On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Robert Rohde <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Robert Rohde <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: > > <snip> > >> A condorcet winner could probably be determined from the raw numbers, > though. > > <snip> > > > > Condorcet Ranking (for the enwiki data): > > > > 1) Link to the article must be given. > > 2) Collective credit (e.g. Wikipedia community). > > 3) Link to the version history must be given. > > 4) For online use: link. For other uses: full list of authors. > > 5) Full list of authors must always be copied. > > 6) No credit is needed. > > > > -Robert Rohde > > German data gave the same Condorcet ranking. > > -Robert Rohde > Cool. So, personally, I'd be interested in the head's up ranking of 1) vs. 4). There would be 5 possibilities: 1 beats 4, 4 beats 1, 1 not ranked, 4 not ranked, 1 and 4 both not ranked. The reason I wonder about this particular matchup is that I find 4 and 5 to be morally acceptable (but 4 beats 5), and 1 to be the obvious choice if moral considerations were to be ignored, so I wonder how strongly the preference of 1 over 4 is. Still doesn't answer the more important question, though, which is basically "how many contributors feel like they're being robbed if 1) gets implemented". _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
