On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 15:01, WereSpielChequers
<werespielchequers(a)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.)