Help us
I needs your help, especially the help from those who can use multi-language. I am trying to assess the featured articles across diverse languages on Wikipedia in order to find what factors affect the difference of the quality of the featured articels by language.
As you know, I cannot manually evaluate all featured articles from diverse Wikipedia languages because the total number of featured article approved over all the languages reaches thousands. I need to select a representative that explains the quality of the featured article group of each language on Wikipedia as a sample for the quality evaluation.
I established the criteria for selecting the sample as follows:
I have found the representative article candidates for each language as seen in the table below. Please give me your opinion on the candidate list, and the advice for updating the list if you know the better one for candidate for what I try to do, with short explanation of why you recommend the new article. cooldenny ( talk) 02:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
OK; I am cancelling out this helpme for now - because honestly, I don't think it will find anyone who can help.
Typically, a 'helpme' is answered within an hour. I am confident that many helpers have looked at this, and all decided there was nothing much they could do.
There is one inportant question about it: why do you want to gather this information? For what purpose?
It will be quite difficult to find people to assess the articles in any objectively comparable manner. Each language Wiki have their own standards. Enwiki standards for FA are much higher than all others.
Not all Wikis even have "FA" and "GA". Some do things their own way, with various rating systems.
I think the best approach is, if you can clarify exactly what you want to achieve, and why - and if it is of benefit to Wikipedia, ask on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). You might find additional links to ask about this on Wikipedia:Translation.
I'm sorry, but due to the nature of this request, it is a bit beyond what we can answer on a {{helpme}}.
If you have further specific questions though, please do add another {{helpme}} clarifying what you want. Chzz ► 00:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
John of Reading, Sphilbrick, Reaper Eternal, and Chzz, I really appreciate for your sincere helps. Removing the "help me' tag from this page is reasonable. I will try to post the same message of this page on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) and Wikipedia:Translation, following Chzz's advice. Thanks a lot.
I am trying to compare the quality of different language versions of Wikipedia project. As Chzz said, it is not easy because we cannot establish reasonable variables for the comparison. Up to now, Wikimedia foundation uses the depth as a proxy variable for the quality of each language version. However, I think we can measure directly the quality of each language because the FAs of each language are the best articles among all other articles of the language. Thus, I think that the comparison of FAs, one of the best article of all language versions is meaningful to assess the quality of each language version.
In addition, the quality of a representative FA of each language is a dependent variable. I will make some independent variables; for example, the ratio of active users to language speakers. After gathering all data, I would like to make a regression model to find out which factors affect the quality of each language version. cooldenny ( talk) 02:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
cooldenny, is this for uni(real?) research. If so, your lit review should include a few good examples of 'featured' analysis across a few of the major wikipedia. If you have already found those, and they arnt helpful, I dont need to tell you about them ;-) I can assist more, but want to understand what sort of research this is before I commit too much time to helping.
Also, mail:wiki-research-l is a good place to ask these types of questions, and you can find other people to talk to at meta:Research. -- John Vandenberg ( chat) 03:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Tuscumbia ( talk) 16:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll participate; why not. Will you share the results when you process all responses?— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); April 14, 2011; 17:58 (UTC)
I filled out the survey. Abyssal ( talk) 19:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Cooldenny. I answered the questions, as requested, but I don't know how helpful they were for you. Perhaps you should include a short area for editors to state why they work on Wikipedia. Fergananim ( talk) 16:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't sure if I was understanding the intent of some of the questions: when you say "I will try to make at least 100 edits per article page in the forthcoming 30 days", to me that sounds like "for each article that I edit, I will make at least 100 individual edits to that in 30 days). I don't think you'll find a lot of editors that edit that way, unless they are making a long series of piecemeal edits. Do you mean "in the article space, I will make at least 100 edits in 30 days"? The confusing word may be "per", which means "for each". OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the "assume that"-part (disclaimer?) in front youre questions is extremely irritating. Is it supposed to have any relation to the actual questions? If so I completely fail to understand it.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 18:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
You might want to give some information about who you are and why you are doing the research. Might make some (including, obviously, me) more interested in completing your questionaire. -- Sjsilverman ( talk) 19:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
To a native speaker of English, the questionnaire seems almost impossible to answer in a way that I would consider to be suitable for subsequent scientific analysis. I think that you really should have paid attention to the comments you received regarding this when you posted your preliminary suggestion at the Village Pump. It is not your fault that English is not your first language, but you are surveying people on English Wikipedia and you are not going to get great results if the questions are as "mangled" as at present. Indeed, they are "cognitively laborious" - too much so for me, sorry. - Sitush ( talk) 19:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I stumbled on your survey and took a look. A question about the first two questions, "I will try to make at least 100 edits to the article pages in the forthcoming 30 days" and "I will try to make edits to article pages every day in the forthcoming 30 days". Are these about intention, as in goals, or expectation? For example, I don't intend to edit Wikipedia at all and have no goals in this regard, but I will likely make at least 100 edits over the next 30 days. So do I "strongly disagree" or "strongly agree"? I'm guessing you are asking about intention/goals. If so perhaps it would be better worded "I intend to make at least 100 edits to article pages over the next 30 days", just to be clear? Also, I don't understand the question "I intend to make at least 10 edits per the article pages chosen in the forthcoming 30 days." Which "chosen" pages? ...anyway, I finished it and submitted, even though I'm not sure I understood all the questions. This one was particularly confusing: "My contribution makes it successful to accomplish the job that is attainable by only considerably large number of people." Pfly ( talk) 20:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny ( talk) 21:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
