3 ms·

Here is an example for people asking for one. As an experiment I tried to get some fairly innocuous numbers into participation in Australia sport. There is a

by sien 6y ago

Here is an example for people asking for one. As an experiment I tried to get some fairly innocuous numbers into participation in Australia sport. There is a big survey done in Australia, the Ausplay survey: https://www.clearinghouseforsport.gov.au/ https://www.clearinghouseforsport.gov.au/ They have extensive tables on adult participation. Two editors would not let this data into the sport in Australia article. The reason was fairly obvious, it shows that soccer/football is the most played team sport in Australia. Roy Morgan, a statistical agency also had similar figures. Some Australians don't like the fact that soccer/football is by far the most played team sport in Australia according to to the Ausplay Survey and Roy Morgan. There was much time spent in the talk pages spent asking these two what would be acceptable for quoting these sporting statistics. The answer was nothing. If you can't get fairly unobjectionable material like that into wikipedia what else is being blocked?

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
Here's the RFC in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sport_in_Australia#RFC_on_Population-Wide_Metrics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sport_in_Australia#RFC_on... As can be expected when you're told that "the reason was fairly obvious" and that reason is somewhat nefarious, that reason is not the one given by anybody involved. Instead, people took issue with the methodology used to gather the data. (I have no idea if that criticism is legitimate, nor do I have any other horse in this race, nor do I care the least bit about the popularity of horse racing in Australia which, yes, happens to be part of that debate.)
- sien 6y ago
  Check out how they ignore that the suggestion that if they take issue with those statistics they should take issue with the statistics that were currently in the article, notably cricket playing figures from Cricket Australia which, while they might be worth including, should have cautionary notes on them. They didn't care about that.
globular-toast 6y ago
What do they want the most popular sport to be and why do they care?
- sien 6y ago
  Not soccer. In Australia there are quite a few people who view soccer as 'wogball' and a foreign sport. Just as in the US some view soccer as not being American.
sellyme 6y ago
As someone who has spent a lot of time contributing to all manner of Australian sports articles across all codes, I recognise several of the contributors there and can assure you that they don't have some kind of secret nefarious agenda. They just - like I - are very skeptical of data claiming things like "42.6% of Australians have participated in walking". Regardless of whether or not that's actually true under their defined methodology (presumably it is), it's probably a pretty good indicator that their methodology is of extremely questionable use, and that other data may have equally (but less obviously) misleading data. I will note that the existing participation section of that article states that soccer has a higher participation rate than any other team sport amongst males (netball being higher for females), so it's extremely clearly that editors aren't objecting to the tables' inclusions on that claim alone, given that it's made in the article either way.

by sien 6y ago

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago

Here's the RFC in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sport_in_Australia#RFC_on_Population-Wide_Metrics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sport_in_Australia#RFC_on... As can be expected when you're told that "the reason was fairly obvious" and that reason is somewhat nefarious, that reason is not the one given by anybody involved. Instead, people took issue with the methodology used to gather the data. (I have no idea if that criticism is legitimate, nor do I have any other horse in this race, nor do I care the least bit about the popularity of horse racing in Australia which, yes, happens to be part of that debate.)

sien 6y ago
Check out how they ignore that the suggestion that if they take issue with those statistics they should take issue with the statistics that were currently in the article, notably cricket playing figures from Cricket Australia which, while they might be worth including, should have cautionary notes on them. They didn't care about that.

globular-toast 6y ago

What do they want the most popular sport to be and why do they care?

sien 6y ago
Not soccer. In Australia there are quite a few people who view soccer as 'wogball' and a foreign sport. Just as in the US some view soccer as not being American.

sellyme 6y ago

As someone who has spent a lot of time contributing to all manner of Australian sports articles across all codes, I recognise several of the contributors there and can assure you that they don't have some kind of secret nefarious agenda. They just - like I - are very skeptical of data claiming things like "42.6% of Australians have participated in walking". Regardless of whether or not that's actually true under their defined methodology (presumably it is), it's probably a pretty good indicator that their methodology is of extremely questionable use, and that other data may have equally (but less obviously) misleading data. I will note that the existing participation section of that article states that soccer has a higher participation rate than any other team sport amongst males (netball being higher for females), so it's extremely clearly that editors aren't objecting to the tables' inclusions on that claim alone, given that it's made in the article either way.