Apologies to Nathan regarding the "Wikipedia Review" description. The analysis team was, indeed, recruited via Wikipedia Review; however, almost all of the participants in the research have now departed or reduced their participation in Wikipedia Review to such a degree, I don't personally consider it to have been a "Wikipedia Review" effort at all. I allowed my personal opinions to interfere with my recollection of the facts, though, and that's not kosher. Again, I hope you'll accept my apology.
I still maintain, however, that any study of the accuracy of or the vandalized nature of Wikipedia content will be far more reliable and meaningful if human assessment is the underlying mechanism of analysis, rather than a "bot" or "script" that will simply tally up things. I think that Rohde's design was inherently flawed, and I'm happy that Greg Maxwell and I both immediately recognized the danger of running off and "reporting the good news", as Sue Gardner was apparently ready to do immediately. As I said, I feel that Rohde proceeded with research based on several highly questionable assumptions, while the "100 Senators" research rather carefully outlined a research plan that carried very few assumptions, other than that you trust the analysts to intelligently recognize vandalism or not. Nathan, by praising Rohde's work and disparaging my own, you seem to be suggesting that you would prefer to live inside a giant mountain comprised of sticks and twigs, rather than in a small, pleasantly furbished 12' x 12' room. I just don't understand that line of thinking. I'd rather have a small bit of reliable data based on a stable premise, rather than a giant pile of data based on an unstable premise. Greg _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
