Separate health issues?

• No indication that decline in administrators since 2007 has been caused by physical health
• More plausible hypotheses are being tested
• Survey analysis will utilize population comparisons to control for sources of error

Are there any reasons that a separate health issues survey would not be more prone to self-selection and other biases than a couple of unobtrusive general health questions with different default answers unified in this survey?

What are the specific other merits to a seperate health issues survey, if any?

Does anyone believe that a seperate health issues survey would be seen as more respectful?

Please answer these questions before finalizing this survey.

The survey is complete, was finalized a week ago, and has already been turned over to WMF for distribution. However, I will answer the questions anyway:

1) No, there are no "reasons that a separate health issues survey would not be more prone to self-selection and other biases than a couple of unobtrusive general health questions with different default answers unified in this survey." But we're not interested in including them for the previously mentioned reasons. 2) I don't see much merit to doing one, period, whether separately or unified. I think a separate health issues survey is unnecessary and not in line with current research goals of volunteers working on the admin survey. 3) I think respect doesn't hinge on whether or not it is separate. Anything can be written respectfully or not. But this is moot for the reasons given above.

Which are the "previously mentioned reasons" which have taken priority over avoiding bias?

What is your opinion on reverting the disputed thread summary without comments?

The idea of including a question about exercise is supported by the peer reviewed secondary literature, photographic evidence, statistical evidence, good survey design, and respect for administrators as human beings.

I am happy to consider this the "Former" survey and leave it at that, trusting the Foundation will make a good decision, but I think it is wrong that people are summarizing my comments contrary to the facts.

There's just not a chance in hell that we lost 150 administrators in 2 years to the sudden onset of obesity, or obesity related illnesses. Obesity has been a problem since long before that. That's the causal link that's missing for your hypothesis. Whether you're a statistician or not, you should already know that a theory with no causal link is junk science. It's absurd that Americans can be suffering from obesity for decades and suddenly all drop dead in the span of two years. It's so absurd that I'm convinced that this is a joke gone horribly bad and you're enjoying wasting everyone's time. You haven't convinced the few people working on this survey. And now that you've drawn more attention to it, you've only gained more detractors.

If it makes you feel any better, let's pretend you're right that the "community health" metaphor should be taken literally, and huge portions of the community coincidentally started suffering from physical ailments in 2007. We still have questions in the survey that allows contributors to say that "I stopped contributing because of something that happened in my life: it had nothing much to do with Wikipedia." We also have a series of open ended questions that allow contributors to tell us why they left, which will allow them to talk about health problems. In the bizarre event that you're right, it's not like we've taken away the chance for them to tell us, assuming they are able to get out of bed.

At this stage, we are trying to isolate contributing factors. Nobody has claimed that there is any one solitary cause. If you admit obesity has long been a problem, why do you want to omit survey questions concerning exercise?

Your sarcasm and hyperbole isn't very professional, but it's better than repeatedly reverting without comment as you had been.

I think it's safe to say that you have failed to achieve consensus on this issue, by any definition of it.

Philippe, will you agree to a public debate to resolve this impasse?

No. There is no impasse, James, only you trying to advance a position when you've failed to find a single person to support your position.

This is ~my~ last comment on this. I won't be drawn into your antagonistic games. You won't succeed in needling or pushing me into further comment.

And unless you generate consensus, your position will remain the minority position, and not the consensus position.

Here endeth the statement by me.

There are always biases in every survey, and there are sources of error in every scientific experiment. That's why people use control are comparator groups. For example, in the former contributors survey conveniently worked out where half the respondents said they had good experiences at Wikipedia and just didn't have time to keep editing, with the other half talking about specific bad experiences that at least partially motivated them to leave. We learned more comparing these two groups than just using the top line numbers.

See the diagram on the right. Your theory of admin flight has no merit, respectfully.

As a statistician, I urge you to refrain from attempting to exclude legitimate independent variables while claiming that you have some means of controlling for sources of error after having done so. There is no such means of control available when independent variables are completely excluded from a poll.

Furthermore, your attempt to cover up these concerns does not conform to accepted inter-project talk page conventions. Therfore, I have replaced the material you deleted.

Nobody has yet put forth a single reason, legitimate or otherwise, that health is not a factor in admin attrition, in the face of obesity being in the top two preventable causes of death and abundant photographic evidence that meetup attendees are above average weight. No amount of reversion will make up for shoddy statistical workmanship.

Just to say that you are too late and that the survey was already turned to the WMF.

And yes thank to your crappy argumentation, i doubt you will convince the Foundation to include you question as a last minute change.

It happens that some persons from the Foundation do read our discussion threads and see by themselves how much your argumentation suck.

Note: We can leave your "historical" content as it is "historical" because the Foundation will not fellow suit.

As I can see that the opposition on this issue has nothing left than a willingness to revert solid evidence without comment and resort to ad hominem attacks, I have asked Philippe Beaudette, who claims that he has "not insignificant" experience with survey design, to a public debate on this topic.[1]

I am closely familiar with the applied statistical mathematics inherent in survey design, and the peer reviewed secondary medical literature on the topic and I look forward to seeing them upheld.

All i can understand is that You want a custom tailored survey to "support" your point.

I may be wrong but that how i read your argumentation. A slanted survey giving biased results to support The already made conclusion.

If the conclusion were already made, then a survey would not be necessary.

However, excluding an independent variable implies that variable is not any part of the mutual hypotheses.

Nope.

That's always good to fabricate self justification & evidences to support already made conclusions.

What are you saying has been fabricated? Do you have any actual evidence supporting your one-word dismissal of the mathematical facts I stated? They are evident from first principles.

Biased questions give biased results.

As much that pipped dices give the same results regardless how many times you roll the dices.