I'm wondering what the opinions of "influential Wikipedians" are regarding this MSNBC poll that shows 40% of over a thousand people think like I do?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16795533/
Clearly, I'm in the minority, but it's certainly not a small minority. I would also love to learn (if it were only possible) what the demographics are of those who responded "No way" versus those who responded "Sure". I would venture a guess that the average age and household income of those saying "Sure" is higher than those who say "No way".
Also, I'd like to mention here to Guy Chapman that he's either deleting/ignoring the three civilly-worded e-mails I have sent him, or he's not getting them whatsoever. Geni did me a favor and e-mailed Guy, too -- but I've not heard back from either of them. Guy, care to comment about whether you're "taking" correspondence at your spamcop address?
Gregory Kohs wrote:
I'm wondering what the opinions of "influential Wikipedians" are regarding this MSNBC poll that shows 40% of over a thousand people think like I do?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16795533/
Clearly, I'm in the minority, but it's certainly not a small minority. I would also love to learn (if it were only possible) what the demographics are of those who responded "No way" versus those who responded "Sure". I would venture a guess that the average age and household income of those saying "Sure" is higher than those who say "No way".
Also, I'd like to mention here to Guy Chapman that he's either deleting/ignoring the three civilly-worded e-mails I have sent him, or he's not getting them whatsoever. Geni did me a favor and e-mailed Guy, too -- but I've not heard back from either of them. Guy, care to comment about whether you're "taking" correspondence at your spamcop address?
I voted "What's Wikipedia"?
In unrelated news, 87.3% of statistics are misleading.
-Gurch
On 01/02/07, Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
I'm wondering what the opinions of "influential Wikipedians" are regarding this MSNBC poll that shows 40% of over a thousand people think like I do? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16795533/
My opinion is that self-selected samples are statistically bogus and inherently meaningless. In the press, they are mostly for amusement value. See [[self-selection]].
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 01/02/07, Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
I'm wondering what the opinions of "influential Wikipedians" are regarding this MSNBC poll that shows 40% of over a thousand people think like I do? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16795533/
My opinion is that self-selected samples are statistically bogus and inherently meaningless. In the press, they are mostly for amusement value. See [[self-selection]].
Pretty much. I would say this privately, but it's worth saying publically - Gregory, you know that I don't disagree with your position as a whole, but you're not going to win over your critics with this sort of thing.
-Jeff
Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
I'm wondering what the opinions of "influential Wikipedians" are regarding this MSNBC poll that shows 40% of over a thousand people think like I do?
There wasn't a vote for, "Can you phrase the question to be more misleading?"
"Is it ok to pay people to post or edit Wikipedia content?" - I'd say it's easy to have wrongly interpreted that to be a question about whether it's OK for Wikipedia to hire editors/posters. If you phrase it as, is it OK for companies to insert undisclosed ads and PR into articles, you'll get very different survey results.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
On 2/1/07, Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
There wasn't a vote for, "Can you phrase the question to be more misleading?"
"Is it ok to pay people to post or edit Wikipedia content?"
- I'd say it's easy to have wrongly interpreted that to be
a question about whether it's OK for Wikipedia to hire editors/posters. If you phrase it as, is it OK for companies to insert undisclosed ads and PR into articles, you'll get very different survey results.
Too true. More often than not, it's all in how we phrase a question. Their choice was rather ambiguous on the count of who was doing the paying.
Personally, I heard a story of a company that had paid somebody to check up on their article, now and then -- just to make sure it wasn't vandalized and nobody was saying *blatantly* crappy and false stuff about them. The guy wasn't supposed to make any substantive edits, only to make sure nothing too untoward happened to the article. *That* doesn't bother me, provided they stay with really clear-cut cases like that.
Paid editors can be neutral (take journalists and news reporters, for example), but being paid (or even employed in the long term) by the very subject of your writing poses an obvious and inherent conflict of interest. It may be possible to write neutrally in such circumstances, but it would have to be the exception to the rule, for one to be able to do so.
-Luna
Cheney Shill wrote:
Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
I'm wondering what the opinions of "influential Wikipedians" are regarding this MSNBC poll that shows 40% of over a thousand people think like I do?
There wasn't a vote for, "Can you phrase the question to be more misleading?"
I missed the "have you stopped beating your wife yet" vote, too.
On 2/1/07, Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
I'm wondering what the opinions of "influential Wikipedians" are regarding this MSNBC poll that shows 40% of over a thousand people think like I do?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16795533/
Clearly, I'm in the minority, but it's certainly not a small minority.
Yes you are. See the people voteing it was ok were thinking about people like danny not you.
