3 ms·

If I’m reading this right, I’m seeing a vote taking place in the “Survey” section, with 5 votes invoked — 2 no, 3 yes. And an end result of No Consensus. Fram

by setr 4y ago

If I’m reading this right, I’m seeing a vote taking place in the “Survey” section, with 5 votes invoked — 2 no, 3 yes. And an end result of No Consensus. Framing this as if 2 Wikipedians exercising outsized power to produce this ruling seems disingenuous at best. And their basic objection (I only bothered skimming) of bias and ambiguity in the source/data/methodology seems fairly reasonable on its face; whether it’s correct I have no idea but it’d be a reasonable objection As a policy, this whole thing seems like good behavior; the only gap is in the lack of voting participants. I suppose it is a real problem if the vote can’t be recast when more people are willing, but otherwise

jacobolus 4y ago
sien: If you think this decision was wrong you can try to bring it up again, and point out the discussion in Wikiprojects or other community pages where a larger number of Wikipedia editors will see it. If you could only get 3–4 people interested enough to discuss and nobody could come up with an acceptable compromise, that’s not really the fault of the process. If you think these particular editors did something improper, you can escalate to further community processes designed for dealing with various abuses. The nature of any large project is that people will disagree and not everyone will get precisely what they want.
- sien 4y ago
  Yes. This is true. But honestly, while it still midly annoys me it just doesn't seem worth the effort. What was interesting is just how unobjectionable this addition is and how hard it was to go through all the processes. I've added stats in a few wikipedia articles which have all gone in just fine. With this one part of it was OMG, really, you can just object and object and keep something out if you're determined enough.
  - jacobolus 4y ago
    From the other side, editor X is doing their best to present a neutral and accurate view of a topic, and editor Y (who is a random stranger to them) keeps trying to add survey data which editor X believes to be methodologically unsound to the point of irrelevance. (Disclaimer: I didn’t investigate this carefully enough to have a well formed opinion about the outcome.)
sien 4y ago
Some of the stats in the current article come from the predecessor of the AusPlay Survey. Also, there are stats in the article that are completely biased that are self-reported stats from sports organisations. The people objecting to new stats had no problem with these ones.

by setr 4y ago

jacobolus 4y ago

sien: If you think this decision was wrong you can try to bring it up again, and point out the discussion in Wikiprojects or other community pages where a larger number of Wikipedia editors will see it. If you could only get 3–4 people interested enough to discuss and nobody could come up with an acceptable compromise, that’s not really the fault of the process. If you think these particular editors did something improper, you can escalate to further community processes designed for dealing with various abuses. The nature of any large project is that people will disagree and not everyone will get precisely what they want.

sien 4y ago
Yes. This is true. But honestly, while it still midly annoys me it just doesn't seem worth the effort. What was interesting is just how unobjectionable this addition is and how hard it was to go through all the processes. I've added stats in a few wikipedia articles which have all gone in just fine. With this one part of it was OMG, really, you can just object and object and keep something out if you're determined enough.
- jacobolus 4y ago
  From the other side, editor X is doing their best to present a neutral and accurate view of a topic, and editor Y (who is a random stranger to them) keeps trying to add survey data which editor X believes to be methodologically unsound to the point of irrelevance. (Disclaimer: I didn’t investigate this carefully enough to have a well formed opinion about the outcome.)

sien 4y ago

Some of the stats in the current article come from the predecessor of the AusPlay Survey. Also, there are stats in the article that are completely biased that are self-reported stats from sports organisations. The people objecting to new stats had no problem with these ones.