On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. <snip>
1 beats 4: 69% 4 beats 1: 21% 1 not ranked: 0.9% 4 not ranked: 4.4% neither ranked: 4.4% -Robert Rohde _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
