Changes

Although opinion polls can be instructive in understanding where a populace is on any issue, issues such as our inability to see the questions asked or the [[demographic]] of who was asked the question can bias a poll's result.  

Although opinion polls can be instructive in understanding where a populace is on any issue, issues such as our inability to see the questions asked or the [[demographic]] of who was asked the question can bias a poll's result.  

For example - When "secret" polls are given out without our being able to see the data and scrutinize it, such as the "secret" poll which found that "[[Iraq]]is support attacks on British troops" <ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml</ref> wholesale acceptance of the polling result is not merited by the public as a trustworthy result since we cannot verify the data which is behind the poll result. The polling numbers, questions asked of the respondents and demographics which were used are not included or referenced in how this "secret" poll was conducted in the above reference (hence the fact it is called a "secret" poll). The lack of open disclosure and the fact that it was used to discount the intelligence to that point which was quoted in the same article as, "The [[secret poll]] appears to contradict claims made by Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of the General Staff, who only days ago congratulated British soldiers for "supporting the Iraqi people in building a new and better Iraq"".. leads critics to conclude that this is not a fair or accurate assessment of Iraqi opinion. Also, the article states, "The findings differ markedly from a survey carried out by the [[BBC]] in March 2004 in which the overwhelming consensus among the 2,500 Iraqis questioned was that life was good. More of those questioned supported the war than opposed it." It also contradicts the optimism shown by the Iraqis in the polls taken (March 2007) quoted in the Conservapedia entry "Iraq War" under the headline "Iraqi Liberation."

For example, when "secret" polls are given out without the people being able to see the data and scrutinize it, such as the "secret" poll which found that "[[Iraq]]is support attacks on British troops" <ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml</ref> wholesale acceptance of the polling result is not merited by the public as a trustworthy result since we cannot verify the data which is behind the poll result. The polling numbers, questions asked of the respondents and demographics which were used are not included or referenced in how this "secret" poll was conducted in the above reference (hence the fact it is called a "secret" poll). The lack of open disclosure and the fact that it was used to discount the intelligence to that point which was quoted in the same article as, "The [[secret poll]] appears to contradict claims made by Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of the General Staff, who only days ago congratulated British soldiers for "supporting the Iraqi people in building a new and better Iraq"".. leads critics to conclude that this is not a fair or accurate assessment of Iraqi opinion. Also, the article states, "The findings differ markedly from a survey carried out by the [[BBC]] in March 2004 in which the overwhelming consensus among the 2,500 Iraqis questioned was that life was good. More of those questioned supported the war than opposed it." It also contradicts the optimism shown by the Iraqis in the polls taken (March 2007) quoted in the Conservapedia entry "Iraq War" under the headline "Iraqi Liberation."

It is, therefore, important to understand that to ensure an accurate polling result, the sample must be sufficiently representative to extrapolate.

It is, therefore, important to understand that to ensure an accurate polling result, the sample must be sufficiently representative to extrapolate.