"Gregory Kohs" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Both of these previous assessments I conducted for free. No more. I > would > actually enjoy (as I've e-mailed you privately) expanding the scope of my > latter study to include perhaps 200 new articles. But, that work on my > part > will cost the Foundation a $1,000 stipend. That's a bargain for such a > study. Or, you can try to find a volunteer who will do it for a barnstar, > but they might botch the sampling design.
Do you have appropriate means to demonstrate that you necessarily *won't* botch the sampling design? I'm sure that the number of people on this list and within Wikimedia who have the appropriate qualifications to perform a statistically-valid study, and the lack of incorrigible pessimism that would allow them to not make a political gesture out of it, is considerable. However, they seem to have better things to do with their time than take cheap shots on a mailing list. "Wikimedia Foundation spends donor's cash on solicited contract work from tradesman with unproven credentials. Rightful outrage." It's all in the way you say it. --HM _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
