> > On Wednesday 13 Apr 2011 17:27:40 Matthew Toseland wrote: > > On Wednesday 13 Apr 2011 14:13:29 Ian Clarke wrote: > > > http://freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=383&report=97 > > > > > > These guys did extensive surveys in various countries. Freenet came > out > > > on-top in China. Might be worth a news story on the website. > > > > How the hell do we get 5 stars on ease of use *and* on performance, in > subjective ratings from Chinese users? IMHO neither is credible. > > > > Something very fishy here. Is there another Freenet out there? Is the > freenet-china still up? I don't get the impression that we have a huge > community of chinese speakers on the main Freenet, at least if there is it's > somewhat invisible? > > > > Note that the evaluations from other countries are much lower. And > there's no direct analysis of Freenet in their larger paper. Although the > Chinese seem to be ideal for Freenet in that they tend to have both home PCs > *and* broadband (even if it doesn't generally allow for 24x7 operation as > it's usually time limited). Also maybe they're a bit geekier than the rest? > > > > The spread of evaluations is relatively narrow on most of their graphs > mind you ... > > > > Also, expect trouble from the censors if they read this. E.g. blocking > the seednodes... the chinese numbers might just reflect the fact that there > have increasingly been difficulties accessing Google lately, and Tor has > been mostly blocked - so in terms of objective performance, until the > Chinese block our seednodes we may well be the best option for *getting a > connection of some kind*. > > > > I'm not sure how their questionnaire that these numbers are supposedly > based on fits with Freenet, it asks about blocked websites... Maybe it's an > artefact of the survey design? > > > http://freenet-chinDevl mailing list > <http://freenet-china.org/>Devl at freenetproject.org > http://freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devla.org/<http://freenet-china.org/>hasn't > been updated since 2003. Maybe they unblocked it and filled it with > censorware, but I'd expect them to make it look like they've updated it in > that case ... >
The biggest problem with such statistics are their resources. Different issues are to be considered: i) In countries like Iran, China, etc. where you really cannot perform large scale polls and interviews, such organizations are limited to methods such as random telephone interviews. But you have to consider that those interviewees are not likely to express their true opinion over the phone (which is most likely being tapped!) (for example, see methodology here: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb10/IranElection_Feb10_quaire.pdf ) ii) some organizations are funded by the industries which pursuit specific aims for various reasons (e.g. lobbying) . (see Heritage foundation and Koch industries) Although such statistics are tried to be as precise as possible, you cannot always rely on them. Regards, Pouyan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20110418/3144852e/attachment.html>
