On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 15:01, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
Milos, though we are on opposite sides in the image filter debate, I understand what you are saying - those who formulate a consultation survey with a view to getting a particular result are unlikely to want neutral input into the wording of the questions. But there are exceptions. I have seen research surveys that seemed to me slanted and intended to get a desired result, and also consultation exercises where those doing the consultation didn't care which side won providing that both sides saw them as fair and neutral.
The main problem here, no matter of the position of any of us, is scientific integrity, as we here stand here behind our decisions professionally. It is hard that we wouldn't note that the right name for that poll is "survey", not "referendum". It is also likely that we would suggest that if the readers are target, readers should be attracted, not editors with small number of edits. Both of those things would drive the issue beyond political decision: that it should be perceived as referendum.
In any event if I simply reply to John Vanderburg's question with "RCOM collectively was not consulted, though I don't know if any individual RCOM members were consulted about those questions." it is then up to others whether they encourage those doing similar similar exercises in the future to involve us first.
I am in favor of making joint statement on the line that we are willing to be asked about similar things.
BTW, I haven't noticed that any of us said that he or she was asked about the questions. (While I suppose that Dario and Steven could be asked as employees.)