Wikipedia:De kroeg/Archief/20220325

Deze artikelen vieren hun 12e "Bron?"-verjaardag

Zie Categorie:Wikipedia:Artikel mist referentie sinds maart 2010, momenteel 69 artikelen daar. En ga zo maar door. Apdency (overleg) 16 mrt 2022 19:58 (CET)

Ik begrijp je toon, maar de opwekkende aanpak van @Frank Geerlings levert veel meer op!  →bertux 16 mrt 2022 20:41 (CET)

Of is het overzichtelijkheid versus oeverloosheid? Ik was trouwens niet van plan iets te laten 'opleveren'. Apdency (overleg) 16 mrt 2022 20:52 (CET)

Even snel 12 artikelen fixen werkt ook motiverender dan 69. Maar kom, ik heb er 68 van gemaakt. Johanraymond (overleg) 16 mrt 2022 21:29 (CET)

Krijg nu iets. Ik zag de teller net op 62 staan. Dank Johanraymond e.a.! Apdency (overleg) 16 mrt 2022 21:36 (CET)

Ik weet niet welke toon meer oplevert. Vooralsnog gaat dit ontzettend goed, beter dan mijn oproep van gisteren! Laten we vooral blijven experimenteren om te zien wat goed werkt en wat niet. –Frank Geerlings (overleg) 16 mrt 2022 22:56 (CET)

Het valt op dat mensen altijd verschrikkelijk hun best doen om mij ongelijk te geven 😃  →bertux 16 mrt 2022 23:02 (CET)

Inderdaad, de wereld is tegen jou. Maar troost je: ik was niet van plan iets in gang te zetten, en toch doen mensen het! Dat is pas pesten. Overigens: het woord 'experimenteren' zoals door Frank gebruikt, zal wel op zijn plaats zijn. Ik nam gewoon de maand die nu precies 12 jaar geleden is; naast die maand zijn er nog vele tientallen natuurlijk. Apdency (overleg) 17 mrt 2022 19:56 (CET)

Anticonceptiepil heeft liefst zeven bronvragen, misschien dat iemand gemotiveerd is daarnaar te kijken. Encycloon (overleg) 16 mrt 2022 21:44 (CET)

Vermoedelijk bevat deze bron het geschat vermogen van Jean-Claude Van Damme, n.a.v. het bronverzoek. Heeft iemand een abo op tijd.be? Sietske | _Reageren? 16 mrt 2022 21:57 (CET)

Wie thuis is in Scandinavische talen kan met deze bron misschien een antwoord geven op het bronverzoek op Viðofnir. Ik vermoed dat het boek in het Noors is. Sietske | _Reageren? 16 mrt 2022 22:06 (CET)

Voter turnout - How is UCoC voting actually going?

Dear all,

A week ago the ratification voting for the Enforcement Guidelines of the UCoC started. There is still a week to go to vote. As the vote lasts for two weeks after the first week one can have a look at the numbers so far.

And how is it going? Today at 0:00, on the 7th day thus, 842 voters had cast their ballots. The recent MCDC election had 587 voters at the same time, during the board elections 2021 there were 1830 at the time.

Turnout worldwide

There are some surprises here. It is apparent that the two largest language versions, English and German, have an unusual huge turnout. Though the English Wikipedia makes up “only” 34% of the electorate, they make up 43% of all voters. Similar for the German Wikipedia community: though it is only 8.2% of the electorate, DE-WP makes up 12.6% of all voters. While this huge participation is a great thing, it results in a certain imbalance, if other communities do take part way below their usual turnouts. It is hard to find any election or vote that has been dominated by these two communities so strong, without going back to the founding years of the Wikimedia Foundation itself.

Good news though: the numbers of voters from other communities have risen significantly during the weekend, increasingly catching up with EN and DE. The francophone community voter numbers doubled to 7%, Spanish and Portuguese quadrupled to 5.8%. Especially remarkable is participation in East Asia - though the Japanese, Chinese and Korean communities are traditionally quite reluctant to participate in elections and votings, their participation has significantly increased here to 6.1% altogether and is still growing. The importance of the Asian communities is evident here.

And the Dutch Wikipedia?

The Dutch Wikipedia is one of the biggest communities worldwide in terms of eligible voters, being no. 11 globally. It had always good turnouts in former elections between 7 and 10%.

