Hi,
http://www.allourideas.org/wikidev17-product-technology-questions is closed for new questions but still open for votes until the end of Thursday. A couple of new questions were added in the past days. Please contribute a couple of minutes submitting some more votes!
The results so far: http://www.allourideas.org/wikidev17-product-technology-questions/results
On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 3:26 AM, Gergo Tisza gtisza@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 12:45 AM, Quim Gil qgil@wikimedia.org wrote:
The questions for this session are being crowdsourced at http://www.allourideas.org/wikidev17-product-technology-questions.
Anyone
can propose questions and vote, anonymously, as many times as you want.
At
the moment, we have 25 questions and 451 votes.
An important technical detail: questions posted later have also good chances to make it to the top of the list as long as new voters select them. The ranking is made out of comparisons between questions, not accumulation of votes. For instance, the current top question is in fact one of the last that has been submitted so far.
Right now the top question has a score of 70 based on 88 votes; the second question has a score of 67 based on 1 vote. (This is not some super-rare accident, either: number 8 and 9 on the popularity list both have 4 votes.)
Right now the top 10 have questions that have received as low as 8-15 votes and as high as 80-101. These numbers will be more balanced if/when more people vote this week.
I will not attempt to make a big fuss over participation theories, but IMHO Wikimedia processes are quite biased towards What Is Said By Who Talks First. This is a humble and harmless experiment in a different direction. While seeing a question with eight votes among the top 10 defies the traditional democracy paradigm, it also means that an idea that came later had any chance over those who were submitted early on.
At the end what counts is the final result of the experiment. Regardless of the numbers, I think the current list makes sense, and I in fact it has been making sense all along since its second day or so.
That means that the scores can be heavily underspecified (ie. mostly result from the random numbers generated by their algorithm and not actual votes)
Well, I am not sure. If a question with eight votes is among the top ten, it probably means that it has been systematically preferred over other questions scoring similarly high.
Currently the very last question has only two votes, which means that the same algorithm that can put new questions in the top segment can also bury them down.
The solution to these potential biases is simple: more opinions submitted by more people, which is the basis of any healthy group participation.
Gergo, I am not saying you are wrong (you have clearly done more research than myself). I am just saying that I don't think choosing this tool for this purpose was a wrong idea either. :)