QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 3rd September 2008, 7:54pm)
![*](style_images/brack/post_snapback.gif)
A recent survey demonstrated that 56.4% of casual readers of Wikipedia were able to identify as True that "A college dropout once portrayed himself on Wikipedia as a college professor, while rising to the rank of Administrator on the site". A full 7.9% were able to identify him by name as either "Essjay" or as "Ryan Jordan". Among regular contributors to the encyclopedia, 94.1% identified the statement as "True", and 61.4% were able to name the perpetrator.
This was a proprietary study, though, so I'm not at liberty to release the raw data, or the study sponsor to you.
Additional note: this information, while a complete and utter fabrication, is no less credible than your survey that included one data point.
(IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) Greg
Wow. Sorry but without more information, your study is worthless.
Methodology? Sample size? Definition of casual? Credibility of statisticians? What were the control questions?
And leaving all that aside. If I ask a sample is statement x true or false, and they have no idea, then statistically 50% will guess true and 50% false. So that 56% said true is totally unremarkable. Your 7.9% I'd suspect are the wikipedia regulars who were caught up in the sampling.
Truly unremarkable if the survey is competent at all.