My votes

I support public voting. Because of that, I’ll say how and why did I vote.

To be honest, my first four votes were already known. There are four candidates which I am supporting because I am convinced, according to their previous work, that they will be good Board members: Gerard Meijssen, Kat Walsh, Samuel Klein and Ting Chen. So, all of them got 1 from me. I would be perfectly happy if I would see any of three of them at the Board.

The next candidate about whom I was thinking is Domas. I would give to him 2 because he is a MediaWiki contributor for a long time.

Then, I went to check candidates’ answers to questions so I would be able to rank others. Thanks to Privatemusings for asking the question about the explicit sexual content.

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen will be at the sixth place and Jose Gustavo Gonora at the seventh (see below for the fifth one). The first one said nicely worded “fuck off” (which I really prefer as the answer to such question), the second one raised that not only explicit sexual content is a censorship-related problem. Yes, Muhammad cartoons are the same type of problem. Just persons who are totally unaware about multiculturality may say that explicit sexual content is not acceptible, while pictures of Muhammad are.

Because of the answer on the same question Gregory Kohs got 99 (just because I am not sure would 100 work; it is the bottom). I was thinking to give 99 to Kevin Riley O’Keeffe, but he got 98. I have some sympathies to genuine right-wingers. They are honest.

Because of the answer on the same question Adam Koenigsberg got 4, which means that he is at the eight place. He said that he is against any kind of censorship, but that it should be decided by community. Nice position, however, too polite answer. Maybe others would appreciate such answer more.

Domas and Beauford Anton Stenberg want to have balanced censorship. So, they’ve got balanced 50.

Because the rest of the candidates didn’t give answers to this question, I had to find another way for making decisions about them: Dan Rosenthal, Steve Smith, Relly Komaruzaman, Brady Brim-DeForest, Ralph Potdevin, Lourie Pieterse, Thomas Braun.

Dan was a candidate last year, so I tried to find a similar question from the previous elections, and, of course, I’ve found it. Dan gave last year the answer which I would give: “fuck off”+”try to understand that there are other cultures, too”. So, he is at the fifth place with score 2.

Steve Smith. He was the candidate last year, too. Nicely worded “fuck off”, so he will be together with Jussi-Ville at the sixth place with 3 points.

Relly Komaruzaman. This is the candidate who didn’t know what to state. 40 for participating in the race 🙂

Brady Brim-DeForest. Interesting and strong candidate. Unfortunatelly, I know approximately nothing about his involvement in Wikimedia projects. 10 points.

Ralph Potdevin. Weak statement, without any answer. 90. (I suppose that he would be better than Gregory and Kevin. It is really hard not to be.)

Lourie Pieterse. I know many 18 years old who would make much better statement than Lourie. Board elections are not about his dreams, but about our dreams. 95. Weak is better than dangerous.

Thomas Braun. Interesting. As with Brady, unfortunately, I know approximately nothing about his involvement in Wikimedia projects. 10 points.

~ by millosh on July 28, 2009.

13 Responses to “My votes”

  1. I’m not sure what you mean by “not introduced in his Wikimedian work”.

    This statement dessn’t really work in English. you might want to rephrase it.

  2. Thanks! I changed that with “I know approximately nothing about his involvement in Wikimedia projects”.

  3. milosh, it was interesting to see my position on “having information shown where appropriate” as censorship. the current problem is that content gets tagged in interesting ways, including fetish or exhibitionist images in generic categories.

    it isn’t censorship, it is question of classification – and I already said, it is better us carrying that information, than others, for people who search for it.

    is that censorship?

  4. The problem with “the rest of you” (except four candidates which I mentioned) is that I don’t know a lot about your positions and that I am reading what did you write there (as well as a lot of voters are doing that).

    I’ve read your answer again.

    * The context of the question is very clear: One person who tried a couple of times to *censor* Wikipedia asked the question and you are aware of that.
    * You haven’t stated anything in relation to censorship.
    * You didn’t define what “shocking pictures” are for you.
    * So, when you are talking about them in this context, I am reading that “shocking pictures” for you are photos which present anal sex in the article about anal sex. And if it is so, it is a censorship.

    If it is not your position, you should explain your position better (in your answer). There are enough of time for other voters. Also, I’ll write another blog post about your position (and correct this one).

  5. ello
    ur comprehension of my answers to the Wikimedia candidacy questions is a misrepresentation of my view. i do not condone or encourage censorship as a rule. but if somebody was put in danger thru media coverage I stand by the case-specific employ of a media blackout. but i do uphold that we need to preserve children’s innocence and make wikipedia a save place for children as well as ensuring it is an environment where children may secure information that informs their emerging views and current or future sexual practice…

  6. This is censorship which target children at the age when they need sexual education.

  7. well, my position actually enforces having ‘anal sex’ images in ‘anal sex’ articles. what I suggest, is that the community should always take best effort to avoid shocking juxta-positions (e.g. consider gray areas in should anal sex image be in sex article? and obvious ones – leather fetishists shouldn’t be in “leather” article 🙂

  8. […] My position toward Domas and according to this answer was: […]

  9. Hi Millosh,

    Thanks for the reasonably high ranking.


    Steve Smith

  10. Hey, I appreciate you taking the time to spell out your thought process, it’s interesting to me. I know you’ve already voted, but you ever want to know anything else about me, just ask!

  11. If I remember well, both of you (Steve and Adam) are English Wikipedians. The main problem with my positioning toward both of you is that you are not so active inside of the global community, which is necessary for being serious candidates for the WMF Board.

    (Unlike both of you, Dan and Domas are active. However, in the case of Dan I don’t know a lot about his Wikimedian work, but I like his positions, while the situation with Domas somewhat opposite: I know about his [MediaWiki] work, but I am not quite happy with his Board membership. But, because of that both of them are above you in my voting.)

    So, if you don’t pass this elections, you’ll have two years for higher involvement in global issues. Find what do you like to work and join to the relevant Wikimedian group (some committee or whatever). If you want some advices about that, email me (

  12. Hi Millosh – you’re correct that most of my involvement has been with the English Wikipedia, though I’ve also done a fair bit on the Commons and am dipping my toe into the English Wikisource a bit. As far as offline stuff goes, I haven’t particularly seen anything where I think my involvement would be useful and where I would enjoy it – I am monitoring the formation of a Wikimedia Canada chapter via its mailing list, but nothing has jumped out at me as something where I should be involved. Besides that, at this point my schedule is such that if I get more involved in one aspect of the WMF I’m going to be less involved in another.



  13. Millosh, it looks like you’ll be getting the Board of Directors that “free love”, “free spirit”, “free culture”, “free pedophilia” folks like yourself deserve. Congratulations!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: