Wikipedia:Elections/Endorsements poll

Prior to the December 2004 Arbitration Committee Elections, a subpage was created where users could state endorsements of particular candidates. This is viewed by some to be divisive rather than a constructive way to air opinions about the candidates. One candidate (Sam Spade) asked to be excluded from the page entirely, sparking a heated debate.

An attempt to resolve this issue resulted in a separate page for disendorsements, later merged back. Jimbo Wales and the election's organizing committee expressly discourage the use of disendorsements. Jimbo's comments regarding them can be found below.

Some users feel that a public display of support and opposition is necessary to conducting a fair election, and argue that discouraging the use of these pages is equivalent to censorship. Others consider these pages to serve no useful purpose, instead contributing to factionalism, flame wars, and hard feelings; they argue that these pages reflect poorly on all involved.

Poll

This poll is to determine whether the Arbitration Committee elections should provide or deny an official location for users to state their opinions of every candidate. To avoid bias, there is no "middle ground".

This poll was open to all registered users who made at least one edit prior to 0:00 UTC on December 1, 2004. It ended at 0:00 UTC on January 1, 2005. The results were:

• Provide: 15
• Deny: 3
• Neutral: 3

Provide

These pages are mostly beneficial.

1. Only as long as personal attacks are forbidden. Johnleemk | Talk 09:48, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. People may want to do some of their own research into the candidates. This page provides a useful area to share this research (preferably providing a link to it). I agree that it should not stoop to personal attacks (as per wikipedia policy). --Rebroad 14:25, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. Regardless of modern-day sensitivities to language, information is vital. Promotion is not. Adraeus 10:28, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
4. As with any modern tool, in using the Endorsements page, we men have to learn to control the 1) politicization by factionalism, 2) spilling over of election events to destroy necessary routine, and 3) personal attack that we inherited from the ancestors of the chimpanzees. :)) Long live testosterone! And factionalization, spilling over, and personal attack are all good, well honored chimpanzee traits. (Wrangham 1996) Yes. 8)) But we men must get beyond our inherited hungers. This is a matter of civilization and discipline--not taking away the essential Endorsement page as a tool. ---Rednblu | Talk 10:52, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
5. How can elections take place without fair and open discussion? The endorsement pages, however, should be constrained to the same NPOV principles as any other page: information about a user is fine, but personal attacks not. Specifically, I think a "show, don't tell" philosophy would work best: rather than naming names, or heaping praise for that matter, one should link to specific edits that they think highlight the condidate's behaviour. — Asbestos | Talk 11:27, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
6. Criticism is essential, personal attacks are detrimental. As sensitive as the definition for the latter might become, any criticism/refutation possessing even a shred of factual basis, including charges of irredimable character flaws, insidiousness, dishonesty, etc., could be phrased in depersonalized terms without losing the potency of the respective argument (on the contrary, it adds credibility, efficacy, etc.). El_C 14:52, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
7. Discussion of all kind is useful and perhaps necessary to a proper election. People can judge a lot based on how people respond to their criticisms. Note that I am a candicate, so I wish to disclose that I could be seen as having an interest, positive or negative, in an endorsements page. --Improv 15:12, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
8. Election participation should be encouraged; this lowers the barriers. I'm not sure it encourages abuses, but there surely will be some; discouraging these is part of the "cost of doing business", not a reason against endorsements. --Jerzy(t) 16:08, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)
9. People are smart enough to see abuse for what it is, and to see legitimate criticism for what it is. Let there be a free exchange of ideas, and let people make their decisions freely. --Mrfixter 17:25, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
10. This is a public election. Candidates are, and must be, subjects open to public discussion and public scrutiny. I particulary agree with the comments Mrfixter, Asbestos, and El_C here.--FeloniousMonk 17:52, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
11. If you run for election, people who are familiar with you and your actions ought to be able to communicate to the community what they have learned, although brief comments must, by their nature, be somewhat conclusionary and thus easily misinterpreted as personal attacks. Fred Bauder 19:35, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
12. I find other person's opinions very useful in evaluating persons that I have not had extensive interactions with. Otherwise, I might as well use a random number generator to complete my ballot. older≠wiser 14:55, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
13. Hey, it's free speech! Before you know it, someone's going to be proposing ArbCom election campaign finance reform. Stop the insanity! Rhobite 03:45, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
14. The more information the better. Yes there will be opportunities for abuse and potential for acrimony and ill-will - but the alternative is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Paul August 21:05, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
15. As long a things stay civilized, the more information we have about the candidates, and especially from those who know them and have worked with them, not just empty political statements, the better. MikeCapone 18:10, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Deny

These pages are mostly harmful.

