User talk:Adamw/Archive 1
Offline thank you! edit
Thanks for adding your project to the Offline_Projects/Projects_Overview page! Awesome to know there are other people working on this stuff. Do you participate much in the broader community discussions about offline on the offline mailing list? Jwild 13:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Upcoming IdeaLab Events: IEG Proposal Clinics edit
Hello, Adamw! We've added Events to IdeaLab, and you're invited :)
Upcoming events focus on turning ideas into Individual Engagement Grant proposals before the March 31 deadline. Need help or have questions about IEG? Join us at a Hangout:
- Thursday, 13 March 2014, 1600 UTC
- Wednesday, 19 March 2014, 1700 UTC
- Saturday, 29 March 2014, 1700 UTC
Hope to see you there!
This message was delivered automatically to IEG and IdeaLab participants. To unsubscribe from any future IEG reminders, remove your name from this list
Neutral votes counted in a proportion of the total edit
I am curious as to why you removed your analysis? - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 15:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- I moved the numbers to the Stats content page, if that's what you were looking for? Thanks! Adamw (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I revised my analysis on Nemo_bis's suggestion, to eliminate the denominator entirely. The "Support" column is equivalent to the S/T column. S-O is equivalent to S/T-O/T. Let me know if you think it would be useful to add these columns again (and why). I'm thinking about how to add more direct "error in representation" columns still, but didn't want to cloud the first issue. Adamw (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- I am curious how the support column, defined as S / (S + O), can be the same as S / T, since the latter includes neutral votes and the former does not, as per M:NVC. e.g. Dariusz's 5167 total 'votes' give a support of 39.25%, as opposed to your reported 78.48%. Your previous analysis showed rather clearly that support was generally much lower than reported, and there would have been 2/3 change in results if total voters were accounted for. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 22:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- The Support column I was referring to would be simply "S", and it's equivalent to S/T, but I'll add these to the G$$gle spreadsheet in case anyone finds it useful. "S-O" is the measure I believe we should use to rank candidates--we can use either simply S (the way most elections are tallied) or S-O (respects oppose votes by canceling out exactly one support vote). Please do continue to help me make my analysis as clear as possible, thank you! Adamw (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, perhaps I have not seen your spreadsheet, or we are not talking about the same ranking. I would prefer to see ranking according to support divided by the total, as I feel this is more representative of the actual voting support for a given candidate. (To give further weight to negative votes one might use (S - O) / T = support%, though I did not in the following table)
| María Sefidari – User:Raystorm | 42.27% |
| Dariusz Jemielniak – User:Pundit | 39.25% |
| Phoebe Ayers – User:Phoebe | 37.84% |
| James Heilman – User:Doc James | 35.94% |
| Denny Vrandečić – User:Denny | 31.51% |
| Tim Davenport – User:Carrite | 30.40% |
| Mike Nicolaije – User:Taketa | 29.49% |
| Peter Gallert – User:Pgallert | 28.39% |
| … | |
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future.[survey 1] The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey.[survey 2] The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.
You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.
Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- ↑ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
- ↑ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.
Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey edit
(Sorry to write in Engilsh)
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.
If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.
About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
mw:Code of Conduct and positivity edit
Striving for a positive document that people could find useful, rather than a police instrument to shove down people's throats, has been proposed many times: have you reviewed them?[1] [2] [3] Many specific and constructive proposals were also shot down without any reason, as if the intent had been to achieve the maximum possible distrust and disagreement with the document (including by discriminating atheists). --Nemo 09:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, @Nemo bis: thanks for the links, I should drag myself through that entire cactus patch to understand the context better. I'm pretty sure the intent wasn't to sow maximum distrust, but being highly emotionally charged is enough that I imagine the discussion felt just as you described. All I can say for now is, don't give up on making the changes you think are appropriate! Adamw (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well, currently I'm excluded from the discussion because wikitext users have been pushed out of the talk page. As long as the text discriminates atheists, I also have a lot of troubles engaging with it. --Nemo 07:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)