Last modified: 2014-01-28 23:25:35 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia has migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports should be created and updated in Wikimedia Phabricator instead. Please create an account in Phabricator and add your Bugzilla email address to it.
Wikimedia Bugzilla is read-only. If you try to edit or create any bug report in Bugzilla you will be shown an intentional error message.
In order to access the Phabricator task corresponding to a Bugzilla report, just remove "static-" from its URL.
You could still run searches in Bugzilla or access your list of votes but bug reports will obviously not be up-to-date in Bugzilla.
Bug 23727 - Extend SecurePoll to allow voters to enter optional comments in some polls
Extend SecurePoll to allow voters to enter optional comments in some polls
Status: NEW
Product: MediaWiki extensions
Classification: Unclassified
SecurePoll (Other open bugs)
unspecified
All All
: Low enhancement with 1 vote (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2010-05-31 09:26 UTC by FT2
Modified: 2014-01-28 23:25 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Attachments

Description FT2 2010-05-31 09:26:29 UTC
In some polls, it is desirable and useful to allow participants to enter comments with their vote. The poll configuration would indicate whether a comment was ( for each vote | for the vote as a whole | not at all) 

and whether comments could be seen ( by everyone after the election | by election monitors only | by the candidates for their own votes )

Rationale: In some !votes it is desirable to consider the rationale for votes as well as the pure vote count. A lot of discussions on-wiki work that way. Switching to SecurePoll allows privacy and simplicity, but also removes that option. So votes where the result is to some extent not a matter of pure numbers suffer when moved to SecurePoll or cannot be run on that extension.

Quick examples from enwiki, which uses it internally: - 

At a recent CU/OS election almost all candidates polled at under the "minimum level", an unsatisfactory result. Not having any comments, it was impossible to interpret what went on and therefore approaches to improve matters lacked any information what happened.

At RFA the "pass level" is 70 - 80%. SecurePoll could handle RFAs in voting terms, but as a crat needs to be able to assess reasons not just vote count the extension would be inadequate to the task even if the community wished to use it.

Comments would be disabled by default so elections and polls not requiring them, would run without them. However other elections and polls could benefit from a comment capability, and it could allow SecurePoll to be wider used.
Comment 1 FT2 2010-06-01 09:58:41 UTC
If comments were stored then SecurePoll would probably have to provide the existing votes and comments when a user wished to update their vote. Re-entering all votes just to change one was already a nuisance; if comments are kept then that adds value to it.
Comment 2 FT2 2010-06-02 13:57:54 UTC
Can we also have a "no vote" option as well as "neutral" - they may be technically equivalent but in practice they mean different things:

Neutral tends to mean "I wish to express that I am fine either way", "no vote" tends to mean "I wanted to vote for some candidates but do not wish to cast a vote on others". 

On SecurePoll votes the neutral count is considerably higher implying a lot of people with an indifferent view; in on-wiki votes neutral tends to be an affirmative decision and carries significance, it is not purely an absence of a vote in each case.
Comment 3 Bugmeister Bot 2011-08-19 19:12:59 UTC
Unassigning default assignments. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical/54734

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.


Navigation
Links