1. They also cause malicious users to punish others for endorsing me :( [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 11:22, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. I'd have no problem with this sort of thing if it were in the user namespace. But in this format, grouped together, it serves little purpose other than as an arena for flame warring. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 16:38, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. Deny The use of a list page 'List of endorsements for...' links format, with endorsements hosted on User pages, would be acceptable. A firm enforcement of the 250 word rule, a simple list page, and the balance being up to the candidates (perhaps a soap box in the Village Pump?) creates the least intrusive/strident atmosphere imo. - Amgine

Neutral

1. The endorsements pages are not 100% essential, but they might be a good idea, provided there's some way to prevent or mitigate abuse. Kim Bruning 15:52, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. I agree with Johnleemk's position that the elections being free isn't the point, what's best for wikipedia is. The real problem is the election itself. The fact the number of positions on the AC has been made limited has fostered a spirit of competition rather than co-operation. Requests for adminship provides a venue for both support and oppose "endorsements" as such, but usually remains very civil. I feel the essential difference is that there's not a competition for a limited number of admin places. The endorsement page is harmful, but it's really the symptom, not the cause. The elections (at least in the current format) are where the real problem lies. Shane King 00:05, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
3. No problem with the concept, but I maintain the same position I have held on this matter from the beginning: People should publish endorsements (and disendorsements, if any) in their own user namespace, and if an endorsements page exists it should link to these pages. I decline to vote in favor of the proposal, as I fear this would be read as supporting the current format, which I consider very suboptimal. --Michael Snow 05:28, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why I hope [disendorsements] will not be used

In my "Letter from the Founder" I wrote: "The only way we can coordinate our efforts in an efficient manner to achieve the goals we have set for ourselves, is to love our work and to love each other, even when we disagree. Mutual respect and a reasonable approach to disagreement are essential, and both of those are helped along enormously when we feel favorably towards each other just as a natural result of being volunteers together on this incredible ridiculous crazy fun project to change the world.

None of us is perfect in these matters; such is the human condition. But each of us can try each day, in our editing, in our mailing list posts, in our irc chats, and in our private emails, to reach for a higher standard than the Internet usually encourages, a standard of rational benevolence and love."

[ Disendorsements ] is a magnet and incentive for a different approach, one which I most vigorously reject for our community. I encourage people to avoid the use of [disendorsements], and instead stick to positive endorsements of people who you think will represent our values thoughtfully and rationally. If the trolls want to have an attack party here, let them. But let's not sink to their level. Jimbo Wales 16:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your position on this issue. A section devoted and restricted to endorsements is simply a promotional billboard with no useful content. We can apply NPOV policy to how information on candidates is presented. You are promoting a section for a POV which is contrary to policy. Quite interesting considering you're the policy-maker.

Your excerpt demonstrates your POV. The word "unsophisticated" is best used here to describe your POV.

• "The only way we can coordinate our efforts in an efficient matter to achieve the goals we have set for ourselves, is to love our work and to love each other, even when we disagree."

False. Productivity does not require love. In fact, most productivity is increased systematically through the provision of bait such as promotions, bonuses and other treats. Moreover, "love" refers to a subjective experience which then irrationalizes your argument. There is also more than a single method of achieving successful collaboration.

• "Mutual respect and a reasonable approach to disagreement are essential..."

False. Define "mutual respect." Can you? Again, such a term refers to a subjective experience. Refer to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Respect". Who defines which approach to dispute resolution is "reasonable"? You? If so, then what happened to collaboration? If not, then rationality is key to an effective and efficient collaborative effort. Often, problems stem from those incapable of thinking critically and acting rationally. See Sam Spade's endorsements page for an example. You assume too much of too many users. There are many POV Warriors and trolls within Wikipedia's region which, thanks to your easily abused NPOV and character assassination and "Good Faith" policies, are untouchable. There are many, dare I say, ignorant and irrational users who would not act in good faith if their lives depended on it. In short, there are a lot of poor Wikipedia citizens protected by poorly structured policies. I say "poorly structured" because "well-structured" policies wouldn't allow so much abuse to occur.

