On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 11:32 PM, Milos Rancic <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 4:46 AM, Erik Moeller <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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, this is not relevant because two options were non-options, so in > the opposite case third-to-last is also relevant. If you want to draw the line at "controversial", fourth-to-last is also relevant, since "link to history" is nearly as controversial as "link to article". Of course, then you have a mixture between people who intended to rank "link to article" as third best, not fourth worst. You really can't draw conclusions from anything other than the pairwise results (and, like I said, even that is potentially misleading if people want multiple forms of attribution, such as a link to the article *and* a list of authors, or credit to Wikipedia *and* a list of authors). I guess it'll become more clear when the binary decision comes up for vote: GFDL, or link to "any transparent copy that includes the same licensing and authorship information as the Wikipedia.org" (which wasn't even one of the choices), presumably. My guess, looking at the heads-up results, 80/20 in favor of the later. If it turns out to be closer to 96/4, I'd be quite surprised. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
