Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-03-25/Recent research


 * ..."republishing it under a CC-VY-SA license" surely you mean CC-BY-SA? -- Orionist  ★  talk  03:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "cricket is one of the least popular sports in Australia". I must visit this alternative place called Australia as in the Australia that I live in, cricket is one of only 3 sports (other than the Olympic Games etc), and the only summer sport, that are regularly shown on the major national free-to-air TV networks in prime time.  And participation rates are also fairly high. It is not even close to being one of the "least popular sports".  Was that interpretation made in the (paywall hidden) report or by the signpost editor? The-Pope (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Had the exact same thought... Jenks24 (talk) 06:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have a copy of the paper either, but according to Google Scholar it contains the sentence "A 2011 report by the Australian Bureau of Statistics on the nation's sporting habits over the previous year ranks cricket as Australia's sixth most popular spectator sport, attracting 3.9% of event attendees." I'm pinging the reviewer for more insight. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 06:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually no - your quote "cricket is one of the least popular sports in Australia" is nowhere to be found in this review. Instead, it talks about "the most popular sports in Australian society (of which cricket is one of the least popular)". This may not be a very elegant wording, but it is consistent with cricket being the sixth most popular, and certainly does not say that "cricket is one of the least popular sports in Australia". Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 06:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So, what the author is saying is that cricket is one of the least popular most popular sports in Australia? --Roisterer (talk) 08:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The article has quite a large section on the reasons for its analysis but here is a small snippet of the conclusion 'There is a clear incongruence between the representation of cricket on Wikipedia and its reception in the wider Australian public. Although the sport still attracts interest from many corners of society, particularly during the summer months, there is little doubt that high-intensity sports such as rugby league, Australian rules football and tennis attract a lion’s share of participants, spectators and television viewers. Wikipedia, however, produces a disproportionate number of articles on cricketing personalities.' Best, --Hfordsa (talk) 06:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * A survey conducted by a PR agency among "over 2,600 journalists from France, the UK, America and Germany" asked them about various aspects of their work including Wikipedia usage, finding among other results "91% of the German national media journalists admitting to using Wikipedia to research stories." — ......with the other 9% lying about it. Carrite (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Really appreciated the Talk page and In brief bits this month, very illuminating. Thanks. Killer Chihuahua 21:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

IAR Study
And they call economics the dismal science. Did the study control for repeat voters? With the way AfD is, if some idiot regularly invokes IAR in a stupid way, they will be discredited and will skew the eventual outcome of the AfDs they participate in. There's also a huge causality problem as well, the correlations here may imply more about the situations that cause people to invoke IAR, rather than the effects of invoking IAR. Gigs (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)