Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-12-13/Election report

Misleading graphs?

Wasn't the 2008 vote immediately after the Arbcom scandals and misbehaviour controversy? If so, it's not exactly a very good baseline. 86.177.225.189 (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pie charts

Blue for support, Green for oppose, Red for neutral. Really? 192.93.164.28 (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Green for support, red for oppose, yellow for neutral would seem to be the most logical. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks "the fault lies in default." ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I misread the charts :/ -- Luk ^talk 12:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Query] Since my queries were reverted, could someone please explain? Obviously, the issues aren't clear or I wouldn't have asked. Has Jimbo said the Committee will be as explained, if so where, if not, who says this, and I can't understand those graphs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)g[reply]

Sandy, if you would like me to explain the graphs, please ask. Better on your talk page or by email, though. Tony (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the data for the "neutral proportion of the pie chart above for 2008" come from? -- Jeandré, 2010-12-16t10:25z

The results table here. The S + O for each candidate was deducted from the number of voters in the election. I can email you the spreadsheet if you wish. Tony (talk) 10:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voter turnout

It would be good to see both a mention of the lower voter turnout, down 15% from last year, and some discussion of why. Best. Diderot's dreams (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the figures were given for each of the past three elections, and I suppose we didn't expand on that because we're unsure why this is the case. An almost 15% drop is significant, statistically, at a guess. It could have been a combination of factors. Some said Thanksgiving in the US (the earlier voting period included this holiday); some said the reduction from 14 to 10 days; some said a disenchantment with ArbCom. What is your view? Tony (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had no opinion before you asked. It occurred to me it could be more editors quitting the project, but I dismissed this because the kind of editor who voted was likely to be a high edit count veteran, and I thought they were not leaving the project in increased numbers. I was hoping you would tell me, and I think you have.

The shorter voting period that includes a major holiday for a large portion of editors would lower turnout as fewer editors logged in during the timeframe. (It would be interesting to see the number of editor log-ins over the two time periods, or article traffic comparisons as a proxy.) And people didn't seem to be dissatisfied with the committee or the candidates this year (higher aggregate support vote for all candidates; all 3 current and 2 of 4 former arbitors re-elected). Diderot's dreams (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]