Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-11-29/Election report

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Two notes

[edit]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Stale
 – No consensus to make a change, much bickering (this is not the right forum for that), little or no relevance to the article. We're done here. --NYKevin @259, i.e. 05:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the blurb on my guide, and found only one missing space, but two notes: I deleted the entire paragraph on Polargeo's guide, as it hardly seems wise to highlight one editor's guide to the exclusion of others, and I'm wondering if a paragraph should be included about the pending crisis, whereby last year's RFC has conflicting results, asking for a Committee of 18, with some consensus for 60% support percentage, but it is highly unlikely that 12 candidates will get even 50% support this year. That we may elect arbs with lower support tallies than are needed to pass RFA is a concern expressed frequently across Wiki about this year's elections, and I'm wondering if it shouldn't be mentioned here. Only three guides support as many candidates as there are vacancies-- most do not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case it isn't clear from the watchlists, all your changes were reverted by Poleargo. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With a single revert I removed Sandy's spin [1]. We cannot have guide writers coming into the process and making changes that favour their own guides. SandyGeorgia already pulled this same stunt before the guides were written here she has not learned. Polargeo (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Polargeo, in all fairness, in your first diff Sandygeorgia was keen not to promote any guide, not attempting to promote her own. In the second diff, she appears to be attempting to return a sentence about any voter being able to write a guide, and again not slighting your guide. That said, from a journalistic perspective I would support the mention of your guide for its unusual pictoral quality - journalism requires quirky subjects, pictures et al in order to be interesting to the average reader, and I would not have read any kind of endorsement into it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. I think it is legitimate to question whether an individual guide should be highlighted, but I like the picturesque nature of Polargeo's guide and it is fair play for journalists to make use of that, as long as there is no explicit or implicit endorsement. Geometry guy 23:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Polargeo, you've been doing this all day-- I'm concerned that you really don't read discussions you're involved in. The change I made in no way promoted any guide, much less my own; the Signpost currently promotes your guide to the exclusion of all others; strange editorializing. Polargeo, please stop making false accusations and personalizing discussions-- you've been at it with me for several days now. What is the "stunt" business you refer to-- you're rather far afield of AGF here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, it doesn't "promote his guide to the exclusion of all others". It lists all the guides. It just picks out Polargeo's guide as quirky because of the pictures. There's no consensus here to delete that paragraph. I respectfully suggest you revert yourself as having made a mistake in not realising that there is more copy here than perhaps you had read initially. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, it promotes one guide. Anyway, I just saw your message, but Tony1 already reverted it. I forgot this isn't the New York Times-- it's the Enquirer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can't we all just be friends. Seriously, let's not have to break out the edit warring templates over this. Please? Sven Manguard Talk 02:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not to worry-- what seemed obvious apparently is not-- I must have forgotten where I was ... no edit warring from me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See, Sven, wrong again ... they'll keep digging up stories to take pot shots at me, wonder why ?  :)

    Ah, the conversation where Tony begins discussing me supporting my "mates", then Polargeo began some incomprehensible rant claiming something unture (and unrelated) about Ling.Nut's RFA on my voter guide talk page, so he can call me a "novice troll", then moves on to some completely fabricated claims about me "attempting to stop him from having a guide", "dropping Rlevse", and various and sundry complete fabrications. Now, who was rude again? :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • No offense, but if you stopped responding, people would move on. Threads die from lack of interest. People already came to your aid. Put a notch in your win column and move on. For example, pretty much no matter what happens from here on out, I won't post to this thread because everything that needs to be said has been said and it is time to move on. Sven Manguard Talk 03:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
* See, wrong again ... seems I make a nice target :) I wonder what this is all about ... lots a stories and lots of spin, must be a good reason for that stuff goin' on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: so, back on topic after the diversion with false stories; I was asking if The Signpost could not mention that last year's RFC put us in the spot of having to fill up 18 seats even if candidates get less than 60% support; in other words, it's easier to be elected to ArbCom than to adminship. Only three guides endorse as many candidates as they are vacancies-- most do not. Perhaps a new RFC might be run now, since it looks like we'll end up with arbs that may have marginal support, we shouldn't be appointing arbs who are oppposed by half the voters, last year's RFC was shortsighted and didn't provide for this circumstance (although it was raised), and the 18-member Committee hardly seems necessary with declining participcation across all areas of Wiki and declining numbers of cases. A good ArbCom is better than a big ArbCom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not easier to be elected to ArbCom than to adminship, because voters' standards are higher for ArbCom. The two can't be directly compared like that. Powers T 15:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor query

[edit]

"Voting guides are an established tradition at ArbCom elections. This year, there are 21 of them, more than the number of candidates."

Is it really notable that there are more published views than candidates. This is commonplace in elections around the world. If there is a point being made here (too few candidates? more guides than ever?), it should be explicit rather than implicit, should it not? Geometry guy 23:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it needs to be says because most of the guides are minimal and incomplete. More were encouraged to add on this year, so more did, but about half a dozen of the new guides don't really say anything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guides still being added

[edit]

I will leave it to others whether to add my guide there, but at the very least, "This year, there are 21 of them", is no longer correct, as mine brings it up to 22 :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit late in the electoral cycle, and in terms of this edition of The Signpost. We let through some hasty updates by authors of voter guides, but a completely new one cobbled together today is rather too much, I'm afraid. Tony (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it in a wiki spirit to update articles with new information? A traditional newspaper has no choice but to do its readers a disservice by providing inaccurate, obsolete information that it can only correct in the new edition; it cannot magically update the printed sheets. Obviously, this is not a problem for us - so what's keeping us from correcting it? And don't say that inaccurate reporting is traditional :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reason Wikinews doesn't allow updating of its articles after a particular point in time: because news articles are a snapshot of the situation at the time they were written. Powers T 15:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly adding a note at the end of the article that more guides are being written, and a link to the template, might help. Or even just display the template here. I might write one myself, but probably not until the weekend, or maybe just after the election finishes. More to remind myself why I voted the way I did (haven't actually voted yet), than to influence others (guides should not really be written with that motivation). I may also just turn up on the talk page of various guides and disagree with the authors. :-) What would actually be better than a guide is a link to what people think are the best questions and answers. Indeed, I was hoping that the Signpost would cover some of the questions and answers, rather than taking the easy option of a tour around the guides. BTW, Tony, I've updated the template here. I think I filled it in right. Carcharoth (talk) 04:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"rather than taking the easy option". I spent a whole night doing this page by myself. There were concerns enough about balance in treating the voter guides alone; doing a story on discussion pages would need a lot of work and careful balance. I also had to write the entire F and A page by myself, and copy-edit some of the other pages. Any volunteers? Tony (talk) 06:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Tony, I was overly critical there. I, for one, do appreciate the Signpost reports, and especially the F&A page (which is much improved in its new format). I am just hoping that voters take the time to look through the questions and the discussions, and don't just read the guides. Carcharoth (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-11-29/Election_report&oldid=1137058393"