On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 00:51, David Levy <[email protected]> wrote: > Milos Rancic wrote: > >> There are around 300M of readers and less than 30k of the extended >> pool of editors, which brings number of 0,01%. Thus, not just >> irrelevant, but much less than the margin of statistical error. > > You appear to have ignored my points regarding non-editors' > unfamiliarity with the WMF projects' core principles and the proposed > feature's logistics. (Most members of the general public might > support the introduction of a magical flying unicorn pony that shits > rainbows, but that won't cause it to spring into existence.)
But, we'll know that they want magical flying unicorn pony. In this case we don't know, as there is no relevant methodology behind the sample. > You also declined to address my point that a category-based filter > system, irrespective of its popularity among readers, could not > function without the support of editors. Agreed. Those who want to implement it should do that by themselves. If Board insists on censorship system, better out of Commons than on Commons. > And you seem to suggest that *any* on-wiki poll is inherently "irrelevant." No. One thing is referendum, the other is survey. Editor who edited Wikipedia ten times two years ago is not qualified for referendum. Contrary to that, everybody who reads Wikipedia is relevant for survey, but then survey has to have methodology behind it. (In other words: As a user of Gmail, my vote is not relevant in managing programmers behind Gmail, but I could be relevant as a part of statistical sample in a survey made by Gmail team.) Would the referendum be held on wiki or via some other communication channel, is irrelevant ;) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
