Talk:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements/Repository/Sentiment Survey

Confirmation bias

This survey appears to be written with a conclusion in mind. The fact that a significant amount of survey data was removed is a major red flag. 192.184.150.142 17:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

The page says that instances of survey responses that contained unrelated content or foul language were removed. Could you clarify what kind of "foul language" responses were removed? Would it have included something like "This skin fucking sucks for the following reasons: ..."? AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@User:OVasileva (WMF) AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcomeness of the new skin

The bullet points for both skins in Reading/Web/Desktop_Improvements/Repository/Sentiment_Survey#Welcomeness_of_the_new_skin are the same. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Misleading interpretation of data

After initially discarding most (398/550 = 72%) of the responses, the breakdown of the remaining (valid) results was as follows:

• 60 responses reported the old experience as easier to use.

• 49 responses reported that they find both skins equally easy to use.
• 37 responses reported the new experience as easier to use.

Note that adding these three responses gives a greater number of total responses (146) than the amount actually reported (142), which does not give me confidence in the overall accuracy of the report.

Despite the valid responses preferring the old experience by a ratio of 1.6 to 1 (60:37), the interpretation provided was that "The majority of respondents reported that the new experience is easier to use or that the new and old experience are equally easy to use". While this is true, as 86/142 is indeed a majority, it could have equally been stated that "The majority of respondents reported that the old experience is easier to use or that the new and old experience are equally easy to use". These figures would then be 109/142, a much more convincing figure.

Given the wording of the interpretation chosen in the report, the authors appear to have misled the reader with their conclusion that the new (V22) experience was preferred over the legacy skin. Loopy30 (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The article is biased

In addition to the statistical data manipulation described above, the section "Resistance to chacne" mentions only non-substantive arguments of the opponents of the new skin, trying to give the impression that the objection to its application has no rational basis. 83.30.229.13 12:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is troubling for sure. It's a real interesting read, though, and can possibly be used in university courses on how to use statistics to fit whatever your foregone conclusion is. -Jetro (talk) 08:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

This article is so obviously fake, especially the 'Example responses' at the end. 212.5.158.157 23:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)