Re: [Foundation-l] Statistical research on Wikipedia (Godwin inspired)
"Gregory Kohs" wrote in message news:14b1e7be0910081856r46863edcqea8c3a44420d2...@mail.gmail.com... > Both of these previous assessments I conducted for free. No more. I > would > actually enjoy (as I've e-mailed you privately) expanding the scope of my > latter study to include perhaps 200 new articles. But, that work on my > part > will cost the Foundation a $1,000 stipend. That's a bargain for such a > study. Or, you can try to find a volunteer who will do it for a barnstar, > but they might botch the sampling design. Do you have appropriate means to demonstrate that you necessarily *won't* botch the sampling design? I'm sure that the number of people on this list and within Wikimedia who have the appropriate qualifications to perform a statistically-valid study, and the lack of incorrigible pessimism that would allow them to not make a political gesture out of it, is considerable. However, they seem to have better things to do with their time than take cheap shots on a mailing list. "Wikimedia Foundation spends donor's cash on solicited contract work from tradesman with unproven credentials. Rightful outrage." It's all in the way you say it. --HM ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Statistical research on Wikipedia (Godwin inspired)
Let's try to avoid such emails. Whatever the content of Gregory's email is, sarcastic responses make atmosphere of the list more heated. On 2009-10-09, Tim Landscheidt wrote: > Gregory Kohs wrote: > >> [...] >> Both of these previous assessments I conducted for free. No more. I >> would >> actually enjoy (as I've e-mailed you privately) expanding the scope of my >> latter study to include perhaps 200 new articles. But, that work on my >> part >> will cost the Foundation a $1,000 stipend. That's a bargain for such a >> study. Or, you can try to find a volunteer who will do it for a barnstar, >> but they might botch the sampling design. > >> If you prefer a statistically sound survey of 300 high school teachers >> regarding opinions and usage of Wikipedia, that would be more expensive. >> I >> could still get the job done for a mere $4,000, though -- about >> one-quarter >> the rate you'd pay with a full-service marketing research firm. Or, >> again, >> you could go the barnstar route with someone else. > >> Offers are on the table. Your move. > > Oh no! WMF introduces advertisements on their mailing lists! > Death of Wikipedia predicted. Film at 11. > > Tim > > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- Sent from my mobile device ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Statistical research on Wikipedia (Godwin inspired)
Gregory Kohs wrote: > [...] > Both of these previous assessments I conducted for free. No more. I would > actually enjoy (as I've e-mailed you privately) expanding the scope of my > latter study to include perhaps 200 new articles. But, that work on my part > will cost the Foundation a $1,000 stipend. That's a bargain for such a > study. Or, you can try to find a volunteer who will do it for a barnstar, > but they might botch the sampling design. > If you prefer a statistically sound survey of 300 high school teachers > regarding opinions and usage of Wikipedia, that would be more expensive. I > could still get the job done for a mere $4,000, though -- about one-quarter > the rate you'd pay with a full-service marketing research firm. Or, again, > you could go the barnstar route with someone else. > Offers are on the table. Your move. Oh no! WMF introduces advertisements on their mailing lists! Death of Wikipedia predicted. Film at 11. Tim ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Statistical research on Wikipedia (Godwin inspired)
Mike Godwin says: + You should publish the results of your statistical research of high-school-teacher attitudes toward Wikipedia. It will be especially useful if you have a large sample size and minimal selection bias. + Of course, I never said my anecdotal experience represented a statistically sound research initiative. However, sample sizes and selection bias are actually a bit of my professional expertise. I have already conducted two quantitative studies of Wikipedia-related data -- one about 100 articles about the U.S. senators, and another (not so rigorous) assessment of 10 new articles selected with little to no bias whatsoever. The WikiEN-l mailing list moderators refuse to publish a short post informing the community about that second study. I'm not sure why not, as they refuse to say. Great "open" and "democratic" community you work for here, Mike. Both of these previous assessments I conducted for free. No more. I would actually enjoy (as I've e-mailed you privately) expanding the scope of my latter study to include perhaps 200 new articles. But, that work on my part will cost the Foundation a $1,000 stipend. That's a bargain for such a study. Or, you can try to find a volunteer who will do it for a barnstar, but they might botch the sampling design. If you prefer a statistically sound survey of 300 high school teachers regarding opinions and usage of Wikipedia, that would be more expensive. I could still get the job done for a mere $4,000, though -- about one-quarter the rate you'd pay with a full-service marketing research firm. Or, again, you could go the barnstar route with someone else. Offers are on the table. Your move. Greg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
