On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Brian <brian.min...@colorado.edu> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Steven Walling > <steven.wall...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Recentist? Ignoring the, ahem, fanciful language you've chosen, I'd like >> to >> throw my support behind the voting qualifications wholeheartedly. >> For me, the analogy is simple: just because you get a driver's license >> once >> doesn't entitle you to drive for the rest of your life. This isn't just >> about what will "skew the results" with ballot stuffing. It's about giving >> suffrage to people who can make an informed decision that will positively >> affect the work of the community by getting adequate representation on the >> Board. >> Steven Walling >> > > You have only said that you support the current plan, without making an > argument as to why it is beneficial. There is no information in the current > heuristic that indicates that the editor is more or less familiar with the > candidates than an editor who does not. Given that it is an international > election it is quite likely the case that many of the people who are > qualified to vote are not familiar with the majority of the candidates and > they will have to read up on them. I argued in my original post that the > heuristic does not distinguish between the capability of people that it > captures and people it does not to make an informed and valid ranking > decision about the candidates. To reiterate, you simply said you agree with > the current plan without arguing that this is false. > The second sentence should read: There is no information in the current heuristic that indicates that editors who are allowed to vote are more or less familiar with the candidates than those who are not. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
