Board elections closed; results pending
Möller, Walsh retain seats; Brioschi elected
16 July 2007
Board election series: Elections closed, results pending
9 July 2007
Board elections open
2 July 2007
Board election series: An interview with the candidates
25 June 2007
Board election series: Election information
18 June 2007
Board candidacies open, elections planned
11 June 2007
|
|
|
Möller, Walsh retain seats; Brioschi elected |
Here is the original version of this historical template, from 2007:
 | |
|
2007 Board of Trustees elections A Wikipedia Signpost series | |
|---|---|
| June 11 | Candidacies open |
| June 18 | Election information |
| June 25 | Candidate interviews |
| July 2 | Elections open |
| July 9 | Elections closed |
| July 16 | Election results |
This week, the Signpost covers the closing of this year's Board elections.
The Wikimedia Board Elections closed this Saturday, with 4,713 unique votes from across numerous Wikimedia Foundation wikis. The results of the elections are expected to be released on Sunday, 15 July.
The Election Committee has reviewed many of the votes, looking for possible voter fraud. After this is completed, Software in the Public Interest will tally the votes, and forward the results to the Election Committee. The top three of the fifteen candidates standing will receive two-year terms on the Board. Before the winning candidates officially take their positions, the Board of Trustees must officially certify the elections in order for their results to be valid, a move that is likely to be merely a formality.
Last week, a minor controversy erupted over mailings sent by Gregory Maxwell, urging English Wikipedians and Wikimedia Commons users to vote in the elections. The mailing, which was sent to active Wikipedians who had not yet voted in the elections, was viewed by some as helpful in reminding users to cast their vote. Others viewed the notice as an abuse of the e-mail system, and unfairly benefited the English community (though Gmaxwell offered to help users send out notices in other languages, no users had stepped forward by the time the elections closed). Jimbo Wales suggested that in future elections, the Wikimedia Foundation could personally send e-mails to users who are eligible to vote.
Results from the election are expected on Sunday, barring any complications.
Next week: Results of the Board Election.
Board elections closed; results pending
Möller, Walsh retain seats; Brioschi elected
16 July 2007
Board election series: Elections closed, results pending
9 July 2007
Board elections open
2 July 2007
Board election series: An interview with the candidates
25 June 2007
Board election series: Election information
18 June 2007
Board candidacies open, elections planned
11 June 2007
|
|
|
Möller, Walsh retain seats; Brioschi elected |
Here is the original version of this historical template, from 2007:
| |
|
2007 Board of Trustees elections A Wikipedia Signpost series | |
|---|---|
| June 11 | Candidacies open |
| June 18 | Election information |
| June 25 | Candidate interviews |
| July 2 | Elections open |
| July 9 | Elections closed |
| July 16 | Election results |
This week, the Signpost covers the closing of this year's Board elections.
The Wikimedia Board Elections closed this Saturday, with 4,713 unique votes from across numerous Wikimedia Foundation wikis. The results of the elections are expected to be released on Sunday, 15 July.
The Election Committee has reviewed many of the votes, looking for possible voter fraud. After this is completed, Software in the Public Interest will tally the votes, and forward the results to the Election Committee. The top three of the fifteen candidates standing will receive two-year terms on the Board. Before the winning candidates officially take their positions, the Board of Trustees must officially certify the elections in order for their results to be valid, a move that is likely to be merely a formality.
Last week, a minor controversy erupted over mailings sent by Gregory Maxwell, urging English Wikipedians and Wikimedia Commons users to vote in the elections. The mailing, which was sent to active Wikipedians who had not yet voted in the elections, was viewed by some as helpful in reminding users to cast their vote. Others viewed the notice as an abuse of the e-mail system, and unfairly benefited the English community (though Gmaxwell offered to help users send out notices in other languages, no users had stepped forward by the time the elections closed). Jimbo Wales suggested that in future elections, the Wikimedia Foundation could personally send e-mails to users who are eligible to vote.
Results from the election are expected on Sunday, barring any complications.
Next week: Results of the Board Election.
Discuss this story
I sent an e-mail to the editor about this story, and didn't receive a response. I'm posting this here, because I think it's an important overlooked fact in this story:
In the story this week about Gregory Maxwell sending out a "don't forget to vote in the board elections" e-mail, do you consider it at all pertinent that one of the board member candidates, incumbent Kat Walsh, is his significant other? (As per Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Mindspillage and many other places...)
These are the kinds of conflicts of interest that journalists need to take in to account and report about - not in a scuzzy, scandalous way, but in a serious, explaining motivations behind behaviors way. All it takes is one sentence - non-judgemental, simply factual - "Maxwell is the long-time partner of Wikimedia board member and candidate for re-election Kat Walsh." - and you've given readers a crucial piece of information. They may decide Maxwell and Walsh's relationship has nothing to do with the e-mail; they may decide that Maxwell knew Walsh was more likely to garner support from en.wiki (where she "comes from," in the Wikiworld). Who knows? But readers at least would have the information they need to make their own judgements about whether such an e-mail was improper.
Discuss this story
I sent an e-mail to the editor about this story, and didn't receive a response. I'm posting this here, because I think it's an important overlooked fact in this story:
In the story this week about Gregory Maxwell sending out a "don't forget to vote in the board elections" e-mail, do you consider it at all pertinent that one of the board member candidates, incumbent Kat Walsh, is his significant other? (As per Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Mindspillage and many other places...)
These are the kinds of conflicts of interest that journalists need to take in to account and report about - not in a scuzzy, scandalous way, but in a serious, explaining motivations behind behaviors way. All it takes is one sentence - non-judgemental, simply factual - "Maxwell is the long-time partner of Wikimedia board member and candidate for re-election Kat Walsh." - and you've given readers a crucial piece of information. They may decide Maxwell and Walsh's relationship has nothing to do with the e-mail; they may decide that Maxwell knew Walsh was more likely to garner support from en.wiki (where she "comes from," in the Wikiworld). Who knows? But readers at least would have the information they need to make their own judgements about whether such an e-mail was improper.
Jenolen speak it! 20:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC) reply