In addition to Risker's comments, which I agree with 100%, I would further request that any future survey of users be designed and supervised only by someone with extensive expertise and experience in the field of survey methodology. Many previous surveys that have been done by the Foundation have, despite a lot of hard work and effort put into them, suffered from methodological flaws, either in the form of the questions asked or the way that the user sample was selected. The results have therefore not only been useless in some cases, but in some cases actually misleading and thus potentially damaging to the movement.
This is something that the Foundation has gotten better at over the years, and since we're on the topic it's something I'd like them to stick to! Cheers, Craig On 13 March 2014 21:32, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 13 March 2014 05:13, James Salsman <jsals...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Is there ... an explanation which explains what it all means? > > > > It's an attempted improvement on the policy survey at > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Survey > > > > "A survey about the importance of various policy issues ... given the > > highest priority by our community." > > > > If you are having trouble working the preference ballot at > > http://demochoice.org/dcballot.php?poll=wmfcsdraft > > then please try the demonstration, instructions, and background > > material at http://demochoice.org/ > > > > The ranked-preference ballot makes respondents consider choices > > pairwise, which has an accuracy advantage over approval (yes or no to > > each) or Likert scale (e.g. 1 "strongly agree" to 5 "strongly > > disagree") responses when respondents are not familiar with all the > > options. Approval on an issues survey can have problems with > > relatively disproportionate numbers of responses with only a few > > options or all or almost all options selected, and the Likert scale > > gets fewer responses on issues less familiar to respondents than > > ranking. > > > > Best regards, > > James > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > I don't think this would be a very useful survey, and I would not > participate in it. The shopping list of causes - many of which have little > or no correlation with anything even vaguely related to the operation of > the WMF, its core philosophies, or its purpose - is very americo-centric. > Just as importantly, it says that 12 topics will be "elected". Elected for > what? Why 12 of them? What about if lots of people think one of these > topics is really important, but for different reasons? > > Mostly, though....this just really feels like it is trying to take the > Wikimedia community down a path that has nothing to do with our core > objectives, and to turn us into just another advocacy group. I'm not > interested in that. > > Risker/Anne > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
