Tonight's first candidate is Mindspillage, better known as Kat Walsh. I've previously stated that Kat is one of only two Board members who enjoys my complete trust. I was becoming somewhat worried that I would have to write a negative review of her based on a lack of answers on her questions page, but apparently she's had a burst of activity in the past couple of days, and her questions page is now mostly answered. Nonetheless, I still have some trepidations about Kat as a candidate, and my endorsement of her will not be nearly so clear-cut as was mine of Michael Snow.
Kat is one of the two people who I identify as personal mentors on Wikipedia (the other being Seth Anthony). Kat has consistently shown wisdom and careful thought in what she has had to say. My main problem with Kat is that she is too passive for my taste. Objectively, this is probably actually a positive characteristic, though; I am, myself, a terribly rash and impulsive person, and I tend to chafe at people who can merely stand by and watch in situations where I would not be able to resist acting. I consider Kat to be too reluctant to act by my standards, but I suppose my standards are perhaps not the best to use for such an evaluation. On the other hand, Kat herself acknowledges that she "stand[s] back where [she] should say something", so perhaps I am not entirely off-base here. Anyway, it remains that my main complaint about Kat is that she is too "timid", to use her own words for it.
Kat is popular and has stepped on relatively few (but certainly not none). The fact that her name is behind the recent resolution (which I drafted) that requires certain Wikimedia volunteers to be of legal majority and identified to the Foundation has probably cost her some support from the hard-core anonymists and certain others who feel squeezed out by this. Overall, she should get reasonably good support and stands a fair, but not great, chance of reelection.
Kat is one of the two people who I identify as personal mentors on Wikipedia (the other being Seth Anthony). Kat has consistently shown wisdom and careful thought in what she has had to say. My main problem with Kat is that she is too passive for my taste. Objectively, this is probably actually a positive characteristic, though; I am, myself, a terribly rash and impulsive person, and I tend to chafe at people who can merely stand by and watch in situations where I would not be able to resist acting. I consider Kat to be too reluctant to act by my standards, but I suppose my standards are perhaps not the best to use for such an evaluation. On the other hand, Kat herself acknowledges that she "stand[s] back where [she] should say something", so perhaps I am not entirely off-base here. Anyway, it remains that my main complaint about Kat is that she is too "timid", to use her own words for it.
Kat is popular and has stepped on relatively few (but certainly not none). The fact that her name is behind the recent resolution (which I drafted) that requires certain Wikimedia volunteers to be of legal majority and identified to the Foundation has probably cost her some support from the hard-core anonymists and certain others who feel squeezed out by this. Overall, she should get reasonably good support and stands a fair, but not great, chance of reelection.
I like Kat's answers..very thoughtful and well reasoned. While the delay was unfortunate, I don't think it ought to be crippling to her candidacy...so does anyone understand what ax MatthewFenton has to grind?
ReplyDeleteI do not understand your concern about the timing of Kat's answers.
ReplyDeleteAs she wrote, she spent the last week at a conference. It appears that right after returning she caught up. At the same time many other candidates still have a substantial number of unanswered questions, even now.
To me this sounds like just another example of RFA vote counting. All your focus is on the quantity of answers, and even after any real quantity issue has been resolved you still pay no attention to the substance of her answers. I thought you opposed that sort of reasoning?
Of course, ... it is much less fun to comment on her answers since there is almost nothing to critique about them, and certainly nothing you could slam her for in them.
I also think you completely missed the real factors which will cost her the election:
1) She's an American, one living in the nations capitol none the less. English Wikipedian vote turnout with respect to other languages is at an all time low. English has always been under represented in board elections, but this year it is much worse and anti-american sentiments are at an all time high. With Kat off the board and Yann, Erik, Oscar on, Jimbo will remain the only visible American on the board.
2) She isn't a part of the latest drama. It is hard for anyone watching the discussion to avoid feeling either strongly for Danny and against Erik and Oscar or strongly against Danny and for Erik and Oscar. As far as I can tell Kat isn't involved in that, and since most people probably have deep feelings on this latest drama, they aren't going to want to waste their vote supporting her and miss their chance to show Danny how they feel.
3) It would be hard to claim that Kat is trying to gain a position through sex appeal, excessive self-promotion, or other pure-campaigning activities for which you have faulted others. So, she doesn't get your black marks there, but the reality is that those actions drive votes. What is the value of a pure candidate who will never get elected?
4) Kat makes it clear that her focus is on long range preservation of freedom, community, and organizational values rather than the latest fad initiatives. I just don't see Wikipedia's typical 20 year old know-it-all editors appreciating that value of long range, highly principled thinking, careful action, and an understated non-confrontational style.
Kelly, I think you could do better. Perhaps you'd care to do a deeper analysis of low English turnout?
This post reads to me as a great endorsement.
ReplyDeleteHaving a light hand on a wiki is a wonderful thing. I think it is a great practice to do in the ExperiencedInteractionWithInexperience sense.
Best, MarkDilley