- Regarding the "WMF staff have responded" bit: there has been no reaction since the error they made was identified: they count all responses, regardless of the value entered. (The first two days the survey was online, users had to specify "times experienced" for all the types of harassment listed, skipping items was not allowed).
- As I wrote on the talk page: The raw data proves that the response count they based the percentages on included responses where users entered '0' (or at least values smaller than 1), since the average and standard deviation listed for "hacking" and "revenge porn" are impossible when all values fall within the range 1 to 100 (Bhatia–Davis inequality). If they claim otherwise, they should publish all the responses given for either "hacking" or "revenge porn". Or let an independent third party examine the data. Prevalence (talk) 07:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- 61% of people who claimed to experience harassment in Wikimedia experienced Revenge Porn? I find that number somewhat incredible. Even if we assume that every respondent who experienced harassment responded to this survey (and thus avoid trying to extrapolate the percentages), that means that 3845*0.38*0.61=EIGHT HUNDRED AND NINETY ONE Wikimedians experienced revenge porn as harassment. Were there really 891 separate incidents of revenge porn harassment on WMF sites since Wikipedia's founding in 2000? 60 a year? Is anyone aware of a single case of revenge porn harassment of Wikimedians? I'm not going to ask for a link or even description; wouldn't want to promote such conduct if it's occurred, but to me these numbers just strain credulity. Maybe I'm underestimating what gets uploaded to Wikimedia's image servers, though. 97.93.100.146 (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
