2009/3/7 Thomas Dalton <[email protected]>: > I'm curious, why did you include options that aren't actually > available? No credit and credit to the community are clearly not in > keeping with the license, so knowing who would accept them isn't > particularly useful (although I'm not sure it hurts).
We tried to surface people's "true preference" for an attribution model. (While of course the provided options can't capture everything, the relatively low number of write-in options for additional attribution models suggests that respondents generally found their views represented somewhere in the continuum of given options.) People's true preferences should guide our thinking process, and if we clouded the available options with perceived or real constraints, we wouldn't be able to approximate the best feasible solution. It helps us to uncover both where people may be willing to compromise and where they may not be. For example, if the survey had shown community credit to be highly desired and not controversial at all, that would be interesting: We could have an informed conversation about whether we should try to accommodate that model after all. As it is, it's the second most popular first option, but with 15.29% ranking it as their second-to-last option, it's also somewhat polarizing. A link to the article, on the other hand, is the first or second option for more than 60% of respondents, and the last or second-to-last option for only 3.47%. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
