Editing WebCite
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 298: | Line 298: | ||
:::The removal of tools may be a different situation: actual experience gives people a more balanced view of the pros and the cons so the situation is asymmetric. Regardless, I think a "keep the features" bias still existed ''for'' the feedback tools but tools themselves were so strongly disliked that support from the bias wasn't enough to ultimately keep the tools. (The effect of bias can be a subtle thing to discuss.) Back to the introduction of tools.... The ''introduction'' of the feedback tools did seem to have elements consistent with my view. A lot of people seemed to be quick to view the tools as some great idea but didn't seem to have considered its flaws and drawbacks to the extent they should have. The Wikidata and Wikivoyage discussions also exhibited fairly overwhelming support with many one-sided comments that I think demonstrates the bias. Valid criticisms do not seem to get their fair shake in those discussions. Sure, arguments could be made that the large support is directly related to the merits of the proposals themselves but I think this is an over-simplification. Every statistician knows not to wonder ''if'' bias exists in polls but rather to what extent it does. What I am suggesting is that reliable interpretation of support from these straw polls may be different from other consensus-establishing situations like article content disputes. The meaning of "sufficient support" is clearly an idea worth investigating. Without studies to fall back on either way, the only thing we have to go on is intuition and conclusions drawn from personal experience. In my experience, it is clear that this bias is at work. Lastly, if there's one thing I know for ''sure'', it's that sources of bias are not given much credence in these straw polls. A well-known source of bias is position in a list for a list of items to vote on. In the feedback tools, it's remarkable that GregJackP's position did as well as it did considering it was ''buried'' in the list. I take it as an unassailable given that straw polls have not been conducted in a scientifically rigorous manner on Wikipedia. The current discussion is just about one facet of that. [[User:Jason Quinn|Jason Quinn]] ([[User talk:Jason Quinn|talk]]) 08:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
:::The removal of tools may be a different situation: actual experience gives people a more balanced view of the pros and the cons so the situation is asymmetric. Regardless, I think a "keep the features" bias still existed ''for'' the feedback tools but tools themselves were so strongly disliked that support from the bias wasn't enough to ultimately keep the tools. (The effect of bias can be a subtle thing to discuss.) Back to the introduction of tools.... The ''introduction'' of the feedback tools did seem to have elements consistent with my view. A lot of people seemed to be quick to view the tools as some great idea but didn't seem to have considered its flaws and drawbacks to the extent they should have. The Wikidata and Wikivoyage discussions also exhibited fairly overwhelming support with many one-sided comments that I think demonstrates the bias. Valid criticisms do not seem to get their fair shake in those discussions. Sure, arguments could be made that the large support is directly related to the merits of the proposals themselves but I think this is an over-simplification. Every statistician knows not to wonder ''if'' bias exists in polls but rather to what extent it does. What I am suggesting is that reliable interpretation of support from these straw polls may be different from other consensus-establishing situations like article content disputes. The meaning of "sufficient support" is clearly an idea worth investigating. Without studies to fall back on either way, the only thing we have to go on is intuition and conclusions drawn from personal experience. In my experience, it is clear that this bias is at work. Lastly, if there's one thing I know for ''sure'', it's that sources of bias are not given much credence in these straw polls. A well-known source of bias is position in a list for a list of items to vote on. In the feedback tools, it's remarkable that GregJackP's position did as well as it did considering it was ''buried'' in the list. I take it as an unassailable given that straw polls have not been conducted in a scientifically rigorous manner on Wikipedia. The current discussion is just about one facet of that. [[User:Jason Quinn|Jason Quinn]] ([[User talk:Jason Quinn|talk]]) 08:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
||
::::@Jason, thank you for bringing up this issue. It is certainly a valid concern and one that we should be aware of. But as you said this is a general concern—unrelated to this (or any) specific proposal, wouldn't it be better to post it at the [[Wikimedia Forum]] rather than tacked on to the end of this proposal? [[Special:Contributions/64.40.54.1|64.40.54.1]] 12:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC) |
::::@Jason, thank you for bringing up this issue. It is certainly a valid concern and one that we should be aware of. But as you said this is a general concern—unrelated to this (or any) specific proposal, wouldn't it be better to post it at the [[Wikimedia Forum]] rather than tacked on to the end of this proposal? [[Special:Contributions/64.40.54.1|64.40.54.1]] 12:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC) |
||
:::::Once upon a time and upon a small organization I belong(ed?) to there was a vote amongst some 10-20 people whether we should engage in "project X" or not. The vote was a overwhelming 80-90% yes! Then people were asked to get their hands on it. One person volunteered. And thus the project ended. (It was a fine idea, but resources are often scarce - even here) - [[User:Nabla|Nabla]] ([[User talk:Nabla|talk]]) 11:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
===WebCite being taken over by WMF not realistic - give them money=== |
===WebCite being taken over by WMF not realistic - give them money=== |
||