You state that perfection is not an attribute of the human condition. True. The state of perfection is a logical impossibility. There are neither perfect gods nor perfect men; however, perfection as a goal is possible and it is the goal of many of us who want disendorsements and endorsements on the same page or, at least, want disendorsements given the attention deserved.

Information is NPOV. Promotion is POV. Information contains two or more sides. Promotion contains one side. NPOV policy dictates how information is to be presented and those of us that want an endorsement and disendorsement page are adhering to policy. You're promoting violating policy... but hey, you're the founder, that's your prerogative. Adraeus 10:26, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why A Fair and Competitive Election Demands Opposition Comments

As I wrote earlier in response to Jimbo's opinion at the Candidate statements/Disendorsements page, I strongly believe in the free exchange of information and ideas, and was under the impression that such a free market was a wiki ideal.

In order for democratic elections to be fair and competitive, opposition must enjoy the right to freedom of speech as necessary to voice their criticisms of the candidates openly and to bring relevant information to the voters. If this freedom is not granted or is in any way restricted, the election will not reflect the legitimate views of the voters. In other words, voters must has free access to all relevant candidate information, even that which is negative, in order to make informed decisions and place an informed vote. Thus, for any voter to cast an informed vote, access to all relevant candidate information, even negative, is not a luxury, but a necessity. Indeed, how else are uninformed voters to learn of hypocritical candidates who claim a high level of dedication to the policies and ideals yet who repeatedly fail to (using Jimbo's words) "reach for a higher standard than the Internet usually encourages, a standard of rational benevolence and love ...in their editing, in their mailing list posts, in their irc chats, and in their private emails"?

If seating an Arbitration Committee by informed voters casting informed votes is a goal of this process, then the information found in the opposition statements is beyond useful, it is required reading. The opposition statements should not be deleted or restricted.--FeloniousMonk 17:59, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why A Fair and Competitive Election Is Not Important

Sorry, I couldn't resist (full disclosure: I am a candidate). I don't mind neutrality or fairness or competitiveness, but keep in mind that we are an encyclopedia. We're not an attempt at a democratic government. A free market is not necessarily a wiki ideal. Remember, this is Jimbocracy — whatever Jimbo says goes. If he says nothing, whatever the Board says goes. If they say nothing, whatever the arbcom says goes. These three have control over what goes on in Wikipedia. If they don't want a fair and competitive election, they can simply order it. Of course, they'd probably be faced with a fork or something (which is why common sense prevails and they don't rig elections. At least, I hope so), but still, keep in mind that democracy is a means to an end, as Shane King has said. It is most certainly not an end in itself. Likewise, policy is not an end in itself. It's the means to an end, which is why we strive for a good encyclopedia, not a good policy (though that's almost certainly a prerequisite for a good encyclopedia).

What does this all mean? If Jimbo gets fed up, he can simply declare the results of this poll null and void, and disendorsements illegal. Will he? I don't know. It doesn't make much difference to me personally, though I do view that as a tad extremist. As I said, the goal is to build an encyclopedia. If we have to sacrifice an open forum (though someone could still host an underground one on a user page) to build an encyclopedia, then we might as well do it. I am not advocating this course of action; I'm merely pointing out that a fair election is not necessarily the final goal here.

Oh, and for the record, while FeloniousMonk has a point or two, Adraeus' conclusions are...shall we say they're a nice joke? Otherwise seems we're sort of overdue for editing every talk and user talk page to ensure NPOV, if NPOV policy somehow applies outside articles. Then original research like Tim Starling's statistics on people's stub limits will have to go. Then we'll have to follow the manual of style when we discourse. Seriously, I can't see how anyone can claim policy clearly related to articles apply outside the main namespace. Johnleemk | Talk 18:16, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why –If– there is an Election, it needs to be Fair and Competitive

I am sorry, but the above point brought up by Johnleemk does not make sense to me. Why have an election if it isn't fair and competitive? Perhaps an election for the ArbComm is unimportant, perhaps it is even unproductive (I will not get into that as it goes beyond the scope of my comment), but –if– the choise is to have one, that it is fair and competitive becomes paramount. I maintain that it is irrational to even consider having an election otherwise (at least, it should not be termed an 'election,' but rather, something to the ffect of a suggestive, advisory, etc. poll), one which makes it clear that Jimbo, the Bd, et al.'s position is that the community would be better served by having committee members who are (all advisory input aside), ultimately, appointed. That they already possess this power in potentia is less releavent at this stage. El_C 21:57, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)