After 25 days, 40 questions, and 2480 votes, the results are...
Thank you to all participants. This experiment has been very interesting so
far. The Q&A session will happen next Tuesday at 9:30am Pacific, and there
will be a live-broadcast.
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Quim Gil <qgil(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hi,
http://www.allourideas.org/wikidev17-product-technology-questions is
closed for new questions but still open for votes until the end of
Thursday. A couple of new questions were added in the past days. Please
contribute a couple of minutes submitting some more votes!
The results so far:
http://www.allourideas.org/wikidev17-product-
technology-questions/results
On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 3:26 AM, Gergo Tisza <gtisza(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 12:45 AM, Quim Gil
<qgil(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Anyone
can propose questions and vote, anonymously, as
many times as you want.
At
the moment, we have 25 questions and 451 votes.
An important technical detail: questions posted later have also good
chances to make it to the top of the list as long as new voters select
them. The ranking is made out of comparisons between questions, not
accumulation of votes. For instance, the current top question is in fact
one of the last that has been submitted so far.
Right now the top question has a score of 70 based on 88 votes; the second
question has a score of 67 based on 1 vote. (This is not some super-rare
accident, either: number 8 and 9 on the popularity list both have 4
votes.)
Right now the top 10 have questions that have received as low as 8-15
votes and as high as 80-101. These numbers will be more balanced if/when
more people vote this week.
I will not attempt to make a big fuss over participation theories, but
IMHO Wikimedia processes are quite biased towards What Is Said By Who Talks
First. This is a humble and harmless experiment in a different direction.
While seeing a question with eight votes among the top 10 defies the
traditional democracy paradigm, it also means that an idea that came later
had any chance over those who were submitted early on.
At the end what counts is the final result of the experiment. Regardless
of the numbers, I think the current list makes sense, and I in fact it has
been making sense all along since its second day or so.
That means that the scores can be heavily
underspecified (ie. mostly
result
from the random numbers generated by their algorithm and not actual votes)
Well, I am not sure. If a question with eight votes is among the top ten,
it probably means that it has been systematically preferred over other
questions scoring similarly high.
Currently the very last question has only two votes, which means that the
same algorithm that can put new questions in the top segment can also bury
them down.
The solution to these potential biases is simple: more opinions submitted
by more people, which is the basis of any healthy group participation.
Gergo, I am not saying you are wrong (you have clearly done more research
than myself). I am just saying that I don't think choosing this tool for
this purpose was a wrong idea either. :)
--
Quim Gil
Engineering Community Manager @ Wikimedia Foundation
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil