Just a running thread to document editors who are (fairly) clearly paid to edit, either by a client or an employer.
I'll kick it off here with a format I think will be helpful going forward:
Space Rubbish(T-C-L)
Likely COI: Employee of Jennic, then acquired by NXP Semiconductors
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: Appears to be about 90%
Ever warned on Talk page: No
Blocked: No
Ceekay215(T-C-L)
Likely COI: Possible Hiltzik Strategies employee, most likely contracted to revise BLP's of celebrities.
Disclosure: None.
Unity of focus: Celebrity BLP's and films.
Ever warned: Once by Mchaeldsuarez
Blocked: No.
Thisisbigmama(T-C-L)
Likely COI: Possible Hiltzik Strategies employee, most likely contracted to revise Alec Baldwin's article.
Disclosure: None.
Unity of focus: Single-purpose account.
Ever warned: Yes.
Blocked: No.
Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:13 pm
by thekohser
Obornp(T-C-L)
Likely COI: Patrick Oborn, Founder of Telarus
Disclosure: User page identifies as Patrick Oborn, but Telarus barely mentioned
Unity of focus: Appears to be about 90% focused on the Telarus article, or adding commentary about Telarus to other companies' articles
Ever warned on Talk page: Mildly admonished for crufting up articles with obscure lists of "indirect channel partners"
Blocked: No
Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 7:27 pm
by Randy from Boise
Will Greg be outing any of his own commercially-oriented socks as part of this stimulating series?
Inquiring minds want to know...
RfB
Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:04 pm
by EricBarbour
Randy from Boise wrote:Will Greg be outing any of his own commercially-oriented socks as part of this stimulating series?
How about some of your socks, Tim? As long as we're comparing penises.....
Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:29 pm
by Moonage Daydream
EricBarbour wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:Will Greg be outing any of his own commercially-oriented socks as part of this stimulating series?
How about some of your socks, Tim? As long as we're comparing penises.....
If you guys have your penises out anyway, snap a pic for Commons. There can never be too many penises on Commons.
Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:29 pm
by thekohser
Randy from Boise wrote:Will Greg be outing any of his own commercially-oriented socks as part of this stimulating series?
Inquiring minds want to know...
RfB
I would, except that mine aren't "obvious", so they don't fall into this category.
Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:07 pm
by Randy from Boise
EricBarbour wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:Will Greg be outing any of his own commercially-oriented socks as part of this stimulating series?
How about some of your socks, Tim? As long as we're comparing penises.....
While I'd be happy to compare penises, the only socks I use are on my feet.
tim
Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 7:51 pm
by thekohser
Auka(T-C-L) and 12.110.141.194(T-C-L)
Likely COI: Employee of Affinnova, and IP address is Affinnova's
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: Appears to be about 90% focused on either (failed) multi-year attempt to get an article about Affinnova published, or adding links to Affinnova's website, or the IDDEA(T-H-L) article, which is a proprietary Affinnova product
Ever warned on Talk page: Auka, repeatedly; IP address, never
Blocked: No
Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 8:03 pm
by thekohser
Lennartsvanberg(T-C-L) and Caroline.meyer89(T-C-L)
Likely COI: Lennartsvanberg probable associate of or is himself Henrik Ekelund (e-mail contact at Ekelund's BTS Group is/was lennart.svanberg(at)bts.se), and Caroline Meyer is a marketing associate at BTS.
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: Appear to be 95% focused on Henrik Ekelund(T-H-L) and BTS Group(T-H-L)
Ever warned on Talk page: Lennartsvanberg, once, for link-spamming; Caroline.meyer89, never
Blocked: No
Read that article--it looks like a press release. There's already been one barely-noticed AFD for it.
It is routinely "vandalized" in ways not typical of ordinary vandals -- more like the subjects, and their family and friends, editing it.
Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:52 pm
by Moonage Daydream
Check out Geosoft(T-H-L), created by Connie L Crosby(T-C-L) (and edited by one of the company's principles). It would appear that this is Connie L Crosby's website.
Helps me figure out just how much time I'm spending on Wikipedia
Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 3:25 am
by EricBarbour
Eclipsed wrote: Helps me figure out just how much time I'm spending on Wikipedia
Obviously you're extremely polite and cooperative on WP, but it's still a literal miracle that no one has abusively blocked you.
I figure it's just a matter of time. There are a few admins who would "make sport" of you, regardless of "policy".
Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 3:30 pm
by thekohser
MissyYoung(T-C-L)
Likely COI: Melissa Young is the Executive VP of Sales Engineering at the SuperNAP, a data center facility built by Switch Communications
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: 100%
Ever warned on Talk page: No
Blocked: No
My favorite content she added to Wikipedia, no citations, of course:
Most data centers today are faced with severe issues resulting from improper management and control of equipment-generated heat. Switch offers the most forward looking designs for space and power in the industry.
That's been sitting in the Switch Communications(T-H-L) article since June 2008, viewed approximately 600 times per month, of late.
It only took you about a half-hour to clean up the mess! Good job. How about the others that have been pointed out in this thread?
Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 12:59 pm
by thekohser
Jax 0677(T-C-L)
Likely COI: User says he is "an engineer in the vehicle industry". He crafted over 90% of the article CDI Corporation(T-H-L), an engineering firm.
Disclosure: He mentions his industry affiliation on his User page.
Unity of focus: < 5% -- this guy is a true Wikipedian, covering the waterfront.
Ever warned on Talk page: Once, a speedy deletion notice
Blocked: No
What I find interesting about this item is the content of the article about CDI Corporation that was added by Jax 0677. There is a wall of text about the history of the company, which in the very last line is "sourced" to a FundingUniverse.com page about the history of CDI. While the Wikipedia content isn't copied verbatim from Funding Universe, it's very clear that only simple "rewording" is what transpired here. (By the by, Funding Universe indicates that it obtained its content about CDI from International Directory of Company Histories, Vol. 54. St. James Press, 2003.)
Some examples of the word transformations:
Funding Universe:
In 1972 Garrison began to diversify his business by acquiring--for about $1.3 million in stock--a headhunting firm called Management Recruiters International (MRI). Unprofitable at the time of its purchase, MRI picked up steam and was soon adding offices from coast to coast, the bulk of them franchised.
Wikipedia:
In 1972, the company purchased Management Recruiters International (MRI) for $1.3 million. Though the company was fledgling at the time of purchase, once it was acquired, offices began appearing all over the United States, most of them being franchises.
Funding Universe:
In 1961 Garrison--who, along with his family, controlled about 45 percent of the company stock--and two colleagues bought out the languishing CDI and set about spreading the gospel of technical services. Their timing could not have been better. With a war brewing in Vietnam and the arms race roaring, government defense expenditures would soon reach levels unmatched since World War II.
Wikipedia:
By 1961, Garrison and his family owned almost 45% of CDI Corporation. He and two colleagues bought out the remainder of CDI's shares of stock and set about to revive the fledgling company. With the Vietnam War and its subsequent arms race abounding, U.S. defense spending was set to reach record levels.
Funding Universe:
The business of technical services was vulnerable to recession, as CDI learned in the severe downturns of 1974-75 and 1982-83, and even in the best of times was a business of paper-thin margins: 1984 revenue of $300 million yielded a paltry $7.1 million net, for example, a ratio of about 2.5 percent.
Wikipedia:
During the recessions of 1974-1975 and 1982–1983, CDI learned that the technical services business was highly vulnerable to recession. At other times, the profit margins were quite slim, sometimes as low as 2.5%.
Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:20 pm
by thekohser
Just a brief comic aside... If you're familiar with this campaign of TV commercials:
Here's the real-life Wikipedia version:
Expert: "We need info about Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, quick!"
Jae-sus, what a crap article. You really know how to find 'em, Greg.
Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:51 am
by thekohser
EricBarbour wrote:You really know how to find 'em, Greg.
Thing is, I'm not even scratching around for them! For example, the only reason I looked up CDI was that I found out my brother-in-law's brother works for them, across the street from me in Philly. The only reason I looked up Chicago Bridge & Iron was because a friend was talking about it as a stock tip.
You can pretty much throw any Wikipedia article in front of me, and I'll find something wrong with it. If it's an article about a business, I'll also be likely to find some conflict of interest somewhere in its history.
Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:17 am
by EricBarbour
thekohser wrote: If it's an article about a business, I'll also be likely to find some conflict of interest somewhere in its history.
That's a quote that needs to circulate in international media: "Wikipedia's coverage of the business world is poor and contains many conflicts of interest".
But of course, Joe Six-Pack and Randy The Bungholer From Boise will find that "boring" and "not interesting". How does one make Wikipedia's abuse
(or glorification) of corporations "sexy"?
Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:30 am
by Zoloft
EricBarbour wrote:
thekohser wrote: If it's an article about a business, I'll also be likely to find some conflict of interest somewhere in its history.
That's a quote that needs to circulate in international media: "Wikipedia's coverage of the business world is poor and contains many conflicts of interest".
