On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Marco Chiesa
<chiesa.marco(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Anthony
<wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
And yes, 80% of people ranked one of 4 options
which I consider
unacceptable
first. But then, 67% of people would have done so even if everyone chose
their answers randomly.
Now, how many of the 20% who wants their name cited would have given the
same response to something like: "Would you be happy to piss everyone off
if
your name does not appear in a list of about 100 authors of a Wikipedia
article cited by Xyz?"
Not clear. That question wasn't asked.
In fact, it's not clear that only 20% want their name cited. If you ranked
"full list of authors must always be copied" second, does that mean that you
expect all authors to be listed, but just that you expect something else
more, or does it mean that you don't expect all authors to be listed at
all? It's not clear. The survey methodology was horrible.
Far be it for me to disagree with survey results that back up my
position on attribution :) ... but I actually agree with Anthony on
this one. This is a very small, self-selected sample; there would be
no harm or cost associated with turning it on for a much larger
percentage (or all) of logged-in users on the top-ten languages, not
just English or German alone, which both have peculiarities associated
with being the largest Wikipedia communities. I agree also there was
not a middle-ground option for those who think only the top (no matter
how that gets determined) authors should be attributed. On the other
hand, I can't recall for sure what the questions said, because I can't
see them, having already taken the survey... is there a meta page with
the questions somewhere?
I know there's time pressure on this... but on the other hand, we've
waited years :) It would be worthwhile to get better stats before
making sweeping generalizations about the community's desires.
-- Phoebe