On 2/1/07, Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
I'm wondering what the opinions of "influential Wikipedians" are regarding this MSNBC poll that shows 40% of over a thousand people think like I do?
My opinion is that the poll provides no protection against ballot-stuffing.
On 2/1/07, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/1/07, Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
I'm wondering what the opinions of "influential Wikipedians" are regarding this MSNBC poll that shows 40% of over a thousand people think like I do?
My opinion is that the poll provides no protection against ballot-stuffing.
Sure it does! It probably sets a cookie! You know, a cookie! Those delicios delicacies that are the ultimate protection against everything!
Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/1/07, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
My opinion is that the poll provides no protection
against ballot-stuffing.
Sure it does! It probably sets a cookie! You know, a cookie! Those delicios delicacies that are the ultimate protection against everything!
Mmmmm. Sure you don't want to mention a brand name. You know, some taste better. And pay better too!
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
The Current stats are No way. The beauty of the site is that it's policed by volunteers who keep it PR-free. *57*% Sure. Everyone, paid or volunteer, has trouble staying neutral. *39*% What's Wikipedia? *4.1*%
On 2/1/07, Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
I'm wondering what the opinions of "influential Wikipedians" are regarding this MSNBC poll that shows 40% of over a thousand people think like I do?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16795533/
Clearly, I'm in the minority, but it's certainly not a small minority. I would also love to learn (if it were only possible) what the demographics are of those who responded "No way" versus those who responded "Sure". I would venture a guess that the average age and household income of those saying "Sure" is higher than those who say "No way".
Also, I'd like to mention here to Guy Chapman that he's either deleting/ignoring the three civilly-worded e-mails I have sent him, or he's not getting them whatsoever. Geni did me a favor and e-mailed Guy, too -- but I've not heard back from either of them. Guy, care to comment about whether you're "taking" correspondence at your spamcop address?
-- Gregory Kohs Cell: 302.463.1354 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
A poll by Microsoft asking if what they've just done is ok... would you blame me for being just a little sceptical about the validity of their methods?
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 12:10:29 -0500, "Gregory Kohs" thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
I'm wondering what the opinions of "influential Wikipedians" are regarding this MSNBC poll that shows 40% of over a thousand people think like I do?
I'm not influential, but my opinion is that you are beating the bloody smear where the dead horse once lay.
Guy (JzG)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Guy Chapman aka JzG stated for the record:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 12:10:29 -0500, "Gregory Kohs" thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
I'm wondering what the opinions of "influential Wikipedians" are regarding this MSNBC poll that shows 40% of over a thousand people think like I do?
I'm not influential, but my opinion is that you are beating the bloody smear where the dead horse once lay.
A stopped clock may be right twice a day, but it's still useless.
- -- Sean Barrett | A thunder of jets in an open sky, sean@epoptic.com | A streak of gray and a cheerful "Hi!" | A loop, a whirl, a vertical climb, | And once again you know it's time....
On 2/2/07, Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
I'm wondering what the opinions of "influential Wikipedians" are regarding this MSNBC poll that shows 40% of over a thousand people think like I do?
I think it ought to be trialled. We're all making a lot of assumptions about what would happen if paid editing were to occur. Why not do a trial on a couple of articles, and monitor but not interfere with the article over a period of a few months?
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 2/2/07, Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
I'm wondering what the opinions of "influential Wikipedians" are regarding this MSNBC poll that shows 40% of over a thousand people think like I do?
I think it ought to be trialled. We're all making a lot of assumptions about what would happen if paid editing were to occur. Why not do a trial on a couple of articles, and monitor but not interfere with the article over a period of a few months?
It would be totally unacceptable to take the position that an article being worked on by a paid editor could not be edited by anyone else during that time.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
I think it ought to be trialled. We're all making a lot of assumptions about what would happen if paid editing were to occur. Why not do a trial on a couple of articles, and monitor but not interfere with the article over a period of a few months?
It would be totally unacceptable to take the position that an article being worked on by a paid editor could not be edited by anyone else during that time.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Steve, but I rather assumed "interfere" in this context meant "block the editors who admit to being paid", not "allow others to edit the article too".
Personally, I'm rather in favor of such an experiment. It's not as if it could possibly make things that much worse than they already are.
On 2/5/07, Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, Steve, but I rather assumed "interfere" in this context meant "block the editors who admit to being paid", not "allow others to edit the article too".
I meant, let the normal process run its course, without interfering with the article simply because it was the trial one. If the article was about a mobile phone, you would expect to see edits from The Paid Editor (tm), some other mobile phone geeks, and a few randoms. Not hundreds of anti-paid-editors turning up and reverting every change.
Steve