Wikimedia explicit approval elections: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) m (Psephomancy moved page Wikipedia explicit approval elections to Wikimedia explicit approval elections: oops) |
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (remove generic stuff) |
||
Line 1:
Wikimedia and Wikipedia elections are held using a voting system equivalent to [[Explicit approval voting]], in which voters must choose ''Support'', ''Oppose'', or ''Neutral'' for every candidate. The winner is the candidate with the highest support percentage: the highest proportion of ''Support'' votes out of combined ''Support'' and ''Oppose'' votes = S/(S+O).[[File:2018 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee ballot.png|thumb|An explicit approval ballot for a [[W:Wikipedia:Elections#Arbitration%20Committee|Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election]], which defaults to abstention]]
Approval voting is generally equivalent to 2-level [[Score voting]] (where the levels are "0" and "1"). Wikimedia's variant is equivalent to 2-level Score voting where voters may explicitly abstain, and the default choice is to abstain. The levels in Wikimedia's system imply (−1, +1) rather than (0, 1), so they may be affected by the psychological consequences of [[disapproval voting]].<ref>See also [[W:Combined approval voting#Properties|Wikipedia:Combined approval voting#Properties]], in particular [[W:Combined approval voting#cite%20ref-7|the Baujard citation]]</ref>▼
The Wikimedia Foundation has used this method for Board of Trustees and Funds Dissemination Committee elections in [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Results 2013], [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015/Results 2015], and [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2017/Results 2017], after previously using [[Approval voting]] and [[Schulze method]]
Wikipedia uses this in a non-binding way for Administrator nominations,<ref>[[W:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Decision%20process|w:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Decision process]]</ref> etc.
▲== Usage ==
▲Approval voting is generally equivalent to 2-level [[Score voting]] (where the levels are "0" and "1"). Wikimedia's variant is equivalent to 2-level Score voting where voters may explicitly abstain, and the default choice is to abstain. The levels in Wikimedia's system imply (−1, +1) rather than (0, 1), so they may be affected by the psychological consequences of [[disapproval voting]].<ref>See also [[W:Combined approval voting#Properties|Wikipedia:Combined approval voting#Properties]], in particular [[W:Combined approval voting#cite%20ref-7|the Baujard citation]]</ref>
▲The Wikimedia Foundation has used this method for Board of Trustees and Funds Dissemination Committee elections in [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Results 2013], [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015/Results 2015], and [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2017/Results 2017], after previously using [[Approval voting]] and [[Schulze method]]. Wikipedia uses this in a non-binding way for Administrator nominations,<ref>[[W:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Decision%20process|w:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Decision process]]</ref> etc.
If tallied using normal Score voting rules (where O=0, N=1, S=2), the 2015 Wikimedia Board election would have had a different winner, with the candidate in 4th place moving up to 2nd. The 2017 Board and 2015 FDC elections would have had a different top-3 order, but the same 3 candidates would have won.
In all 8 elections from 2013-2017, the most common vote was ''Neutral'', which was cast about twice as often as ''Support'', which in turn was cast about twice as often as ''Oppose''. Winners typically receive 70–85% support.
== References ==
|