Commons talk:Canvassing
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 | This project page was nominated for deletion but was kept. If you are thinking about re-nominating it for deletion, please read that discussion first. |
Creation / Initial redaction[edit]
GreenMeansGo, I restored the section about unawareness since it may occurs. I think it's important to keep in mind, so accusation of corruption are not flying around immediately, and conflicts are avoided. I'am not sure of the wording obviously, but I sincerely think this source is relevant to the present issue. Yug (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, I restored it AND reworded it so to not give an excuse to canvassing. But we should have some understanding that canvassing on Commons is something that not everyone know about. It's usually (IRL) ok to call over your workmate or local budies to vote. Yug (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Making users aware of community norms is the purpose of policy. Ignorance of community norms is not a defense in a process such as RfA, the purpose of which is to, at least in part, judge and understanding of community norms. The portion is innapropriate and thats why I removed it. GMGtalk 18:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Canvassing applies to all elections, RfA, Feature Pictures. The RfA could be lost because of lack of policy knowledge, this is one thing. But the Canvassing should not take down an election or an user. The experimented users applying to RfA or feature pictures can still be unaware of certain policies. Other users should keep in mind that it is possible to not be aware, so constructive reaction such as sharing explicative resources (this page) come before kicking down. Also, the case is clear that IRL "canvassing" is ok, canvassing on Wikimedia was ok in the past when fewer users and guidelines were in place, and is not ok now, so the whole is quite confusing for new comers (or revenants
) to Wikimedia electoral process. - Do not bite the newcomers's "Ignorantia juris may excuse" is there on Wikipedia because useful to cool things down. Is the Commons community different ? Yug (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- There isn't a reason to link twice to BITE. And the references to campaigns and election strategy are not appropriate. Admins are not politicians. RfAs are not elections and don't have associated campaigns. They are community discussions and the principle of canvassing applies to all community discussions. GMGtalk 23:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- GMG, feel free to edit, it's a wiki. 2 links may be too much. Maybe use reference ? We need a more neutral way to reference it. Admins are elected, there is no large campaign, but there is a communication part. The RfA itself is an operation of communication, general neutral announcement on the village pump and on related projects page are allowed per en:Wikipedia:Canvassing as of 2017, as well as neutral announcement to relevant people.
- Oh, I never though about it before... be yes, canvassing can apply to any consensus based discussion indeed. Nice to point it out. Yug (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- There isn't a reason to link twice to BITE. And the references to campaigns and election strategy are not appropriate. Admins are not politicians. RfAs are not elections and don't have associated campaigns. They are community discussions and the principle of canvassing applies to all community discussions. GMGtalk 23:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Canvassing applies to all elections, RfA, Feature Pictures. The RfA could be lost because of lack of policy knowledge, this is one thing. But the Canvassing should not take down an election or an user. The experimented users applying to RfA or feature pictures can still be unaware of certain policies. Other users should keep in mind that it is possible to not be aware, so constructive reaction such as sharing explicative resources (this page) come before kicking down. Also, the case is clear that IRL "canvassing" is ok, canvassing on Wikimedia was ok in the past when fewer users and guidelines were in place, and is not ok now, so the whole is quite confusing for new comers (or revenants
- Making users aware of community norms is the purpose of policy. Ignorance of community norms is not a defense in a process such as RfA, the purpose of which is to, at least in part, judge and understanding of community norms. The portion is innapropriate and thats why I removed it. GMGtalk 18:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)