On the Matter of the Award of a Barnstar to ScienceApologist
Journal of Wikipedia
17:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Abstract: ScienceApologist has been shown to be richly deserving of barnstars.
Introduction: Since September 15, 2004, SA has made substantial contributions to the Journal of Wikipedia. However, these contributions have not, to date, been recognised by the award of a Barnstar. We propose to test the null hypothesis that SA is not deserving of a Barnstar.
Methods: SA's first 5,000 contributions were compared with those of other Wikipedia editors who had received the coveted award of a Barnstar. Each edit by SA and by a random sample of barnstar awardees was scored on a scale of 1-5, where 1 = "excellent" and 5 = "suckee". A two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate the null hypothesis.
Results: SA's contributions were found to be significantly better than that of the average Barnstar awardee (p < 0.0001).
Discussion: The null hypothesis was rejected; SA is richly deserving of a Barnstar. Based on this fact, we strongly recommend that he be awarded two.
Authors: RoyBoy, Guettarda, KillerChihuahua, Parallel or Together?, Ec5618, dave souza, Dunc, Bill Jefferys, Jim62sch, WAS 4.250, Plumbago, Samsara
|
