Is online voting really unbiased?

By | July 8, 2007

Time for a little rant.

I’ve been following the 7 Wonders of the World results today just for fun, (never voted, or even aware of it previously) but the results prove some things just don’t change. Where are the Cones of Cappadocia? Or the vast (and spooky) underground city of Edinburgh? Why not the really offbeat ones for a change?

petra-pillars.jpgThe only bright spot is Petra in Jordan finally recognized as a Wonder. But the same old keeps showing up, except that it appears the Pyramids of Giza made way for either Chichén Itzá of Mexico, or the Christ the Redeemer statue to get on the list. And I always thought the Pyramids of Egypt were a permanant fixture of the 7 Wonders of the World.

This result definitely is NOT a vote for online voting as a viable method of voting. It couldn’t be more inaccurate.

Online voting really depends on literacy and internet availability. Currently, most of the worlds population are either blissfully unaware or do not have the means or internet connection to even know what’s going on.

borobudur.jpgNow, I wonder if the children who go to school in those poor countries will be later taught that the 7 undisputed Wonders of the World will be these 7 “nominations”, just because they got voted on en masse through the Web? And what about the origination of those votes? But if they knew about say, Borobudur, hey – they might cast votes for places they really like 🙂 By the way, Timbuktu was a nice one.

If its all for fun, then I don’t mind, but please don’t put that in text books. Unesco is better positioned to judge on things like that, and I don’t think Unesco had a hand or say in this. From a webmaster’s point of view, its just an example sample study of a mass Web traffic exercise. Like getting Dugg? 🙂

The 7 Wonders of the World are always fascinating. I rest my case.

Share This:
FacebooktwitterreddittumblrFacebooktwitterreddittumblr