But of course, Joe Six-Pack and Randy The Bungholer From Boise will find that "boring" and "not interesting". How does one make Wikipedia's abuse
(or glorification) of corporations "sexy"?
Find a family business that's struggled with defamation from Wikipedia. There's bound to be one out there. Talk to the family. Present them to a media outlet.
Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 5:17 am
by TungstenCarbide
EricBarbour wrote:
thekohser wrote:Expert: "We need info about Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, quick!"
Jae-sus, what a crap article. You really know how to find 'em, Greg.
Jesus, I could do better than that, and I can barely string two sentences together. Maybe I should start editing for money.
Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 5:52 pm
by Vocal
NoLieMRI(T-C-L)
Likely COI: See No Lie MRI(T-H-L)
Disclosure: Does the username count as a disclosure?
Unity of focus: Edits solely on the articles for No Lie MRI and Lie detection(T-H-L)
Ever warned: No
Blocked: No
Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 11:53 pm
by thekohser
Speaking of articles written by their own User names, this has always been a very useful reference page.
Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:37 am
by EricBarbour
thekohser wrote:Speaking of articles written by their own User names, this has always been a very useful reference page.
The nerds have been grinding thru it, but after 2 1/2 years, there's still a few hundred unattended violations.
And it's still hilarious that Karl Pilkington is at the bottom of the list.
He was an obscure UK comedian, but has been on HBO since January 2010.
Other than the stuff listed here and on WR, Cla68's joke offer to edit for pay, and thiscrap,
has anyone run across suspicions of administrators doing paid editing work?
Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2012 4:09 pm
by Mason
EricBarbour wrote:has anyone run across suspicions of administrators doing paid editing work?
Don't know about current ones, but one got desysoped for doing it a couple of years ago.
Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 1:54 am
by Tippi Hadron
thekohser wrote:Speaking of articles written by their own User names, this has always been a very useful reference page.
There's also this alphabetical list of Wikipedians with articles.
Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 2:29 am
by thekohser
Tippi Hadron wrote:There's also this alphabetical list of Wikipedians with articles.
It is humorous that Mark Cuban would be counted as a "Wikipedian" on that list, considering his one day's worth of attention to Wikipedia, all related to his own biography, back in 2006.
Even worse, the Clarion Alley Mural Project apparently has a "Wikipedian" account with a User name that is against the rules of Wikipedia: CAMPSF(T-C-L). They've made all of ONE EDIT to Wikipedia, so that makes them a Wikipedian, it seems.
That entire list should be razed, and if they want to do it right, try again from scratch, but with some definition of what constitutes a "Wikipedian".
Oh, and why isn't Rachel Marsden on that list?
Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 3:28 am
by EricBarbour
thekohser wrote:
Tippi Hadron wrote:There's also this alphabetical list of Wikipedians with articles.
It is humorous that Mark Cuban would be counted as a "Wikipedian" on that list, considering his one day's worth of attention to Wikipedia, all related to his own biography, back in 2006.
Even worse, the Clarion Alley Mural Project apparently has a "Wikipedian" account with a User name that is against the rules of Wikipedia: CAMPSF(T-C-L). They've made all of ONE EDIT to Wikipedia, so that makes them a Wikipedian, it seems.
That entire list should be razed, and if they want to do it right, try again from scratch, but with some definition of what constitutes a "Wikipedian".
Oh, and why isn't Rachel Marsden on that list?
That list is utter crap. At least they put a disclaimer on it.
You'll never see a full or even a better list, as it would embarrass them greatly, of course.
Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:54 pm
by Willbeheard
Tippi Hadron wrote:There's also this alphabetical list of Wikipedians with articles.
Keep. Questionable motivation for AFD by nominator, possible WP:WIKIHOUNDING. See also ANI thread. As far as this article itself, I am seeing a good deal of source coverage in books, news articles, web searches, and scholarly articles. Cirt (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment. To whst extent have you actually looked at the results turned up by your searches to verify that they're about the subject? For instance, in the Google scholar search, the David Mertz of this article doesn't show up until somewhere around the middle of the second page of search results, with a book cited 16 times and a voting paper cited 13 times; these are anemic numbers for WP:PROF. The first-page results are all somebody else with the same name. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep Per Cirt. LotLE×talk 20:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep. This is exactly the type of bullying by deletionists that is driving content writers away from Wikipedia. The Wikipedia organization needs to do something NOW to put an end to this. I reviewed the policy on why something should be deleted, and also the policy on using yourself as a source, and this article violates neither policy. As such, it should be kept, and NOT deleted. (BTW, more and more lawsuits are being filed against cyber-bullying, and based on LotLE's comment I would classify JBsupreme's reaction as such. Wikipedia needs to get their deletionists under control before the flurry of lawsuits begins.) NefariousPhD (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment Nefarious, you might want to modify your comments. I believe that threatening legal action is one way to get yourself instantly banned on Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)MelanieN
Keep per Cirt, and please consider review the nominator's AfD pattern. I do not comment on the current case of possible hounding, but this, and this other nom, among others, make me wonder of the nom judgement in proposing articles for deletion. --Cyclopiatalk 21:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
KeepLooks OK to me. Peridon (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Yep, the usual idiocy.....
But that's okay, if you search for "David Mertz", you'll find that he's spammed his own writings into a number of articles about
software development. He was smart, he used his own references to insure his continued existence in the database.
Because he, using his old (admitted) username Rfwinans, which he admitted using to manicure his own biography,
later created and provided the photo for Ji Chaozhu in May 2008, two months before Ji's memoirs were published by Random House.
Why has Winans not been blocked?
Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:23 am
by Hersch
Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:00 pm
by thekohser
Vegaspackfan(T-C-L)
Likely COI: Employee of the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, event ad agency R&R Partners, or one of the partnered Las Vegas resorts
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: 100%
Ever warned on Talk page: Yes
Blocked: No
This one is mildly amusing in that PMDrive1061(T-C-L) initially caught Vegaspackfan as an obvious marketing shill, but politely asked that the Las Vegas Uncork'd(T-H-L) article be properly referenced for reconsideration. Well, Vegaspackfan did re-do it, and PMDrive1061 buttered Vegas up and encouraged him to keep contributing to Wikipedia. Hah hah, Vegas was already out of there, never to return, now that his advertisement made it through.
Ikegami0123(T-C-L)
Likely COI: Affiliated in some way with Ayusa International
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: 100%
Ever warned on Talk page: Yes
Blocked: No
Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:30 pm
by EricBarbour
These are great, Greg, but how about an estimate of how many paid editors there are?
Just take a sample of 100 random users, look at their contribs, and say what percentage are obvious.
Put that out in a press release, and I suspect more than a few journalists would notice.....the WMF
certainly would.
Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:50 pm
by ErrantX
EricBarbour wrote:These are great, Greg, but how about an estimate of how many paid editors there are?
Just take a sample of 100 random users, look at their contribs, and say what percentage are obvious.
Put that out in a press release, and I suspect more than a few journalists would notice.....the WMF
certainly would.
Given the size of the editor pool, 100 editors would not be a sufficient sample to draw any meaningful conclusions.
I'm not opposed to the idea - it's a good one. But you'd need to sample a much larger pool or your results would be, rightfully, rejected by any sensible commentator.
Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:18 pm
by Kelly Martin
ErrantX wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:Given the size of the editor pool, 100 editors would not be a sufficient sample to draw any meaningful conclusions.
I'm not opposed to the idea - it's a good one. But you'd need to sample a much larger pool or your results would be, rightfully, rejected by any sensible commentator.
Really? That's not consistent with what I remember about sampling theory. Not in the slightest, in fact.
Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:29 pm
by ErrantX
Kelly Martin wrote:
ErrantX wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:Given the size of the editor pool, 100 editors would not be a sufficient sample to draw any meaningful conclusions.
I'm not opposed to the idea - it's a good one. But you'd need to sample a much larger pool or your results would be, rightfully, rejected by any sensible commentator.
Really? That's not consistent with what I remember about sampling theory. Not in the slightest, in fact.
With 100 samples - on the current editor population - the confidence interval (for 95% certainty) would be 10%. Which is massive.
1000+ begins to put you in reasonable margins of error.
EDIT: the important point is the word "random", this reduces confidence in the sample at a small size because there is no mechanism to guarantee you are getting a representative sample of the dataset. Think of it this way; if you randomly call 100 people, at one person per minute (~2hrs work) starting at 10am on a weekday.... you are going to have a very narrow sample of people (people at home, awake in the morning). If you randomly call 1000 people (~16 hours work) your sample will be much more representative of the population. (this isn't a perfect example, but it demonstrates how random samples can be heavily biased)
Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:33 pm
by Ngor
Well if they are getting paid good for them. Better than doing it for free.
Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:36 pm
by Sweet Revenge
EricBarbour wrote:These are great, Greg, but how about an estimate of how many paid editors there are?
Just take a sample of 100 random users, look at their contribs, and say what percentage are obvious.
Put that out in a press release, and I suspect more than a few journalists would notice.....the WMF
certainly would.