In the UCoC vote there are 987 eligible voters in the Dutch Wikipedia, but - up to now, only 2 (!) took the opportunity to vote, placing it alongside communities as the Galician Wikipedia and Spanish Wikinews by absolute numbers. A turnout of 0.2%, way below any turnout ever before, making the Dutch Wikipedia community almost invisible.

It’s astonishing - the Dutch community, being one of the world's biggest at all, owning the privilege that its voting powers enable it to make a difference, makes hardly any use of it.

Outlook

Overall, there are clear signs of a pretty good turnout globally. Though in the beginning, the English and German communities dominated the vote by far, other communities especially from Asia and Latin America are catching up and raising their voice. Dutch participation though is the lowest ever recorded, not at least using it's full voting powers.

I hope this changes during the coming week, the elections are by no means over yet. I am looking forward to seeing the Dutch community shining up again in the list as the strong voice it usually is.

If you would like to make that difference happen,

• here is the page with the voter information and the link to vote

The above numbers are based on the voter list you can find here:.

• https://vote.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:SecurePoll/list/1341&sort=vote_voter_domain&limit=1000

DBarthel (WMF) (overleg) 14 mrt 2022 15:12 (CET)

@DBarthel (WMF): I just voted but imho the problem with this whole process has been the excessive amount of time one has to invest to make an informed vote. This has been a problem with participatory processes in the past as well. I've the feeling our community has been left out ever since we ended up with a community liaison during the movement strategy phase who left us after some poorly done translations. Natuur12 (overleg) 14 mrt 2022 15:32 (CET)

@Natuur12 - thank you for your reply, I am sad to hear this. Concerning the informed vote and the excessive amount of time you feel needed, I hope this summary helps to get a better idea on what this is about. Though I cannot change the past, I would really love to change the present and the future. In my role as the Movement Strategy faciltator for the Dutch community I would like to understand better what I can do for you beyond the occasional post of news at De Kroeg. Please let me know. DBarthel (WMF) (overleg) 14 mrt 2022 15:48 (CET)

Weird. Wikipedia talk:Universele gedragscode has been edited 271 times by two dozens of Wikipedians, so I can't believe lack of time is the problem. Last edit was in July 2021, so the talk may have peaked too early. By comparison, en:Wikipedia talk:Universal Code of Conduct counts 3 edits in all. The reception of the UCoC was quite negative, that may be an issue. On the other hand, the opportunity to votie against the UCoC could have cranked up the votes. Weird, weird, weird  →bertux 14 mrt 2022 15:54 (CET)

Yes that was too difficult, but eventually I could find the button to vote against enforcement of the terrible UCoC. — Zanaq (?) 15 mrt 2022 08:34 (CET)

@DBarthel (WMF): I appreciate the updates and the summary. My criticism is in no way personally directed at you. I doubt there is much you can do in order to change the present and future. Mainly because I feel that there is a mismatch between the chooses participatory processes and the step / level at Arnstein's participation ladder. This has plagued the strategy process from the start. Our community discussed the code but the person who took it upon himself led us down the rabbit hole. The fact that this is happening is a symptom of the process being flawed. This isn't something easily changed at the current stage :(. What I would have done is using a scenario based approach for which the input originates from a decision making tool like the multi criteria analysis. The different scenario's can be based on different weightings of the criteria. The criteria itself could easily have been gathered via a direct form of community consultation / multi criteria mapping. But this is all water under the bridge now but I hope for future processes, the WMF will hire an experienced participatory expert who can design and lead a decision making process. There are plenty of tools that can help in complex decision making that work better than a process favouring those with the most free time and loudest voice. Natuur12 (overleg) 18 mrt 2022 14:23 (CET)

Het is mij allemaal veel te ver van mijn bed. Het lezen van de samenvatting waarnaar hieboven gelinkt werd, maakte me geen sikkepit wijzer. Geen idee waarvoor of waartegen ik zou moeten stemmen, en waarom. Zo'n Universal Code of Conduct is volgens mij iets om aan de buitenwereld te laten zien dat het onderwerp harrassment de aandacht heeft, en dat er op papier werk wordt gemaakt van een veilige werkomgeving. Maar in de praktijk komt het er ook straks nog steeds op neer dat iemand harrassment moet herkennen, en dat de dader gewaarschuwd en eventueel geblokkeerd wordt. Daar is helemaal geen UCoC voor nodig. Zonde van de tijd. WIKIKLAAS overleg 18 mrt 2022 15:26 (CET)