Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2021/Candidates

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Glaaaastonbury88 in topic Political bias of candidates

Useless! edit

This page is completely useless to me, because it does not contain *any information at all* about or from the proposed candidates.

Seconded! We are being asked to open 15 tabs in order to compare the candidate statements. Nobody except hardcore insiders will have time for this sh*t. Ridiculous! Wikipedia admins: if you want to increase democratic participation and the legitimacy of the elected candidates, this is not the way to do it. AlexTyki (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi there, AlexTyki! I am a facilitator supporting this Board election. If you have the time, I would like to hear your feedback. Please let me know what would be easier for you to navigate regarding election information. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just terrible UX as usual. Like much of the rest of Wikipedia, unfortunately. (For example, to write this reply to you, I am having to basically edit code. Can't remember how to ping you, not going to waste 5 minutes RTFMing and almost nobody else will either. So I will copy-paste the code for your signature, here JKoerner (WMF), and hope that works. I am IT-proficiency and have been on Wikipedia for years, and even I can't work this stuff out! Imagine the implications.) However, in this specific case, improving the UX would be pretty simple. Just put all the candidate statements on the same d*** page! Come on, that much should be elementary. Excuse my bad temper, I do of course respect the work you are doing. AlexTyki (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So how do you want to get all the information on one page, without dumbing it down beyond recognition? There is a dichotomy between good information and small snippets, small snippets are imho bad, as they leave out far too much. It's of course far more easy for the lazy people, who refuse to think, or who abhor the complex reality and want useless snippets instead. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 08:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the real world nobody except insiders is doing what you idealistically imagine them doing. They will simply not vote. In practice you are arguing for abstention. A superficial judgement about candidates is better than no judgement at all. Apart from anything else, a higher turnout boosts the legitimacy of the elected candidates. Perhaps insiders have an interest in keeping this all to themselves, but the project as a whole does not. AlexTyki (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We are people, who write encyclopedias, I expect more from us. Superficial judgement does not qualify as sourced and valid. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 22:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fully agree. User:AlexTyk. Fossa (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

global user summary link edit

global user summary link from candidate pages ens up on a 404. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

solved, template:globaluser adapted. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Skills assessment edit

> The Board of Trustees assessed the skills and experiences they have.

This link title should be adjusted: I was expecting to find a self-evaluation filled out by each current Board member, instead I see the form for new candidates. Did such a self-evaluation take place? Adamw (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Adamw I suppose such evaluation did take place, since the rest of that sections presents us with the generalised information about its results. However, I agree with you that the wording of the sentence with the link provokes other expectations than just a form. Ата (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Number of seats? edit

It would be nice if the main page for candidates mentioned how many seats are open for election this cycle. Thanks. Fuzheado (talk) 10:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to have an answer here, the page now does say that four candidates will be chosen in this election. Ата (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candidate videos The Signpost would love to publish them edit

If the videos are up on Commons by July 24, I guess we'll just go ahead and publish them, with very little else in the article. I guess we'll just put them in random order and let people watch, but there must be something we should know, e.g. will translations be available? Are there any rules we should avoid (helping others) breaking, like maximum length? Is this the first time candidates have been encouraged to make videos?

But really I just want to encourage candidates to make them, follow any rules the election stewards make, freely license them, and get them in om time!


Smallbones (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The Signpost

The videos started to appear in c:Category:Wikimedia Foundation elections 2021 candidate statements. I hope all of the English ones will have TimedText, like the Dariusz's. --Ата (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey there, Smallbones! I love this idea, but I worry this might create bias now that many candidates have not submitted videos.
The facilitation team thought candidates submitting short videos was a way to support equitable participation and outreach. Many candidates have not yet submitted videos and some expressed concerns about submitting videos.
Let me reach out to candidates about this. I'll include this in a message to them on their talk pages as I plan to write to them today. I'll follow up with you on this. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JKoerner (WMF): it looks like there are 6 (out of 20) video statements available. That's not that many and I hope other candidates will get something posted Can you let all the candidates know that I plan to go ahead with this? Leaving out candidates entirely doesn't seem like the right thing to do so perhaps for those who don't post a video, I'll include something like this with a link to there candidates statement. With 20 candidates there's not much more we can do. Would it be better just to ignore saying anything about the candidates? Let me know! Smallbones (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reda Kerbouche edit

username = Reda Kerbouche

Wiki Indaba 2018

(I should be able to correct all the red links!)

Hi, @Smallbones: I contacted the candidates twice letting them know about this piece. No one voiced any objections or concerns in that conversation or on this thread. I just wanted to get back to you with this. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 00:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JKoerner (WMF): Thanks! Smallbones (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Randomized order edit

This was mentioned in a private call with candidates, but the order in which candidates are listed may prejudice readers. Since I don't see how else to nudge this conversation forward, I proposed a poll here. We could create a separate discussion for the ordering, in case anyone believes that a fixed order is appropriate. —Adamw (talk) 07:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Randomized order can be accomplished with Template:Shuffle. --Yair rand (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for this pointer! The template won't quite fit as currently written since it takes page names to transclude, and I think adapting it to directly render its parameters might mean that all the contents would have to use the {{!}} pipe escape. If we were only shuffling the text list of candidates this might be simpler... I would also like if the shuffling had a short cache lifespan rather than the 30-day default. Adamw (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, Adamw, Randomized reordering is happening manually at this time. At the present time, the person with the most technical knowledge is on holiday. He'll be back next week and hopefully can look at the suggestions here by Yair rand and fellow candidate Mike Peel. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candidate Table edit

Hey All, Can't see the translation of the Candidate Table template in this page. What is the solution? --MdsShakil (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @MdsShakil:, are you talking about this template? --Mehman (WMF) (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mehman (WMF) Now translation showing. Maybe it's my browser problem —14:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC) MdsShakil (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

translation request edit

please translate also skill header and T:8 Christian 🇫🇷 FR (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, @Wladek92: Has this been resolved for you? Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Banners appears in FR and title T8 is shown; so sounds good now for me. - Christian 🇫🇷 FR (talk) 12:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can I vote for more than one candidate? edit

The election for the Board of Trustees is coming soon. I'd like to know if I can cast my vote to multiple candidates. Tetizeraz (talk) 12:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC) 12:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Votes can be cast for every candidate, you order them in your personal preference. The evaluation of all cast votes is done with Meek’s STV with Droop quota. The general method is described here in Portuguese Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 13:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And a wee bit more: here the page with all relevant information. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 14:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I think both the banner and the landing page and the voting page would all benefit by the inclusion of a link to this page (unless there is a better one) to read about the merits of the candidates! Anyone entering via the banner is just presented with lists of names in the vote itself. Kerry Raymond (talk) 01:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kerry Raymond: Yes, that's an oversight on our part. In the interim I added a link to the candidates page on the ballot itself (and the 20-ish translations). Hopefully that's a decent compromise for tonight at least :) Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 05:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Superficial voting edit

There is no protection against random and superficial approach in voting. In my case I got little time to asses all candidate's summaries and biographies and I'm not even sure how much time one has to have in order to finish all this kind of work. I think most of people would eventually judge and make choices superficially. Count this as my feedback on this voting. It's also unclear what obligation these candidates will bear once elected. Best. --Alexander Davronov (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Alexander Davronov! Do you have suggestions about what would be easier for you to assess candidates? I am glad to take your feedback to the team. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JKoerner: Hi. I think the best would be to have enough time. Something I doubt most of the people have here. I barely had enough to read some biographies, to say nothing of Q/A section... Cheers. Alexander Davronov (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

discussing individual candidates edit

Is there a page or some other venue where individual candidates can be discussed? I tried the Telegram channel listed at Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021#Conversations, but apparently it is against channel policy to do so. I couldn't find the channel policy, but anyway: Where can individual candidates be discussed? Vexations (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, Vexations! I believe discussing candidates in that channel is acceptable. I think just like any situation there are lines that can be crossed. Canvassing for a particular candidate and failing to observe friendly space policy is not welcome. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it could easily be misconstrued as canvassing against a particular candidate, and it definitely will make exceptions based on standing, skills or accomplishments, so I'd absolutely ought to be reported by a Code Enforcement Officer for a UCoC violation if I raised my concerns about the problematic contributions of a particular candidate. So never mind. Vexations (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So basically a bogus election. edit

I know three of the candidates, which, I bet, is deffo about average. All the others: They have face, I can detect their sex (not gender). I should vote 4 visual attractiveness? GMFB. Fossa (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Als guter Wikipedianer wirst Du sicher in der Lage sein, den angegebenen Links zu folgen und Dir die Informationen dort anzusehen, das ist ja schließlich unser täglich Brot. Woanders fragte jemand nach einer kurzen Listen mit den "Kernpunkten", also einer Art Abhaklisten mit irgendwelchen dumbed down Schnipselchen, auf die dann die Kandidierenden willkürlich eingedampft werden. Das ist eigentlich nicht das hier im Wikiverum übliche Vorgehen. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 07:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Political bias of candidates edit

Hi there, this is a good idea, but I think there is an issue - how can we ensure our vote has meaning if we don't really know who we are voting for? How do we know the candidates will be politically objective and is that even a condition to being a candidate? I know this can't be full proof, but how do I know I am not voting for either a left wing leaning, right or centrist etc. person and has that been taken into account in terms of wiki's direction? Perhaps there should be an option called 'spoil ballot' too? Thanks in advance. --Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As this in not a political board, what should this information help with the decision? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 07:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well do you not think it is important to make sure that those who are up for vote are not tied to political organisations be them left or right? Do you not think that if candidates are linked to political parties then this should be disclosed in the interests of transparency being how wiki has frequently been used by both sides to try and swing narratives/Overton Window? Being that it is pretty much impossible to not be political, how do I know I am not voting for a Nazi? Or a Communist for example? Does it not worry you that you might just be voting in someone who is politically biased to values that wiki (and even yourself) does not agree with? Cheers --Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 12:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn't bother me in the least that a board candidate might have political views that are different from mine. I fully expect that. We're electing people to a board of trustees that has to oversee the management of the Wikimedia Foundation and ensure that it fulfills its mission and responsibilities. We're not electing politicians. The concerns I have are with their competence and relevant experience to be effective in their roles. Vexations (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello there, thanks for the replies. I think it is great that people have differing views of course. Perhaps it doesn't really matter, I was interested in what others thought anyway, but wiki is highly political in reality. I find it odd though that considering how wiki is used as a battleground of editwars belonging to numerous different factions that there isn't an awareness of how we make sure 'those at the top' will not bend wikimedia to suit a particular narrative. In reality, I suppose there is no way around this and like you said, it is to elect a board of trustees to oversee the management - but again, just say one of them was a Nazi (for example, this is not a direct accusation) then I would be unwilling to vote for someone like that as I do not think their views would be a good influence on their role and thus wiki. That's my point, but then again I suppose a political opinion is a private matter too and people have the right to ones - and that we must sometimes separate the art from the artist so to speak. Cheers. --Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 13:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Glaaaastonbury88: That's a good question to get an answer on. --Alexander Davronov (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Alexander Davronov: Thanks I thought so. Doesn't seem popular though haha! The fact that wiki is used as a political football between the tribes doesn't seem to be a concern or intrinsic to creating a more objective place. I find that personally odd that we could, for example, be electing a Democrat or Republican (etc.) into a role that can influence the platform. --Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Return to "Wikimedia Foundation elections/2021/Candidates" page.