Mailing List Archive

[Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes...
... it would be good to talk a bit about the state of our community
and movement.

Initially, I was quite positively surprised by the fact that this will
be the best WMF Board elections ever in the terms of turnout of
voters. It will beat 2007 elections and it will be likely 2.5 times
better than previous one.

I would really like to know what's so different than in 2013. Also, if
this is the sign of the community health, how come that we are now
better than we were at the peak of our movement?

Then I made my personal community health check: the size of the
gzipped file of the discussions on this list [1]. And I was surprised
again to realize that this is the *worst* month since December 2004
(it's not likely that we'll pass192KB of the August 2012 in the next
few hours) in the sense of quantity of communication.

At the other side, the list is not quiet, which makes things a bit more odd.

If we just compare quantity of communication vs. quantity of topics,
it would be easy to conclude that there are less deep and less heated
discussions, which basically means that although we've become more
civilized, we care much less about Wikimedia.

However, turnout of voters says something completely different. I am a
bit puzzled and I don't have the idea what doesn't fit, except to
complain that somebody messed up with Universe constants.

So, any idea? But, please, something sensible, not things like "We've
become more mature".

And two more precise requests:

1) May Election committee give unified data for all previous
elections? If possible, structured by countries and projects. Output
of all democratic elections assume presenting data according to area.
It's legitimate to know that voters from country X voted for candidate
Y. It gives a clue of what's going on inside of the movement.

2) Besides very intuitive (not to say pseudoscientific, dilettantish)
methods of making conclusions that "something is good here" or
"something is bad there", we don't have any systematic way for
gathering and analyzing data about the state of our community and
movement. I think that the responsibility of the Board is to find a
way to, for the beginning, quantify whatever could be quantified in
relation to the community and movement traits. And to inform the rest
of us periodically. (To be more clear: this is not ED's job, this is
Board's job; it's not about running the projects, but about running
the movement.)

[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes... [ In reply to ]
2015-05-31 22:57 GMT+02:00 Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com>:

> ... it would be good to talk a bit about the state of our community
> and movement.
>
> Initially, I was quite positively surprised by the fact that this will
> be the best WMF Board elections ever in the terms of turnout of
> voters. It will beat 2007 elections and it will be likely 2.5 times
> better than previous one.
>
> I would really like to know what's so different than in 2013. Also, if
> this is the sign of the community health, how come that we are now
> better than we were at the peak of our movement?
>

There's a fair chance the difference says far more about the amount of
effort spent getting the word out about the election, than about how much
the movement cares about it compared to previous elections.

//Johan Jönsson
--
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes... [ In reply to ]
There were only 9 votes from Ukrainian community in 2013, I believe

So this year we just made sure that our community REALLY knows about the
elections, thus we:

- translated the candidates statements into Ukrainian
- prepared a short table with the essence of these statements in Ukrainian
and posted it in the Village pump [1]
- created a list of everybody eligible to vote from Ukrainian Wikipedia and
sent them a message with invitation to vote and with the links to read more
about the candidates via talk pages
- and just talked :)

[1]
https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D1%96%D0%BA%D1%96%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%96%D1%8F:%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8_%D0%92%D1%96%D0%BA%D1%96%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%96%D0%B0-2015

Best regards,
antanana
ED of Wikimedia Ukraine

2015-06-01 1:00 GMT+03:00 Johan Jönsson <brevlistor@gmail.com>:

> 2015-05-31 22:57 GMT+02:00 Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com>:
>
> > ... it would be good to talk a bit about the state of our community
> > and movement.
> >
> > Initially, I was quite positively surprised by the fact that this will
> > be the best WMF Board elections ever in the terms of turnout of
> > voters. It will beat 2007 elections and it will be likely 2.5 times
> > better than previous one.
> >
> > I would really like to know what's so different than in 2013. Also, if
> > this is the sign of the community health, how come that we are now
> > better than we were at the peak of our movement?
> >
>
> There's a fair chance the difference says far more about the amount of
> effort spent getting the word out about the election, than about how much
> the movement cares about it compared to previous elections.
>
> //Johan Jönsson
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes... [ In reply to ]
A couple comments inline from a technical election process (not commenting
on much of the rest not because I'm not interested but just for simplicity
right now given other work :) ).

James Alexander
Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:

> ... it would be good to talk a bit about the state of our community
> and movement.
>
> Initially, I was quite positively surprised by the fact that this will
> be the best WMF Board elections ever in the terms of turnout of
> voters. It will beat 2007 elections and it will be likely 2.5 times
> better than previous one.
>
> I would really like to know what's so different than in 2013. Also, if
> this is the sign of the community health, how come that we are now
> better than we were at the peak of our movement?
>


While I think there are probably lots of things that contributed to the
increase (and completely separating them can be difficult) I do think there
are a couple specific things that helped a lot. This was a goal Philippe
and I had for the election process very very early on (it was even one of
our annual goals) and so we've been focusing on trying to set up pieces of
it for much of the year many of which seem to have worked well. There is
still an enormous amount of things we could do better both from things that
were out of our control (timing for the start of the process and technical
issues) and things that we've learnt more about (some of the translation
work for example) but I think much of it has had some dramatic improvement.


1. There has been an amazing group of volunteers, led by Greg Varnum as
coordinator, on the election committee this year. It was both bigger then
it has been in the past (many more people willing to server) and more
active. This has allowed us to move much faster and have better
conversations given the short time schedule at times.
2. One of the big issues that was seen both in the last election and, to
be honest, in previous ones was the difficulty (even for experienced
voters) in just 'getting' to the voting process.
- In the past you had to vote from your local wiki, so you had to
follow a link to the meta pages, learn about the candidates, and then go
BACK to your home wiki and go directly (by typing in the page) to the
specific SecurePoll voting page to start the process. Of course sometimes
that meant you were typing in a vote page that wasn't even in
the language
or script you were used too and confused a lot of people. It also caused
problems because basically every step you make someone go through causes
drop off (sometimes significant).
- This year we pushed very hard for some improvements to SecurePoll.
Some were less visible such as an interface for creating the election (so
it wasn't as error prone being created by a manual xml file in the past)
and logs when messages were changed so that we knew if someone, for
example, changed what 'name' was shown for a vote option (not that it's
happened in the past, but in theory it could have and we had no log).
However 1 in particular was, I think, huge: With the coming of SUL
unification Tim Starling helped us to set it up so that we had a global
list of voters and everyone could vote directly from Meta. This means we
could give every single person a link, the same link, that went
directly to
the voting system (where the committee also put brief summaries and
pictures of each candidates along with links to their statements and
questions). That means that, unlikely 2 years ago or previous elections,
the banners and emails and voting boxes all linked DIRECTLY to the vote
system rather then meta and requiring them to bounce around after that.
3. We also spent a lot of effort this year trying to ensure that all of
the summaries and voter information was translated into at least 17-18
languages. There is still a lot that could be done better on this front
(especially if we can give the committee more time then was given this
year) but I still think it was much better overall in most cases then it
has been in the past.

...
>
> And two more precise requests:
>
> 1) May Election committee give unified data for all previous
> elections? If possible, structured by countries and projects. Output
> of all democratic elections assume presenting data according to area.
> It's legitimate to know that voters from country X voted for candidate
> Y. It gives a clue of what's going on inside of the movement
>

I know both the committee and I definitely want to put out as much data as
possible about the results. Some of it I'm already putting together (such
as votes by project, eligible users by project, percentage voting etc) as
well as graphs and data comparing this year to 2013. Votes by country could
be tougher... in theory it could be done later on (not right away) for THIS
year but we would have to geolocate every IP that voted and I'm not 100%
sure I'm comfortable with that :-/ I would have to talk to the committee
and legal before we did that.

For better or worse we have less options available for past elections. I
have vote data (votes by project and by date) for 2013 as well as
eligibility data for most elections going back. I will definitely try to
get those together to compare against. Unfortunately country data would be
completely impossible for 2013 or before (we don't have IP data, it gets
deleted after 90 days like checkuser data) and we don't have any regular
vote data before 2013 (the elections were done on 1 time use wikis run by a
private entity, so we don't have the databases around at all). We do have
final vote numbers though and so could make some comparisons.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes... [ In reply to ]
Ukraine has done great this year! Your work clearly paid off, currently
11.74% of the eligible users on ukWiki have voted (making it one of the
highest % wikis, and the highest if you only count medium/large wikis some
of the smaller ones get an advantage when % is factored in). It also
accounts for 2.58% of the total votes compared to less then 1% (.99%) of
the whole electorate.

James Alexander
Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 3:14 PM, attolippip <attolippip@gmail.com> wrote:

> There were only 9 votes from Ukrainian community in 2013, I believe
>
> So this year we just made sure that our community REALLY knows about the
> elections, thus we:
>
> - translated the candidates statements into Ukrainian
> - prepared a short table with the essence of these statements in Ukrainian
> and posted it in the Village pump [1]
> - created a list of everybody eligible to vote from Ukrainian Wikipedia and
> sent them a message with invitation to vote and with the links to read more
> about the candidates via talk pages
> - and just talked :)
>
> [1]
>
> https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D1%96%D0%BA%D1%96%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%96%D1%8F:%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8_%D0%92%D1%96%D0%BA%D1%96%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%96%D0%B0-2015
>
> Best regards,
> antanana
> ED of Wikimedia Ukraine
>
> 2015-06-01 1:00 GMT+03:00 Johan Jönsson <brevlistor@gmail.com>:
>
> > 2015-05-31 22:57 GMT+02:00 Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > ... it would be good to talk a bit about the state of our community
> > > and movement.
> > >
> > > Initially, I was quite positively surprised by the fact that this will
> > > be the best WMF Board elections ever in the terms of turnout of
> > > voters. It will beat 2007 elections and it will be likely 2.5 times
> > > better than previous one.
> > >
> > > I would really like to know what's so different than in 2013. Also, if
> > > this is the sign of the community health, how come that we are now
> > > better than we were at the peak of our movement?
> > >
> >
> > There's a fair chance the difference says far more about the amount of
> > effort spent getting the word out about the election, than about how much
> > the movement cares about it compared to previous elections.
> >
> > //Johan Jönsson
> > --
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes... [ In reply to ]
There were a lot of factors that went into the vote turnout. Some of it we
should be able to build on going into the next election, others are likely
snapshot moment in time factors that we may not be able to capture again.

James has pointed out a number of key technical considerations, and there
were additional barriers we are asking the developer staff to look into
that will hopefully make the next one even better. Clearly the work that
Philippe and James putting into preparing for this year's election paid
off, now we need to set the cycle again for improvements to continue based
on what we learned this year. Some of those have already been entered into
Phabricator.

My colleagues on the elections committee have also done a fantastic job
this year, and brought a lot of unique ideas on how to get out the vote.
There are a lot of ideas we are still discussing and will be capturing in
our committee post mortem report. It also seems likely that we will be
discussing the idea of a standing committee as a possible method of
continuing work on these efforts, and removing some of the time hurdles
this committee faced.

There is also reason to believe that people in general are just more aware
of what Wikimedia is vs. Wikipedia (press around new ED, NSA case, SOPA
blackout, etc.) - which certainly could have been a catalyst in other get
out the vote efforts. Also, the affiliates have increasingly done a good
job of engaging their core audiences in the community elections. The board
was also very engaged this year in helping get out the vote, and recruit a
diverse set of candidates. The diversity of candidates may have inspired
more attention from communities that do not typically vote.

I believe the committee is indeed interested in trying to provide as much
data as reasonably possible to help with these discussions, and the
requests made are helpful to us figuring out what to share. I want to
encourage folks to share their ideas, comments, and concerns on the
community post mortem page - that is our best chance at having a broad
community discussion that is maintained in the easiest way for volunteers
working on future elections to see:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015/Post_mortem

The committee's ideas and discussions will be documented on the committee's
post mortem page. That will likely begin in a more noticeable way once the
vote counting concludes:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015/Committee/Post_mortem

-greg (User:Varnent)
2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 6:20 PM, James Alexander <jalexander@wikimedia.org>
wrote:

> Ukraine has done great this year! Your work clearly paid off, currently
> 11.74% of the eligible users on ukWiki have voted (making it one of the
> highest % wikis, and the highest if you only count medium/large wikis some
> of the smaller ones get an advantage when % is factored in). It also
> accounts for 2.58% of the total votes compared to less then 1% (.99%) of
> the whole electorate.
>
> James Alexander
> Community Advocacy
> Wikimedia Foundation
> (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
>
> On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 3:14 PM, attolippip <attolippip@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There were only 9 votes from Ukrainian community in 2013, I believe
> >
> > So this year we just made sure that our community REALLY knows about the
> > elections, thus we:
> >
> > - translated the candidates statements into Ukrainian
> > - prepared a short table with the essence of these statements in
> Ukrainian
> > and posted it in the Village pump [1]
> > - created a list of everybody eligible to vote from Ukrainian Wikipedia
> and
> > sent them a message with invitation to vote and with the links to read
> more
> > about the candidates via talk pages
> > - and just talked :)
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D1%96%D0%BA%D1%96%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%96%D1%8F:%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8_%D0%92%D1%96%D0%BA%D1%96%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%96%D0%B0-2015
> >
> > Best regards,
> > antanana
> > ED of Wikimedia Ukraine
> >
> > 2015-06-01 1:00 GMT+03:00 Johan Jönsson <brevlistor@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > 2015-05-31 22:57 GMT+02:00 Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > ... it would be good to talk a bit about the state of our community
> > > > and movement.
> > > >
> > > > Initially, I was quite positively surprised by the fact that this
> will
> > > > be the best WMF Board elections ever in the terms of turnout of
> > > > voters. It will beat 2007 elections and it will be likely 2.5 times
> > > > better than previous one.
> > > >
> > > > I would really like to know what's so different than in 2013. Also,
> if
> > > > this is the sign of the community health, how come that we are now
> > > > better than we were at the peak of our movement?
> > > >
> > >
> > > There's a fair chance the difference says far more about the amount of
> > > effort spent getting the word out about the election, than about how
> much
> > > the movement cares about it compared to previous elections.
> > >
> > > //Johan Jönsson
> > > --
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes... [ In reply to ]
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 3:20 PM, James Alexander <jalexander@wikimedia.org>
wrote:

> Ukraine has done great this year! Your work clearly paid off, currently
> 11.74% of the eligible users on ukWiki have voted (making it one of the
> highest % wikis, and the highest if you only count medium/large wikis some
> of the smaller ones get an advantage when % is factored in). It also
> accounts for 2.58% of the total votes compared to less then 1% (.99%) of
> the whole electorate.
>
>
Mea Culpa: For the record I was double counting many of the eligible voters
here (we had an old voter list that was also being counted). The correct
numbers for ukWiki would be just over 25% of eligible voters voting and
2.61% of the total votes (still .99% of the electorate).

We will certainly be releasing more detailed results for projects with
results and in the post mortem.

James Alexander
Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes... [ In reply to ]
25% turnout is amazing!! Thank you, and congratulations to WM UA,
particularly given the political situation at home.

I also collected a few thoughts about the elections here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Denny/Thoughts_Board_Election_2015

Thanks to the Election Committee and everyone else out there getting the
word out, fellow voters, and fellow candidates!



On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 5:34 PM James Alexander <jalexander@wikimedia.org>
wrote:

> On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 3:20 PM, James Alexander <jalexander@wikimedia.org
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Ukraine has done great this year! Your work clearly paid off, currently
> > 11.74% of the eligible users on ukWiki have voted (making it one of the
> > highest % wikis, and the highest if you only count medium/large wikis
> some
> > of the smaller ones get an advantage when % is factored in). It also
> > accounts for 2.58% of the total votes compared to less then 1% (.99%) of
> > the whole electorate.
> >
> >
> Mea Culpa: For the record I was double counting many of the eligible voters
> here (we had an old voter list that was also being counted). The correct
> numbers for ukWiki would be just over 25% of eligible voters voting and
> 2.61% of the total votes (still .99% of the electorate).
>
> We will certainly be releasing more detailed results for projects with
> results and in the post mortem.
>
> James Alexander
> Community Advocacy
> Wikimedia Foundation
> (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes... [ In reply to ]
I believe the Ukrain case well illustrates a key characteristic of this
election - the high participation rate from the middle and small sized
communities. It looks like we have we had voters from 184 wikis
participating, an amazing number!

As greg already pointed this is probably related to the Board clear
statement for the election, the high number and diversity of candidates
and active encouragement from local communites and local affiliates.

And for the original question from Milos. Yes I agree we should try to
collect more data on the health of our communities. And participation
rate in election can be one of these indicators. And then it tells us,
we have vibrant communities among the middle and small sized projects,
but people from these extremely rarely participate in lists like this.
This list I find mainly engage people from our biggest communities,
especially English, and in this election actually the participation rate
from enwp was lower then the mean participation rate....

Anders



attolippip skrev den 2015-06-01 00:14:
> There were only 9 votes from Ukrainian community in 2013, I believe
>
> So this year we just made sure that our community REALLY knows about the
> elections, thus we:
>
> - translated the candidates statements into Ukrainian
> - prepared a short table with the essence of these statements in Ukrainian
> and posted it in the Village pump [1]
> - created a list of everybody eligible to vote from Ukrainian Wikipedia and
> sent them a message with invitation to vote and with the links to read more
> about the candidates via talk pages
> - and just talked :)
>
> [1]
> https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D1%96%D0%BA%D1%96%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%96%D1%8F:%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8_%D0%92%D1%96%D0%BA%D1%96%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%96%D0%B0-2015
>
> Best regards,
> antanana
> ED of Wikimedia Ukraine
>
> 2015-06-01 1:00 GMT+03:00 Johan Jönsson <brevlistor@gmail.com>:
>
>> 2015-05-31 22:57 GMT+02:00 Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> ... it would be good to talk a bit about the state of our community
>>> and movement.
>>>
>>> Initially, I was quite positively surprised by the fact that this will
>>> be the best WMF Board elections ever in the terms of turnout of
>>> voters. It will beat 2007 elections and it will be likely 2.5 times
>>> better than previous one.
>>>
>>> I would really like to know what's so different than in 2013. Also, if
>>> this is the sign of the community health, how come that we are now
>>> better than we were at the peak of our movement?
>>>
>> There's a fair chance the difference says far more about the amount of
>> effort spent getting the word out about the election, than about how much
>> the movement cares about it compared to previous elections.
>>
>> //Johan Jönsson
>> --
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes... [ In reply to ]
So, there are two good news and one bad.