This sentence in particular made no sense to me: "My contribution makes it successful to accomplish the job that is attainable by only considerably large number of people." Kaldari ( talk) 20:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Why is there a locket next to your external link? GoodDay ( talk) 19:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. How do you decide who you are contacting for this survey? Any indication on how many of those user talk page posts you are going to make? I notice that you contacted e.g. User:Ting Tong88, an indef blocked sockpuppeteer. Such indiscriminate mass contacting efforts are often frowned upon. Have you discussed this previously somewhere? Fram ( talk) 08:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry that my invitation to a pilot study had flown at you. First, I would like to explain how I chose who I contacted for this survey. I chose first exactly 388 users who edited recently on the last Thursday, and then I saw the data gathered has a skewed distribution because recent editors made many times edits. Therefore, I need data from those who made small number of edits or none, so I selected exactly 190 users from the Wikipedia user list page, specifically choosing those who have their user ID from 12,000,000 ~ 12,005,500 or 13,000,000~13,000,500 and also has their own user page, not talk page. Second, I am sorry I invited exactly 26 indefinite blocked sockpuppeteers. Including sockpuppeteer is by chance and I thought they also can view their user talk page and can visit the survey. It's my wrong thought. I did not intent to target the blocked users. I will delete my message posed on their talk page. Third, I did not indicate the number of how many users I would contact in advance. I posted the first version of survey questions on Village Pump. I am sorry again. I really appreciate your comments on the pilot survey. For Main survey for this study, I will post how many users I will contact after Wikipedia user's revisions. cooldenny ( talk) 05:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
"Sorry, we are unable to retrieve the document for viewing or you don't have permission to view the document." Giant Snowman 17:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
-- John of Reading ( talk) 09:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I had no luck. I have replied at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 April 14#Unable to confirm my email address which is currently transcluded at Wikipedia:Help desk but may leave it after today. PrimeHunter ( talk) 13:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I completed the survey. Good luck. -- Kumioko ( talk) 01:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I would love to take the survey for you. I'm gonna do it right now. Falcons8455 ( talk) 02:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Please let me know when you post the results of this survey Boldwin ( talk) 02:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I did the survey. Glad to have been of assistance. All the best! -- B. Jankuloski ( talk) 02:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Lovely survey, can I see a copy of the results?
Purplepox01 has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
You deserve a cookie! user:Purplepox01 03:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I just completed your survey. I hope that helps with some of your research. ;) HorrorFan121 ( talk) 03:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Survey complete. I'd like to see a compilation of the results when you are done. Ckruschke ( talk) 19:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke
Please be sure to sign all comments you leave on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). You forgot to do this on my talk page. Scartol • Tok 01:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
While some questions were hard to understand, I hope our participation assists in your research. —
James (
Talk •
Contribs) • 12:16pm •
02:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
You invited User talk:Ray3232 to participate in your survey. I have just reverted all this users contributions to Wikipedia, as they appear to constitute vandalism. This may suggest what his/her motives are.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 05:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
No thanks. — KV5 • Talk • 02:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello Cooldenny - Have you made arrangements with the WMF for this survey? I ask because there have been some serious questions raised in various venues about the methods for surveys, and the WMF is currently conducting its own editor survey. One of the issues brought up with relation to other survey requests is the "spamming" of user talk pages with the messages; others are the methods to ensure that the personal information of wiki(p)(m)edians is retained confidentially and not used in other ways, whether the results will be released to the project and whether or not the information gathered will be used in any way other than to create an anonymized collated report. I would be interested in hearing back from you. Risker ( talk) 02:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Risker and Philippe mentioned and are worried about this survey in terms of individual privacy and data confidentiality. First I did not understand their worries about data handling because I showed who I am and I addressed I will use the data only for identifying editing histories and register date. In addition, only volunteers fill out the survey form. However, now I understand their concern about privacy and confidentiality. Now I have three options to solve the privacy and confidentiality issue with better safety. First, I can ask a trustee on Wikipedia (e.g., a member of the WMF like Philippe) to gather the data for our study. The trustee creates a survey form on Google Docs, and gives me an editing right of the form. Then I write the questions for survey on the form, and the trustee close my editing right to the form. After gathering all data, the trustee collects additional data (e.g., total editing count since a user registered, his/her register date and etc) instead of me. Finally the trustee transforms user ID acquired into anonymous one and give the data secured to me. I think this method solve the privacy and confidentiality issue mentioned by Philippe. The Second, I ask respondents to put their total editing volume and his/her register date by themselves. In this case, I have to offer the website where they can retrieve their history on Wikipedia Toolserver. The last option, I eliminate the question of requesting user ID. cooldenny ( talk) 07:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't wish to partake in this survey, and I don't think it's very wise to send a link to your survey page to so many people at once - it's spamming even if it's a noble cause. Thanks. Harry ( talk) 03:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
FYI -- I have alerted
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents of your spamming activity as I feel it is in violation of Wikipedia rules and policy.
