This page is currently inactive and is retained for
historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
Poll ended at 00:00 on December 1, 2004. The result was: Yes 2 (13%), No 15 (87%). The proposal failed to garner enough support to pass.
The purpose of this proposal is to give all users the ability to control whether or not they receive campaign messages during Wikipedia election cycles.
(Just to clarify, if you vote yes for this proposal, you are not voting to accept campaign messages - you are only voting to allow anyone to declare their willingness to accept such messages in a standard way.)
This poll will last for approximately one week, ending at 00:00 on December 1, 2004 (UTC), unless a clear consensus develops sooner, with at least 50 votes with a greater than 50% majority in favor, in which case the poll will end early.
I am endorsing and promoting this proposal, because I think that elections are an important part of civic life on Wikipedia. For all the benefits that Wikipedia provides to us, it's not too much to ask that community members participate in the elections that will select the leaders who will guide us. I have a deep personal belief that an informed voter is a smart voter, and that voters do not need to be shielded from campaign messages.
But in respect for those users who simply have no need or desire for election campaign messages, I endorse this exciting new feature that will allow users to control whether or not they receive campaign messages. -- DV 10:26, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
(P.S.: if it turns out to be too technically cumbersome to modify the software to support this feature, please feel free to copy the {{AcceptCampaignMessages}} tag onto your own user talk page.)
Vote Yes in this section:
You don't want anyone to even have the option to receive campaign messages?
Then vote No in this section:
I have no objection to getting messages on my talk page (campaign or any other sort). Nor, I suspect, do most users. Look at it this way: if you deluge a user talk page with unwanted messages, chances are you will make pretty damn sure that the user in question will vote against you. Candidates, in other words, would be very well advised to think carefully before spaming user talk pages with campaign messages. Candidates too stupid to work this out for themselves will, in all probability, weed themselves out. This, in my view, is a Good Thing. Think of it as evolution in action.
However, I do object to making the software even more complicated than it is at present. Seriously, the task of learning your way around the 'pedia and the wiki software is already close to the limit of what we can realisticaly expect the average user to cope with, and figuring out how to install MediaWiki and get it working right is non-trivial. Galloping featuritis is a serous problem these days, and the last thing we want is to see the wonderful MediaWiki software fall victim to it. KISS.
If the above more-or-less expresses your views, please sign below:
If it turns out to be too technically cumbersome to modify the software to support this feature, but you still support the general idea of indicating your willingness to accept campaign-related messages, please feel free to copy the {{AcceptCampaignMessages}} tag onto your own user talk page. -- DV 13:51, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There are two separate issues here: pure, get-out-the-vote efforts, and candidate-specific messages:
I'm still on the fence about candidate-specific messages, because I happen to know from real-world experience that they work, and yet I understand the various folks who indicate they are turned off by them. So I'm not going down that path for now.
But there is a time-honored tradition of get-out-the-vote efforts, and my efforts so far have been met with a lot of hemming and hawing on the part of several Administrators when I asked if we could do more to publicize the election.
Keeping publicity about the elections to the portal and recent changes pages does not help increase voter turnout. And yet this lack of real publicity is what several administrators have said is "the way it's done around here".
I only became aware of the upcoming election because I saw an offhand reference to it on a user talk page. I very well could have continued editing articles and heard nothing about the election. I think many other editors are in this same boat. (Heck, I've known serious, but somewhat absent-minded authors who need to be reminded to change their clothes every day - how can such an individual be expected to visit the recent changes or other portal pages on a regular basis?)
My motivation is this - given the failure of the current administration to improve the editing environment, (many serious and very experienced editors have repeatedly expressed how stressful it is is to work on political or history articles), I insist that we need fresh faces with fresh ideas.
Elections really need to be publicized on many, many user talk pages (in a tasteful manner, of course), to bring in those fresh new faces, or the editing environment will continue to stagnate with very slow improvements.
Free and fair elections are a little messy. Get over it.
Please let me know if you have other ideas for how to improve the editing environment, but getting out the vote is a critical part of it. -- DV 14:24, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"The secret to success is to fail often." It looks like that is what will happen here, but all for the best.
Although this poll is receiving a resounding "no", I was greatly encouraged to see so many alternative ideas being floated by the participants.
If this proposal fails, but in doing so, it helps to drive forward alternative, better ideas, then it is still a success.
Thanks to all of the participants.
-- DV 01:12, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Can't seem to vote either way until some nagging question is answered?