The most important good one is that efforts made by James, Philippe
and EC have given [global] results. It's always good to hear that we
depend less on weather conditions and more on our own work. So, thank
you for your good work! :)

I agree with you in relation to the standing committee. Most
importantly, we need it exactly because of the continuity of the work.
Besides obvious benefits, standing committee would be able to create
the foundations for elections all over the movement, not just for
Board and FDC and it could become the guardian of the democracy inside
of our movement. With standing Election committee, it would be much
easier to organize any kind of referenda, as well.

The second good news, the Ukrainian one, is on the line of the first
one and it shows that it's possible to engage particular community.
Nat, it would be good if you could prepare the analysis of what you
did on Ukrainian Wikipedia and present it not just inside of an online
document, but during the conferences in 2015 and 2016. Obviously,
you've shown one of pretty valid methods to increase participation in
elections. That's good not just because of the magic number of 25%,
but because Ukrainian Wikimedians have much better potential to be
involved into the global matters in the future.

Very bad news is participation of English Wikipedians; and thus, to be
more precise, American Wikimedians. More than 50% (I think, the number
is more than 60%) of our editors are Americans (and, I think, 80% of
money comes from US). While it's better to have more balanced ratio,
those are the facts and whenever we are talking about "us" and "our
movement", we have to have in mind that more than half of "us" are
Americans. Low participation there means low participation in the
numbers which matter the most.

We are still inside of the field of small numbers. Engaging one or few
particular communities could give us impression that we are going very
well, while we are in troubles. Thus, we should find a way to increase
participation of our largest community. At this moment we have a
number of chapters and user groups in US and Ukrainian experience
could help them, too. Besides on-wiki engagement, it would be good,
for example, to have few community meetings organized by chapters or
user groups before every election.

Anders, this list is quite relevant. It's the main forum of our
movement and it represents the movement well (up to this moment,
thought it's not always the case, this thread has involved five
non-native English speakers and just two native ones; that's much
better than editor ratio). And although my method of checking
community health is quite arbitrary, it could give a clue of what's
going on here. If we are more engaged it will affect this list.


On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:43 AM, Anders Wennersten
<mail@anderswennersten.se> wrote:
> I believe the Ukrain case well illustrates a key characteristic of this
> election - the high participation rate from the middle and small sized
> communities. It looks like we have we had voters from 184 wikis
> participating, an amazing number!
>
> As greg already pointed this is probably related to the Board clear
> statement for the election, the high number and diversity of candidates and
> active encouragement from local communites and local affiliates.
>
> And for the original question from Milos. Yes I agree we should try to
> collect more data on the health of our communities. And participation rate
> in election can be one of these indicators. And then it tells us, we have
> vibrant communities among the middle and small sized projects, but people
> from these extremely rarely participate in lists like this. This list I find
> mainly engage people from our biggest communities, especially English, and
> in this election actually the participation rate from enwp was lower then
> the mean participation rate....
>
> Anders
>
>
>
>
> attolippip skrev den 2015-06-01 00:14:
>>
>> There were only 9 votes from Ukrainian community in 2013, I believe
>>
>> So this year we just made sure that our community REALLY knows about the
>> elections, thus we:
>>
>> - translated the candidates statements into Ukrainian
>> - prepared a short table with the essence of these statements in Ukrainian
>> and posted it in the Village pump [1]
>> - created a list of everybody eligible to vote from Ukrainian Wikipedia
>> and
>> sent them a message with invitation to vote and with the links to read
>> more
>> about the candidates via talk pages
>> - and just talked :)
>>
>> [1]
>>
>> https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D1%96%D0%BA%D1%96%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%96%D1%8F:%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8_%D0%92%D1%96%D0%BA%D1%96%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%96%D0%B0-2015
>>
>> Best regards,
>> antanana
>> ED of Wikimedia Ukraine
>>
>> 2015-06-01 1:00 GMT+03:00 Johan Jönsson <brevlistor@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> 2015-05-31 22:57 GMT+02:00 Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> ... it would be good to talk a bit about the state of our community
>>>> and movement.
>>>>
>>>> Initially, I was quite positively surprised by the fact that this will
>>>> be the best WMF Board elections ever in the terms of turnout of
>>>> voters. It will beat 2007 elections and it will be likely 2.5 times
>>>> better than previous one.
>>>>
>>>> I would really like to know what's so different than in 2013. Also, if
>>>> this is the sign of the community health, how come that we are now
>>>> better than we were at the peak of our movement?
>>>>
>>> There's a fair chance the difference says far more about the amount of
>>> effort spent getting the word out about the election, than about how much
>>> the movement cares about it compared to previous elections.
>>>
>>> //Johan Jönsson
>>> --
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes... [ In reply to ]
Just a clarification on numbers
In James (internal) table enwps share of total number of eligible votes
is 35,4%
Participation rate state from enwp was 8,26% against mean for all 9,5%.
If enwp is excluded the participation rate for all of the rest stands at
10,2%

Enwp users also include users from non-en countries, and user from en
countries will also be found on other wikis like Commons (3,5% of total
eligible voters, with a turnout similar to enwp) but this does not
change the bottom line, participation rate from enwp has been lower then
from the rest of the communities (de, fr, it, ru, es, pl rates being a
little above mean of rest, zh and pt a little below and ja much below)

Anders





Milos Rancic skrev den 2015-06-01 09:48:
> So, there are two good news and one bad.
>
> The most important good one is that efforts made by James, Philippe
> and EC have given [global] results. It's always good to hear that we
> depend less on weather conditions and more on our own work. So, thank
> you for your good work! :)
>
> I agree with you in relation to the standing committee. Most
> importantly, we need it exactly because of the continuity of the work.
> Besides obvious benefits, standing committee would be able to create
> the foundations for elections all over the movement, not just for
> Board and FDC and it could become the guardian of the democracy inside
> of our movement. With standing Election committee, it would be much
> easier to organize any kind of referenda, as well.
>
> The second good news, the Ukrainian one, is on the line of the first
> one and it shows that it's possible to engage particular community.
> Nat, it would be good if you could prepare the analysis of what you
> did on Ukrainian Wikipedia and present it not just inside of an online
> document, but during the conferences in 2015 and 2016. Obviously,
> you've shown one of pretty valid methods to increase participation in
> elections. That's good not just because of the magic number of 25%,
> but because Ukrainian Wikimedians have much better potential to be
> involved into the global matters in the future.
>
> Very bad news is participation of English Wikipedians; and thus, to be
> more precise, American Wikimedians. More than 50% (I think, the number
> is more than 60%) of our editors are Americans (and, I think, 80% of
> money comes from US). While it's better to have more balanced ratio,
> those are the facts and whenever we are talking about "us" and "our
> movement", we have to have in mind that more than half of "us" are
> Americans. Low participation there means low participation in the
> numbers which matter the most.
>
> We are still inside of the field of small numbers. Engaging one or few
> particular communities could give us impression that we are going very
> well, while we are in troubles. Thus, we should find a way to increase
> participation of our largest community. At this moment we have a
> number of chapters and user groups in US and Ukrainian experience
> could help them, too. Besides on-wiki engagement, it would be good,
> for example, to have few community meetings organized by chapters or
> user groups before every election.
>
> Anders, this list is quite relevant. It's the main forum of our
> movement and it represents the movement well (up to this moment,
> thought it's not always the case, this thread has involved five
> non-native English speakers and just two native ones; that's much
> better than editor ratio). And although my method of checking
> community health is quite arbitrary, it could give a clue of what's
> going on here. If we are more engaged it will affect this list.
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:43 AM, Anders Wennersten
> <mail@anderswennersten.se> wrote:
>> I believe the Ukrain case well illustrates a key characteristic of this
>> election - the high participation rate from the middle and small sized
>> communities. It looks like we have we had voters from 184 wikis
>> participating, an amazing number!
>>
>> As greg already pointed this is probably related to the Board clear
>> statement for the election, the high number and diversity of candidates and
>> active encouragement from local communites and local affiliates.
>>
>> And for the original question from Milos. Yes I agree we should try to
>> collect more data on the health of our communities. And participation rate
>> in election can be one of these indicators. And then it tells us, we have
>> vibrant communities among the middle and small sized projects, but people
>> from these extremely rarely participate in lists like this. This list I find
>> mainly engage people from our biggest communities, especially English, and
>> in this election actually the participation rate from enwp was lower then
>> the mean participation rate....
>>
>> Anders
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> attolippip skrev den 2015-06-01 00:14:
>>> There were only 9 votes from Ukrainian community in 2013, I believe
>>>
>>> So this year we just made sure that our community REALLY knows about the
>>> elections, thus we:
>>>
>>> - translated the candidates statements into Ukrainian
>>> - prepared a short table with the essence of these statements in Ukrainian
>>> and posted it in the Village pump [1]
>>> - created a list of everybody eligible to vote from Ukrainian Wikipedia
>>> and
>>> sent them a message with invitation to vote and with the links to read
>>> more
>>> about the candidates via talk pages
>>> - and just talked :)
>>>
>>> [1]
>>>
>>> https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D1%96%D0%BA%D1%96%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%96%D1%8F:%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8_%D0%92%D1%96%D0%BA%D1%96%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%96%D0%B0-2015
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> antanana
>>> ED of Wikimedia Ukraine
>>>
>>> 2015-06-01 1:00 GMT+03:00 Johan Jönsson <brevlistor@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> 2015-05-31 22:57 GMT+02:00 Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> ... it would be good to talk a bit about the state of our community
>>>>> and movement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Initially, I was quite positively surprised by the fact that this will
>>>>> be the best WMF Board elections ever in the terms of turnout of
>>>>> voters. It will beat 2007 elections and it will be likely 2.5 times
>>>>> better than previous one.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would really like to know what's so different than in 2013. Also, if
>>>>> this is the sign of the community health, how come that we are now
>>>>> better than we were at the peak of our movement?
>>>>>
>>>> There's a fair chance the difference says far more about the amount of
>>>> effort spent getting the word out about the election, than about how much
>>>> the movement cares about it compared to previous elections.
>>>>
>>>> //Johan Jönsson
>>>> --
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes... [ In reply to ]
Milos, thanks for initiating the conversation. Some random thoughts:

1. The efforts to get people to vote are admirable, and it's heartening to
see the participation trend reversed.

2. There is the elephant in the room which is the recent DE
Mediaviewer/super protect issue. It is possible it has energized voters to
get to the ballot box in 2015. It's hard to tell, but the number of
comments and candidate questions on Meta around super protect was
interesting to see.

3. Participation in the mailing list may be a misleading indicator of
activity or interest, as other regional or specialized forums (eg.
Facebook, GLAM-oriented lists, etc) have emerged in recent years.

-Andrew

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:48 AM, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:

> So, there are two good news and one bad.
>
> The most important good one is that efforts made by James, Philippe
> and EC have given [global] results. It's always good to hear that we
> depend less on weather conditions and more on our own work. So, thank
> you for your good work! :)
>
> I agree with you in relation to the standing committee. Most
> importantly, we need it exactly because of the continuity of the work.
> Besides obvious benefits, standing committee would be able to create
> the foundations for elections all over the movement, not just for
> Board and FDC and it could become the guardian of the democracy inside
> of our movement. With standing Election committee, it would be much
> easier to organize any kind of referenda, as well.
>
> The second good news, the Ukrainian one, is on the line of the first
> one and it shows that it's possible to engage particular community.
> Nat, it would be good if you could prepare the analysis of what you
> did on Ukrainian Wikipedia and present it not just inside of an online
> document, but during the conferences in 2015 and 2016. Obviously,
> you've shown one of pretty valid methods to increase participation in
> elections. That's good not just because of the magic number of 25%,
> but because Ukrainian Wikimedians have much better potential to be
> involved into the global matters in the future.
>
> Very bad news is participation of English Wikipedians; and thus, to be
> more precise, American Wikimedians. More than 50% (I think, the number
> is more than 60%) of our editors are Americans (and, I think, 80% of
> money comes from US). While it's better to have more balanced ratio,
> those are the facts and whenever we are talking about "us" and "our
> movement", we have to have in mind that more than half of "us" are
> Americans. Low participation there means low participation in the
> numbers which matter the most.
>
> We are still inside of the field of small numbers. Engaging one or few
> particular communities could give us impression that we are going very
> well, while we are in troubles. Thus, we should find a way to increase
> participation of our largest community. At this moment we have a
> number of chapters and user groups in US and Ukrainian experience
> could help them, too. Besides on-wiki engagement, it would be good,
> for example, to have few community meetings organized by chapters or
> user groups before every election.
>
> Anders, this list is quite relevant. It's the main forum of our
> movement and it represents the movement well (up to this moment,
> thought it's not always the case, this thread has involved five
> non-native English speakers and just two native ones; that's much
> better than editor ratio). And although my method of checking
> community health is quite arbitrary, it could give a clue of what's
> going on here. If we are more engaged it will affect this list.
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:43 AM, Anders Wennersten
> <mail@anderswennersten.se> wrote:
> > I believe the Ukrain case well illustrates a key characteristic of this
> > election - the high participation rate from the middle and small sized
> > communities. It looks like we have we had voters from 184 wikis
> > participating, an amazing number!
> >
> > As greg already pointed this is probably related to the Board clear
> > statement for the election, the high number and diversity of candidates
> and
> > active encouragement from local communites and local affiliates.
> >
> > And for the original question from Milos. Yes I agree we should try to
> > collect more data on the health of our communities. And participation
> rate
> > in election can be one of these indicators. And then it tells us, we have
> > vibrant communities among the middle and small sized projects, but people
> > from these extremely rarely participate in lists like this. This list I
> find
> > mainly engage people from our biggest communities, especially English,
> and
> > in this election actually the participation rate from enwp was lower
> then
> > the mean participation rate....
> >
> > Anders
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > attolippip skrev den 2015-06-01 00:14:
> >>
> >> There were only 9 votes from Ukrainian community in 2013, I believe
> >>
> >> So this year we just made sure that our community REALLY knows about the
> >> elections, thus we:
> >>
> >> - translated the candidates statements into Ukrainian
> >> - prepared a short table with the essence of these statements in
> Ukrainian
> >> and posted it in the Village pump [1]
> >> - created a list of everybody eligible to vote from Ukrainian Wikipedia
> >> and
> >> sent them a message with invitation to vote and with the links to read
> >> more
> >> about the candidates via talk pages
> >> - and just talked :)
> >>
> >> [1]
> >>
> >>
> https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D1%96%D0%BA%D1%96%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%96%D1%8F:%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8_%D0%92%D1%96%D0%BA%D1%96%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%96%D0%B0-2015
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> antanana
> >> ED of Wikimedia Ukraine
> >>
> >> 2015-06-01 1:00 GMT+03:00 Johan Jönsson <brevlistor@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >>> 2015-05-31 22:57 GMT+02:00 Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com>:
> >>>
> >>>> ... it would be good to talk a bit about the state of our community
> >>>> and movement.
> >>>>
> >>>> Initially, I was quite positively surprised by the fact that this will
> >>>> be the best WMF Board elections ever in the terms of turnout of
> >>>> voters. It will beat 2007 elections and it will be likely 2.5 times
> >>>> better than previous one.
> >>>>
> >>>> I would really like to know what's so different than in 2013. Also, if
> >>>> this is the sign of the community health, how come that we are now
> >>>> better than we were at the peak of our movement?
> >>>>
> >>> There's a fair chance the difference says far more about the amount of
> >>> effort spent getting the word out about the election, than about how
> much
> >>> the movement cares about it compared to previous elections.
> >>>
> >>> //Johan Jönsson
> >>> --
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes... [ In reply to ]
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih@gmail.com> wrote:

> 3. Participation in the mailing list may be a misleading indicator of
> activity or interest, as other regional or specialized forums (eg.
> Facebook, GLAM-oriented lists, etc) have emerged in recent years.
>

Let me second this. My department is thinking about community health
metrics (constructive suggestions welcome!), but I would not personally
propose mailing list participation (especially this list) as a good metric
- decreased participation here may reflect many, many things, only some of
which are actually negative.

Luis


--
Luis Villa
Sr. Director of Community Engagement
Wikimedia Foundation
*Working towards a world in which every single human being can freely share
in the sum of all knowledge.*
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes... [ In reply to ]
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Luis Villa <lvilla@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 3. Participation in the mailing list may be a misleading indicator of
>> activity or interest, as other regional or specialized forums (eg.
>> Facebook, GLAM-oriented lists, etc) have emerged in recent years.
>>
>
> Let me second this. My department is thinking about community health
> metrics (constructive suggestions welcome!), but I would not personally
> propose mailing list participation (especially this list) as a good metric
> - decreased participation here may reflect many, many things, only some of
> which are actually negative.

This is not the only one indicator, but it's pretty consistent since
2011 (take a look into [1]). In other words, something happened in
May. Maybe it's actually about the elections because people used other
means of communication for that.

[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes... [ In reply to ]
Hi Milos,

I think you're overestimating the importance of this list, which is read by
only a small portion of the community. Many people in the wider community
have no idea this exists.

Best,
--Ed

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Luis Villa <lvilla@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 3. Participation in the mailing list may be a misleading indicator of
> >> activity or interest, as other regional or specialized forums (eg.
> >> Facebook, GLAM-oriented lists, etc) have emerged in recent years.
> >>
> >
> > Let me second this. My department is thinking about community health
> > metrics (constructive suggestions welcome!), but I would not personally
> > propose mailing list participation (especially this list) as a good
> metric
> > - decreased participation here may reflect many, many things, only some
> of
> > which are actually negative.
>
> This is not the only one indicator, but it's pretty consistent since
> 2011 (take a look into [1]). In other words, something happened in
> May. Maybe it's actually about the elections because people used other
> means of communication for that.
>
> [1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes... [ In reply to ]
Ed Erhart wrote:
>I think you're overestimating the importance of this list, which is read
>by only a small portion of the community. Many people in the wider
>community have no idea this exists.

