Talk:Open-access poll

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Statistics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Internet This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Is this the best article Wikipedia has about "online polls"? If so would it be possible to use a less contentious name? I see that "voodoo poll" is a legitimate usage, but it still could appear POV. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

This article would be a good starting point [1]. I'd suggest the title "online and phone-in polls", with a statement that, in the absence of any knowledge about the participants, such polls are valueless pseudo-polls or voodoo polls, but that, in principle, useful information can be obtained. I think it would be reasonable to have a section with a title like "voodoo polls" and to use this as the target for wikilinks in relation to such polls where they are cited as evidence in the context of particular articles.JQ 04:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

That all sounds like good advice, though the proposed title is problematic. WP:NAME calls for article titles to be singular except where a plural name is unavoidable (peas, trousers, etc). I can't think of a way to get around that, so let's go ahead with Online and phone-in polls until we can find a better one. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think the page move raises some problems. Firstly, there doesn't seem to be a good reason for online and phone-in polls to have a consolidated article distinct from other polling methods such as mail-in, phone-out and face-to-face polls. Secondly, any alternative to 'Voodoo poll' such as 'pseudo-poll' is unlikely to be free of negative connotations -- the defining quality is that they fail to meet the standards of 'legitimate' polls. My suggestion would be to have separate articles for Opinion poll and Pseudo-poll (or Voodoo poll), and either have separate articles for the various polling methods or include them as sections in the Opinion poll article. --Duncan Keith 05:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Legitimate polls have randomly-selected participants and are already covered in Opinion poll. Both call-in and online polls have self-selected participants. If there's a better name for surveys with self-selected participants we could use that. I don't think "pseudo-poll" is a widely-used term, but if it were that would be a possible name for the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's not as simple as that. There are respectable polling organisations, such as YouGov, that use online polling successfully; The potential for bias from drawing their sample from a self-selected panel is balanced by the detailed and up-to-date information they have about respondents that allows them to weigh their results to reflect the population of interest. In practice they are as reliable as polls conducted using traditional methods, which in any case often have unrepresentative samples as a consequence of poor response rates. A random probability sample is not the hallmark of a good poll -- what matters is the care taken to identify and minimise bias. Perhaps 'web poll' might be a better term for the sort of poll you have in mind? --Duncan Keith 19:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

YouGov is apparently controversial so I don't know that we should go out of our way to accomodate them. Don't their polls also exist on the world-wide web? If so then "web poll" would include them as well. Perhaps the best way of handling YouGov is to trreat is as an exception by saying that some pollsters contend that it is possible to create representative samples from online polls. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

There was certainly a great deal of scepticism about YouGov when they started, but they are now well established and their polls are taken as seriously as those of traditional pollsters. I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that online polls of the sort that YouGov, Harris, Zogby, etc. conduct are very different from the unreliable polls found on many web sites. Here's another suggestion: The British Polling Council use the term 'open access Internet poll' for dodgy online polls.[2] BTW It still don't understand why online & phone-in polls are included whilst mail-in polls are excluded. --Duncan Keith 23:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Are mail-in polls popular enough to mention? I suppose we could include them in the title, though that gets cumbersome. "Open access Internet poll" also fails to include alternate participation methods. "Open access poll" is a possibility. What about "Non-scientific poll"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think "Open access poll" is a good solution. --Duncan Keith 11:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

That works for me. I goo ahead and make the move. Some minor re-writing will also be necessary. I'm sure there's more we can say on this topic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

The currrent title "Open access poll" seems to be a rarely used term. "Non-scientific poll" is a widely used term covering polls with substantial self-selection bias (akin to "voting"). Terjen 03:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of open access projects which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of open-access projects which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply