I find it odd that a person with no experience whatsoever with editing any Wikimedia project was chosen to do a study on Wikimedia. It seems like a poor choice to me.--Rockfang (talk) 04:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I think it was important that someone unburdened by our preconceptions did the study. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 04:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they need to be experts on all things Wikimedia, but I don't think it is too much to ask that they have some sort of first hand knowledge regarding editing at least one of the various projects. That would be like someone being asked to give a report on how books are copyedited and they don't know how to read.--Rockfang (talk) 05:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much as I agree with Rockfang's surprise about choosing someone with no experience to do this study, I'd say the analogy "give a report on how books are copyedited and they don't know how to read" is a little too far. Rather, I'd compare it to having someone review a given technical book who has no expertise in the field: all that the review will accomplish is determine whether the book is accessible to the general reader, not whether it is an accurate let alone good book. And far too often, an inaccurate but popular account will have a greater influence on the educated public than an accurate but difficult to read one. -- llywrch (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your analogy is indeed better.--Rockfang (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like some reliable sources say we're the fifth biggest web site. I wonder what the difference is? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
