>From some voting in no.wp it seems like it takes some time for the real trends to kick in. If the voting is open for a to short period only the most eager users will vote and the result will be biased.
John Brian skrev: > On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Michael Snow <[email protected]> wrote: > >> phoebe ayers wrote: >>> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Robert Rohde <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:20 AM, Marco Chiesa <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>>> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:54 AM, Robert Rohde <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>>>> The licensing update poll has been tallied. >>>>>> >>>>>> "Yes, I am in favor of this change" : 13242 (75.8%) >>>>>> "No, I am opposed to this change" : 1829 (10.5%) >>>>>> "I do not have an opinion on this change" : 2391 (13.7%) >>>>>> >>>>>> Total ballots cast and certified: 17462 >>>>>> >>>>> I think this is a very good result, in particular the turnout looks >> great to me! >>>>> Congratulations to all who have worked hard to get to it, and I hope >>>>> there will be a board resolution soon. >>>>> >>>> As was commented on elsewhere, the 2008 Board Election only had 3019 >>>> votes, which also suggests the turnout this time was remarkable. >>>> >>> Yes -- I think this is definitely the largest group of Wikimedians to >>> ever collectively express an opinion on anything! It'd be worth >>> figuring out why the vote was successful, if possible (long period of >>> voting? ubiquitous sitenotices? Important topic? Lots of outside >>> interest?) >>> >> Deliberately low threshold for eligibility. >> >> --Michael Snow > > > And yet the "threshold for eligibility" hypothesis has not been tested on > the projects. You have no idea whether allowing only those with the most > biased opinions to vote (as most project votes are conducted) skews the > outcome towards or away from the rational or optimal choice, or whether it > has any effect on the outcome at all. Indeed, we have no idea whether the > wording or presentation or usability of the votes matters. It could matter a > great deal, changing the outcome in a statistically significant matter, or > it could matter not at all, rendering the threshold for eligibility > hypothesis meaningless. The current methods amount to folk statistics > because nobody has any clue what matters and what doesn't. That's why I > continue to encourage the WMF to adopt scientific thinking. > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
