Will I conclude, as I allude to in this Substack article (https://davekasten.substack.com/p/almost-no-one-is-working-on-any-problem), that pointing out how few people edit Wikipedia pages on abortion rights led to more incremental edits by the anti-abortion-rights side than the pro-abortion-rights side?
I will not trade in this market.
1,000
3.00🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ20 | |
| 2 | Ṁ8 | |
| 3 | Ṁ5 |
@LeahLibresco I'll admit that I have a little light future shock from, "my prediction market is being traded on by one of the people potentially contemplated by the market's resolution criteria" :)
@DaveK Very predictibly! I think for the most part, neither group benefits too much from wiki editing (pro-choice more for this example) because both sides want to tout their abortion position solely to supporters for whom it is salient rather than broadly. And it's become a lot easier to do targetted turnout.
@LeahLibresco I disagree with that conclusion but benefit from it in real-world impacts, so I will not attempt to dissuade you of it ;)