Hoi, When this study hits the Washington Post and we look at it and consider it a bunch of lies, we are to blame when we did not speak up when we had the chance to do so.
When you consider peer review, it is always done after the fact. It is much better to have input before a study is started. Those issues that are obvious can be addressed before time and money is wasted. It also leads to better science.
If there is one study I would like to see done, is a wikipedia with a large ex-pat community and see how that affects the NPOV of the project.
Thanks, Gerard
On 3/21/07, Steve subsume@gmail.com wrote:
Sure, Gerard. =)
I don't think either of us know enough about the study to make long guesses/judgments about its methods. While I definitely think the points you make are valid and better than most, whether or not it applies to this study remains to be seen. While WP-l is a good place to get into lengthy debates, its all premature.
Until of course we see the study cited in the Washington Post. Then we'll all get together and talk about what a bunch of lies it is. =)
-Steve
On 3/21/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Steve please tell me /why /I am wrong in stead of resorting to a personal attack, not nice.
Thanks, for your recommendation to Harvard. However, given that I am of an age that working is more likely than studying, I hope that your recommendation is also good for Google.. :)
Thanks, GerardM
Steve schreef:
By golly I suppose you'd better just call Michigan State University and tell them the bad news.
Surely, when they read this INTERNET CONVERSATION they will surely see their folly in conducting this study. Gerard I think you'd better contact Harvard, too. Keeping your great wisdom from them is inhumane.
-S
On 3/21/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Given that the argument why only American people were included was
the
cost of international telephony, your argument sucks. By restricting
the
study to the United States it is explicitly about Wikipedia usage in
the
United States. When you want to come to a conclusion on any subject
with
respect to policies in the English language Wikipedia, the result
will
not reflect how this project works.
When you study left handed people, you will find only what is only
true
to left handed people by comparing the results to right handed
people.
Thanks, GerardM
Robert Brockway schreef:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
US Wikipedians will probably all be working on the English language Wikipedia. It means that all the skills and experience associated
with
small communities, working on an encyclopaedia that does not cover
all
subject matter. Working on languages where the community it is done
for
does not know what Wikipedia is, it is that experience that will be missing. In that way it will hardly cover the breadth of Wikipedia.
He doesn't claim to be attempting to cover the breadth of Wikipedia. Implicit in the post is that it concerns Wikipedia usage in the
United
States.
I find it is common for people to mistake limits placed on a study
with a
bias in the study. Let me give another example that might make this clearer. If a study concerns left handed people (one of the most
commonly
studied groups) then failing to include non-left handed people is
not a
bias in the study, it is a function of the limits of a
study. Similarly
if a study wanted only left handed US residents then the study would
be
about left handed US residents. This does not imply any bias in the study. Any study worthy of the name will go in to great detail when
it
comes to methodology of subject selection and any subsequent testing
that
is done.
It will be great when smaller WP communities are studied too but
this
study clearly isn't doing that.
Cheers,
Rob
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l