Sort of. :-) In absolute numbers, of course the total number of list
subscribers/readers is a very small part of the total number of people in
the Wikimedia community (whatever that encompasses). But we know from
years of experience both in the Wikimedia community and elsewhere that
even seemingly large communities often have a weirdly small number of
unusually highly active people who make up the "core" (sorry, there's no
good term for this). If you do an intersection of _that_ group to
wikimedia-l's readers, the gap would be markedly narrower, I think.

Or put another way: in terms of general communication paths to Wikimedia
Foundation Board of Trustees members past and present, Wikimedia
Foundation staff past and present, and other longtime Wikimedians, this
list (né[e] foundation-l) has been the de facto medium for a decade.

This is not to say, for example, that lots of highly active wiki editors
are all subscribed here. People who spend a lot of time reverting
vandalism may not care to have this feed in their inbox. But the opt-in,
open, and public nature of this list is such that people who are (overly!)
involved with Wikimedia are quite often subscribed.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes... [ In reply to ]
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Luis Villa <lvilla@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 3. Participation in the mailing list may be a misleading indicator of
> >> activity or interest, as other regional or specialized forums (eg.
> >> Facebook, GLAM-oriented lists, etc) have emerged in recent years.
> >>
> >
> > Let me second this. My department is thinking about community health
> > metrics (constructive suggestions welcome!), but I would not personally
> > propose mailing list participation (especially this list) as a good
> metric
> > - decreased participation here may reflect many, many things, only some
> of
> > which are actually negative.
>
> This is not the only one indicator, but it's pretty consistent since
> 2011 (take a look into [1]). In other words, something happened in
> May. Maybe it's actually about the elections because people used other
> means of communication for that.
>

Looking briefly at some of the highest-traffic months, it could simply be
that people got tired of discussing high-controversy topics here.
(Flamewars are good for traffic volume; not so great for community health.)
I'm sure Facebook's increased acceptance also has a role. I suspect also
that some announcements that used to come here now go to other, more
specialized mailing lists.

That last one points to a key thing: as MZ says, many people are subscribed
to this list, but many don't read and don't participate, because this
mailing list has an *awful* reputation, and people who want to get things
done are going elsewhere. So "the decline of wikimedia-l" may be a sign of
bad health of the overall community, or it may simply mean that the healthy
and constructive parts of the community has moved elsewhere.

To re-iterate what I said in the last email, I'm all ears for suggestions
on creative community metrics. I'll add here that I'm also very open to
suggestions on what a new wikimedia-l might look like. (I know some FOSS
communities are having good experiences with discourse.org, for example.)
No commitment that WMF can act on either immediately, of course, but I
think it is worth starting both of those discussions.

Luis

--
Luis Villa
Sr. Director of Community Engagement
Wikimedia Foundation
*Working towards a world in which every single human being can freely share
in the sum of all knowledge.*
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes... [ In reply to ]
Luis, I have to say that you are the first person on WMF side who has
substantially engaged into this issue and I am very glad to see that :)

The products of your work are of the highest importance, as the community
is the most important part of our movement, not to say that it's the
movement itself.

I am finally relieved to know that we are on the path to rationally
understand what's going on inside of the community after short 14.5 years.

It would be good if you'd share your results with the rest of us.

As for this list: As MZ said, this list is important. However, there is no
doubt that it's far from being the only or even the most important
indicator of community health. It is just about one of the rare publicly
accessible data which could give a clue of what's going on inside of the
community, but could mislead, as well.
On Jun 2, 2015 04:39, "Luis Villa" <lvilla@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Luis Villa <lvilla@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> 3. Participation in the mailing list may be a misleading indicator of
> > >> activity or interest, as other regional or specialized forums (eg.
> > >> Facebook, GLAM-oriented lists, etc) have emerged in recent years.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Let me second this. My department is thinking about community health
> > > metrics (constructive suggestions welcome!), but I would not personally
> > > propose mailing list participation (especially this list) as a good
> > metric
> > > - decreased participation here may reflect many, many things, only some
> > of
> > > which are actually negative.
> >
> > This is not the only one indicator, but it's pretty consistent since
> > 2011 (take a look into [1]). In other words, something happened in
> > May. Maybe it's actually about the elections because people used other
> > means of communication for that.
> >
>
> Looking briefly at some of the highest-traffic months, it could simply be
> that people got tired of discussing high-controversy topics here.
> (Flamewars are good for traffic volume; not so great for community health.)
> I'm sure Facebook's increased acceptance also has a role. I suspect also
> that some announcements that used to come here now go to other, more
> specialized mailing lists.
>
> That last one points to a key thing: as MZ says, many people are subscribed
> to this list, but many don't read and don't participate, because this
> mailing list has an *awful* reputation, and people who want to get things
> done are going elsewhere. So "the decline of wikimedia-l" may be a sign of
> bad health of the overall community, or it may simply mean that the healthy
> and constructive parts of the community has moved elsewhere.
>
> To re-iterate what I said in the last email, I'm all ears for suggestions
> on creative community metrics. I'll add here that I'm also very open to
> suggestions on what a new wikimedia-l might look like. (I know some FOSS
> communities are having good experiences with discourse.org, for example.)
> No commitment that WMF can act on either immediately, of course, but I
> think it is worth starting both of those discussions.
>
> Luis
>
> --
> Luis Villa
> Sr. Director of Community Engagement
> Wikimedia Foundation
> *Working towards a world in which every single human being can freely share
> in the sum of all knowledge.*
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes... [ In reply to ]
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 4:38 AM, Luis Villa <lvilla@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> (I know some FOSS communities are having good experiences with
> discourse.org, for example.)
>

Please, please, can we do that too? :-)
FWIW, I studied Discourse a bit and I think it has enormous potential.
It is developed with the explicit goal of fostering rational discussion and
discouraging trolling and harassment and all the awful things that make the
Internet the awful place it often is.
As we are the awesome, shiny part of the Internet, we should know better.
It's worth a try.

Aubrey
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes... [ In reply to ]
On 2015-06-01 11:17, Anders Wennersten wrote:
> Just a clarification on numbers
> In James (internal) table enwps share of total number of eligible
> votes is 35,4%
> Participation rate state from enwp was 8,26% against mean for all
> 9,5%. If enwp is excluded the participation rate for all of the rest
> stands at 10,2%
>
> Enwp users also include users from non-en countries, and user from en
> countries will also be found on other wikis like Commons (3,5% of
> total eligible voters, with a turnout similar to enwp) but this does
> not change the bottom line, participation rate from enwp has been
> lower then from the rest of the communities (de, fr, it, ru, es, pl
> rates being a little above mean of rest, zh and pt a little below and
> ja much below)
>
> Anders
>
>

Hi Anders,

are there significant intersections between the project which can
distort statistics? I believe I am eligible on at least 10 projects, and
on a couple of them I might be the only eligible voter (making for them
100% participation), but my feeling is that this is rather an exception.
Is let us say a high participation rate from it.wp significally affected
by users who are also active on en.wp and are eligible there as well?

Cheers
Yaroslav

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes... [ In reply to ]
While the total number of eligible voters is reliable (and also made
general available), the breakdown of numbers by project is much less
reliable, of the reason you bring up. And for the small, and even more
the very small projects, the numbers could even be said to be unreliable.

For us in the Election Committee, this breakdown per project, even with
non-perfect figures, has been of enormous help. One use is when we
verify the result - in order to understand inconsistencies in figures
(and here we talk of a factor 2-3 in differences not in decimal points).
Also to understand the general picture - The election to Board attracted
voters evenly from all project all over the world, while the election of
members to FDC got a much lower participation rate from most medium and
small project compared with participation rate from some of the biggest
(note also the difference in total votes 5200+ vs 1100).

As a number-crunching nerd myself I would love all my fellows with this
interest to also be able to study the detailed numbers. But in order to
keep secrecy of who voted, the figures for small project can not be
made general available. And to work with the figures from the bigger and
medium projects, probably a more qualified analysis of the quality of
the numbers used would be needed, just along the reasoning you bring up.

I do hope, though, that some of these numbers will be made available in
the election post-mortem work

Anders










Yaroslav M. Blanter skrev den 2015-06-03 11:49:
> On 2015-06-01 11:17, Anders Wennersten wrote:
>> Just a clarification on numbers
>> In James (internal) table enwps share of total number of eligible
>> votes is 35,4%
>> Participation rate state from enwp was 8,26% against mean for all
>> 9,5%. If enwp is excluded the participation rate for all of the rest
>> stands at 10,2%
>>
>> Enwp users also include users from non-en countries, and user from en
>> countries will also be found on other wikis like Commons (3,5% of
>> total eligible voters, with a turnout similar to enwp) but this does
>> not change the bottom line, participation rate from enwp has been
>> lower then from the rest of the communities (de, fr, it, ru, es, pl
>> rates being a little above mean of rest, zh and pt a little below and
>> ja much below)
>>
>> Anders
>>
>>
>
> Hi Anders,
>
> are there significant intersections between the project which can
> distort statistics? I believe I am eligible on at least 10 projects,
> and on a couple of them I might be the only eligible voter (making for
> them 100% participation), but my feeling is that this is rather an
> exception. Is let us say a high participation rate from it.wp
> significally affected by users who are also active on en.wp and are
> eligible there as well?
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Spam] Re: While Election committee counts the votes... [ In reply to ]
On 3 June 2015 at 12:32, Anders Wennersten <mail@anderswennersten.se> wrote:

> As a number-crunching nerd myself I would love all my fellows with this
> interest to also be able to study the detailed numbers. But in order to keep
> secrecy of who voted, the figures for small project can not be made general
> available. And to work with the figures from the bigger and medium projects,
> probably a more qualified analysis of the quality of the numbers used would
> be needed, just along the reasoning you bring up.

I might be misremembering, but I thought that whether or not user X
had voted was public information? It certainly was in 2013; digging
through old emails turns up a link to
https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/list/290 which
seems to be the voter list from that election.

Andrew.

--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Spam] Re: While Election committee counts the votes... [ In reply to ]
That's correct. The list of voters remains public, just not how
individuals voted. In this way we can work out who is openly
male/female, if they have a declared country of residence, if they are
associated with chapters or other groups etc.

Fae

On 3 June 2015 at 12:42, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk> wrote:
> On 3 June 2015 at 12:32, Anders Wennersten <mail@anderswennersten.se> wrote:
>
>> As a number-crunching nerd myself I would love all my fellows with this
>> interest to also be able to study the detailed numbers. But in order to keep
>> secrecy of who voted, the figures for small project can not be made general
>> available. And to work with the figures from the bigger and medium projects,
>> probably a more qualified analysis of the quality of the numbers used would
>> be needed, just along the reasoning you bring up.
>
> I might be misremembering, but I thought that whether or not user X
> had voted was public information? It certainly was in 2013; digging
> through old emails turns up a link to
> https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/list/290 which
> seems to be the voter list from that election.
>
> Andrew.
--
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes... [ In reply to ]
Andrew Gray skrev den 2015-06-03 13:42:
> I might be misremembering, but I thought that whether or not user X
> had voted was public information? It certainly was in 2013; digging
> through old emails turns up a link to
> https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/list/290 which
> seems to be the voter list from that election. Andrew.
This is new information for me. We have had a similar but extended list
like this to have as base for vote checking. But I am not aware it will
be generally available.

At the start this year we discussed what type of voting method to use,
like all open as done for stewardelection or with secure Poll with
S/N/O. We had an overwhelming majority for non-total open one. But we
never discussed general availability of this list.

Anders


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes... [ In reply to ]
On 3 June 2015 at 13:26, Anders Wennersten <mail@anderswennersten.se> wrote:
...
> This is new information for me. We have had a similar but extended list like
> this to have as base for vote checking. But I am not aware it will be
> generally available.
>
> At the start this year we discussed what type of voting method to use, like
> all open as done for stewardelection or with secure Poll with S/N/O. We had
> an overwhelming majority for non-total open one. But we never discussed
> general availability of this list.
>
> Anders

Unless the wider community of Wikimedians has established a consensus
to a process change, the list should be published as it has in past
years. This has been my full expectation, I even ran some male/female
analysis of past lists for research.

Fae
--
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

1 2  View All