top picks.
|
|
|
|
Steve Crossin |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 25
Joined:
From: Australia
Member No.: 8,557
|
QUOTE(One @ Thu 11th December 2008, 6:46am) I need to think about preferential voting, but I think support-only would be a very bad thing. That system gives name recognizably too much weight. "Oppose" votes are a necessary check on name recognition--they allow voters to say "I do recognize this candidate, but I also recognize that I don't want them on ArbCom.
I think the idea of a secret ballot in general might be best. It prevents pile-ons and would allow people to vote without worrying if their vote will influence others (serving arbs, for example). As for preferential voting, I'm not so sure if its a great idea. I don't think many could support Kmweber, even in a preferential system. But then again....we had to in Board Elections...
|
|
|
|
everyking |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined:
Member No.: 81
|
I suppose this is a good place to point out the recently started RfC on the ArbCom, dealing with term lengths, the size of the committee, and the way the forthcoming election should be conducted. I'm in favor of one year terms, in line with my proposal from last year, in which I called for all the arbitrator seats to go up for election each year. However, two year terms appear to have broad majority support--apparently people think the arbitrators get better with experience, although I would suggest that they are about equally bad throughout their tenure, and the only difference is in their level of activity (longer terms producing greater lethargy). The big split is on the question of public vs. secret voting: currently there's 20 in favor of each. Personally, I think wiki-related matters should be conducted transparently in almost all cases, so I'm in favor of continuing with public voting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 User(s) are reading this topic (3 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |