2009/6/27 Phil Nash <pn007a2...@blueyonder.co.uk>: > 1. Small sample, making statistical significance difficult to assess
It's big enough to get some results. The ones across gender lines are more questionable. > 3. If the questionnaire isn't published, it's incapable of independent > analysis for bias in the questions asked It probably is published but not circulated among the general public. > 4. Peer-reviewed research by whom? Whoever does the peer review for CyberPsychology & Behavior I supose. > and that's just for starters. I look forward to seeing the whole lot, > because I, for one, disbelieve such wide conclusions. The results are hardly earth shattering as it basically adds up to "wikipedia is written but people with weak social skills aka nerds" -- geni _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