This sounds like fun. Are we talking active editors? How many are there? Here's a useful table for choosing a sample size: http://www.research-advisors.com/tools/SampleSize.htm; one hundred probably is too small, but it's on the right order of magnitude depending on what the pararmeters are. Do you have a way to generate a random sample easily? I'm sorry if that's obvious. Is there a plain text list of all (active) editors somewhere?
Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:45 pm
by ErrantX
Sweet Revenge wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:These are great, Greg, but how about an estimate of how many paid editors there are?
Just take a sample of 100 random users, look at their contribs, and say what percentage are obvious.
Put that out in a press release, and I suspect more than a few journalists would notice.....the WMF
certainly would.
This sounds like fun. Are we talking active editors? How many are there? Here's a useful table for choosing a sample size: http://www.research-advisors.com/tools/SampleSize.htm; one hundred probably is too small, but it's on the right order of magnitude depending on what the pararmeters are. Do you have a way to generate a random sample easily? I'm sorry if that's obvious. Is there a plain text list of all (active) editors somewhere?
Restricting the sample to "active" users [which Wikipedia defines as someone editing within the last 30 days] will probably bias the sample (because COI editors, as we see, are often one-shot contributors). The active editor pool is 30,000 - of which 6,000 are new editors. http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/SummaryEN.htm
We could test this but I'd suggest doing a stratified (or even a quota) sample of about 800-1000 editors.
The current total editor crop is 750,000. So a random sample of 5,000500 would give a good confidence level.
Perhaps we could crowd source the investigation?
EDIT: 5,000 -> 500 (sorry all, it's a late night )
Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:57 pm
by Sweet Revenge
ErrantX wrote:
Sweet Revenge wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:These are great, Greg, but how about an estimate of how many paid editors there are?
Just take a sample of 100 random users, look at their contribs, and say what percentage are obvious.
Put that out in a press release, and I suspect more than a few journalists would notice.....the WMF
certainly would.
This sounds like fun. Are we talking active editors? How many are there? Here's a useful table for choosing a sample size: http://www.research-advisors.com/tools/SampleSize.htm; one hundred probably is too small, but it's on the right order of magnitude depending on what the pararmeters are. Do you have a way to generate a random sample easily? I'm sorry if that's obvious. Is there a plain text list of all (active) editors somewhere?
Restricting the sample to "active" users [which Wikipedia defines as someone editing within the last 30 days] will probably bias the sample (because COI editors, as we see, are often one-shot contributors). The active editor pool is 30,000 - of which 6,000 are new editors. http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/SummaryEN.htm
We could test this but I'd suggest doing a stratified (or even a quota) sample of about 800-1000 editors.
The current total editor crop is 750,000. So a random sample of 5,000 would give a good confidence level.
Perhaps we could crowd source the investigation?
You're right about the active editor thing. I think 800 would be enough. That would give us the standard 95% confidence with 3.5% margin of error. Crowdsourcing is a must here. It'd be easy enough for one person to check 50 users, so with only 32 people involved each editor could be checked by two people.
Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:59 pm
by Kelly Martin
ErrantX wrote:The current total editor crop is 750,000. So a random sample of 5,000 would give a good confidence level.
One of the things I distinctly remember from stat method is that the confidence interval of a random sample is, in most cases, independent of the population size. (And before posting this I found three scholarly references that state the same thing.) So where are you getting this from?
Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:10 pm
by ErrantX
Kelly Martin wrote:
ErrantX wrote:The current total editor crop is 750,000. So a random sample of 5,000 would give a good confidence level.
One of the things I distinctly remember from stat method is that the confidence interval of a random sample is, in most cases, independent of the population size. (And before posting this I found three scholarly references that state the same thing.) So where are you getting this from?
Yes, I've not expressed my point well.
Confidence level is not meaningfully affected by population size once it is above a certain level. (hence my initial comment; the editor pool would have to be ~150 for a sample of 100 to have a guaranteed 3% confidence interval)
What I was more aiming at is that a sample of 100 is inadequate for any reasonable level of confidence.
(EDIT: I see what you were pointing out... I obviously meant 500, sorry)
Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:11 pm
by thekohser
ErrantX wrote:(this isn't a perfect example, but it demonstrates how random samples can be heavily biased)
It's rather imperfect, in that you're conflating issues having to do with contact rates with randomness. I see your point, of course, but... remember you could have one person making those outbound calls, or you could have 100 in a call center. The randomness doesn't increase with the amount of time you take to place all of the contact calls.
Helps me figure out just how much time I'm spending on Wikipedia
I can't see that great and highly notable Wikipedian 
)
