No subject

trends to kick in. If the voting is open for a to short period only the
most eager users will vote and the result will be biased.

John

Brian skrev:
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Michael Snow <wikipedia at verizon.net> wrote:
> 
>> phoebe ayers wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:20 AM, Marco Chiesa <chiesa.marco at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:54 AM, Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>> The licensing update poll has been tallied.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Yes, I am in favor of this change" :  13242 (75.8%)
>>>>>> "No, I am opposed to this change" :  1829 (10.5%)
>>>>>> "I do not have an opinion on this change" :  2391 (13.7%)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Total ballots cast and certified:  17462
>>>>>>
>>>>> I think this is a very good result, in particular the turnout looks
>> great to me!
>>>>> Congratulations to all who have worked hard to get to it, and I hope
>>>>> there will be a board resolution soon.
>>>>>
>>>> As was commented on elsewhere, the 2008 Board Election only had 3019
>>>> votes, which also suggests the turnout this time was remarkable.
>>>>
>>> Yes -- I think this is definitely the largest group of Wikimedians to
>>> ever collectively express an opinion on anything! It'd be worth
>>> figuring out why the vote was successful, if possible (long period of
>>> voting? ubiquitous sitenotices? Important topic? Lots of outside
>>> interest?)
>>>
>> Deliberately low threshold for eligibility.
>>
>> --Michael Snow
> 
> 
> And yet the "threshold for eligibility" hypothesis has not been tested on
> the projects. You have no idea whether allowing only those with the most
> biased opinions to vote (as most project votes are conducted) skews the
> outcome towards or away from the rational or optimal choice, or whether it
> has any effect on the outcome at all. Indeed, we have no idea whether the
> wording or presentation or usability of the votes matters. It could matter a
> great deal, changing the outcome in a statistically significant matter, or
> it could matter not at all, rendering the threshold for eligibility
> hypothesis meaningless. The current methods amount to folk statistics
> because nobody has any clue what matters and what doesn't. That's why I
> continue to encourage the WMF to adopt scientific thinking.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>