Some options may be out of the question due to local law. John Erik Moeller skrev: > 2009/3/7 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com>: >> I'm curious, why did you include options that aren't actually >> available? No credit and credit to the community are clearly not in >> keeping with the license, so knowing who would accept them isn't >> particularly useful (although I'm not sure it hurts). > > We tried to surface people's "true preference" for an attribution > model. (While of course the provided options can't capture everything, > the relatively low number of write-in options for additional > attribution models suggests that respondents generally found their > views represented somewhere in the continuum of given options.) > People's true preferences should guide our thinking process, and if we > clouded the available options with perceived or real constraints, we > wouldn't be able to approximate the best feasible solution. It helps > us to uncover both where people may be willing to compromise and where > they may not be. > > For example, if the survey had shown community credit to be highly > desired and not controversial at all, that would be interesting: We > could have an informed conversation about whether we should try to > accommodate that model after all. As it is, it's the second most > popular first option, but with 15.29% ranking it as their > second-to-last option, it's also somewhat polarizing. A link to the > article, on the other hand, is the first or second option for more > than 60% of respondents, and the last or second-to-last option for > only 3.47%. >
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