Please post your concerns in this section:
This page is currently inactive and is retained for
historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
Poll ended at 00:00 on December 1, 2004. The result was: Yes 2 (13%), No 15 (87%). The proposal failed to garner enough support to pass.
The purpose of this proposal is to give all users the ability to control whether or not they receive campaign messages during Wikipedia election cycles.
(Just to clarify, if you vote yes for this proposal, you are not voting to accept campaign messages - you are only voting to allow anyone to declare their willingness to accept such messages in a standard way.)
This poll will last for approximately one week, ending at 00:00 on December 1, 2004 (UTC), unless a clear consensus develops sooner, with at least 50 votes with a greater than 50% majority in favor, in which case the poll will end early.
I am endorsing and promoting this proposal, because I think that elections are an important part of civic life on Wikipedia. For all the benefits that Wikipedia provides to us, it's not too much to ask that community members participate in the elections that will select the leaders who will guide us. I have a deep personal belief that an informed voter is a smart voter, and that voters do not need to be shielded from campaign messages.
But in respect for those users who simply have no need or desire for election campaign messages, I endorse this exciting new feature that will allow users to control whether or not they receive campaign messages. -- DV 10:26, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
(P.S.: if it turns out to be too technically cumbersome to modify the software to support this feature, please feel free to copy the {{AcceptCampaignMessages}} tag onto your own user talk page.)
Vote Yes in this section:
You don't want anyone to even have the option to receive campaign messages?
Then vote No in this section:
I have no objection to getting messages on my talk page (campaign or any other sort). Nor, I suspect, do most users. Look at it this way: if you deluge a user talk page with unwanted messages, chances are you will make pretty damn sure that the user in question will vote against you. Candidates, in other words, would be very well advised to think carefully before spaming user talk pages with campaign messages. Candidates too stupid to work this out for themselves will, in all probability, weed themselves out. This, in my view, is a Good Thing. Think of it as evolution in action.
However, I do object to making the software even more complicated than it is at present. Seriously, the task of learning your way around the 'pedia and the wiki software is already close to the limit of what we can realisticaly expect the average user to cope with, and figuring out how to install MediaWiki and get it working right is non-trivial. Galloping featuritis is a serous problem these days, and the last thing we want is to see the wonderful MediaWiki software fall victim to it. KISS.
If the above more-or-less expresses your views, please sign below:
If it turns out to be too technically cumbersome to modify the software to support this feature, but you still support the general idea of indicating your willingness to accept campaign-related messages, please feel free to copy the {{AcceptCampaignMessages}} tag onto your own user talk page. -- DV 13:51, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There are two separate issues here: pure, get-out-the-vote efforts, and candidate-specific messages:
I'm still on the fence about candidate-specific messages, because I happen to know from real-world experience that they work, and yet I understand the various folks who indicate they are turned off by them. So I'm not going down that path for now.
But there is a time-honored tradition of get-out-the-vote efforts, and my efforts so far have been met with a lot of hemming and hawing on the part of several Administrators when I asked if we could do more to publicize the election.
Keeping publicity about the elections to the portal and recent changes pages does not help increase voter turnout. And yet this lack of real publicity is what several administrators have said is "the way it's done around here".
I only became aware of the upcoming election because I saw an offhand reference to it on a user talk page. I very well could have continued editing articles and heard nothing about the election. I think many other editors are in this same boat. (Heck, I've known serious, but somewhat absent-minded authors who need to be reminded to change their clothes every day - how can such an individual be expected to visit the recent changes or other portal pages on a regular basis?)
My motivation is this - given the failure of the current administration to improve the editing environment, (many serious and very experienced editors have repeatedly expressed how stressful it is is to work on political or history articles), I insist that we need fresh faces with fresh ideas.
Elections really need to be publicized on many, many user talk pages (in a tasteful manner, of course), to bring in those fresh new faces, or the editing environment will continue to stagnate with very slow improvements.
Free and fair elections are a little messy. Get over it.
Please let me know if you have other ideas for how to improve the editing environment, but getting out the vote is a critical part of it. -- DV 14:24, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"The secret to success is to fail often." It looks like that is what will happen here, but all for the best.
Although this poll is receiving a resounding "no", I was greatly encouraged to see so many alternative ideas being floated by the participants.
If this proposal fails, but in doing so, it helps to drive forward alternative, better ideas, then it is still a success.
Thanks to all of the participants.
-- DV 01:12, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Can't seem to vote either way until some nagging question is answered?
Please post your concerns in this section: