On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Gregory Kohs <[email protected]> wrote:
> Nathan said: > > "...but certainly its (sic) more informative than a Wikipedia Review > analysis of a relatively small group of articles in a specific topic area." > > And you are certainly entitled to a flawed opinion based on incorrect > assumptions, such as ours being a "Wikipedia Review" analysis. But, nice > try at a red herring argument. > > Greg > Well, you can understand where I would get that idea - since the URL you provided had "Wikipedia Review members" performing the research, until you changed it a few minutes ago. http://www.mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Vandalism_Study&diff=90806&oldid=89479 My point (which might still be incorrect, of course) was that an analysis based on 30,000 randomly selected pages was more informative about the English Wikipedia than 100 articles about serving United States Senators. Nathan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