Sector001 (
talk)
00:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Cooldenny. I noticed you have spammed hundreds of talk pages, including IPs and vandals, with a survey invitation. Can I ask, where exactly is your community approval to perform these talk page spam invites? I ask this after reading a request to do the same, which failed overwhelmingly: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive222#Researchers requesting administrators’ advices to launch a study. Please point me to a link where your survey was approved by the community. (Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.)-- 64.85.214.234 ( talk) 16:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi there; I remember getting one of these surveys a couple of years ago. I've gone through a few user pages filling in surveys for other people, because you've put in no safeguards to prevent that from happening. Either several PhD students are using the same template - perhaps some kind of fake degree farm in India, or something - or it's an extremely unproductive mass-marketing attempt. You aren't doing a PhD and you aren't even a university student; why do you bother? What are you after? It's dead fishy and I would love it if you went away. - Ashley Pomeroy ( talk) 12:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm curious whether you've worked with the Wikimedia Foundation's Research Committee on this? There are many experts there who can help you. If you'd like to be put in touch with them, just ask... but otherwise, I have grave and serious concerns about this survey. I do not see that it complies with best practices around human subject research, nor does it delineate the privacy implications of completion. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 03:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Pardon me, but have you received any reply from WMF as to your survey? I'm very concerned about your canvassing activities, and further concerned that you are requesting information of users. While I am willing to assume good faith, such material could be used for social engineering. If you have not received any reply, and until we get some official notification from a WMF representative I'm afraid I have to ask you to stop. Syrthiss ( talk) 14:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
*sigh* someone else brought this to the Admin Noticeboard. I have notified the board that you are discussing this with me and with WMF, but here is your courtesy notice.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Syrthiss ( talk) 15:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I am the editor who brought this up on WP:AN. What concerns me is that in offering users here a free gift card, and a chance to win another gift card, in return for providing their e-mail address, you are exhibiting the earmarks not of an academic study, but of a commercial study, and I vociferously protest against anyone using Wikipedia's commentary system for commercial purposes. I consider your recent messages, the one offering cards and seeking e-mail addresses, to be commericial spam, and I have deleted the majority of those messages. Please do not send any more e-mails concerning your study until you have settled matters with the WMF, and do not post commericial messages here of any kind at any time in the future. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 02:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I've replied to your email at my talk page. -- John of Reading ( talk) 17:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
And I've replied to your next three emails here. -- John of Reading ( talk) 15:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
For recruiting method, I have another option that has little difference from directly posting survey invitation on their talk pages. First, I choose target respondents, about 1,000 users and then post the list on our project page on meta-wiki. Then we wait until they tell us "agree to participate" or "not agree to participate." After a few days, we post the news that they are selected for the survey, but if they are not willing to participate in the survey, they do not need to do anything. If they are willing to do, we ask them to visit our project page and take part in the survey. cooldenny ( talk) 16:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
-- John of Reading ( talk) 07:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
How does the word currently benefit your user page? Would the meaning of the page change at all if it were removed throughout? Kittybrewster ☎ 16:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I invite you to participate in a discussion at Talk:Audie Murphy before it becomes an edit war. Thank you, in advance, Bullmoosebell ( talk) 01:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Help us
I needs your help, especially the help from those who can use multi-language. I am trying to assess the featured articles across diverse languages on Wikipedia in order to find what factors affect the difference of the quality of the featured articels by language.
As you know, I cannot manually evaluate all featured articles from diverse Wikipedia languages because the total number of featured article approved over all the languages reaches thousands. I need to select a representative that explains the quality of the featured article group of each language on Wikipedia as a sample for the quality evaluation.
I established the criteria for selecting the sample as follows:
I have found the representative article candidates for each language as seen in the table below. Please give me your opinion on the candidate list, and the advice for updating the list if you know the better one for candidate for what I try to do, with short explanation of why you recommend the new article. cooldenny ( talk) 02:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
OK; I am cancelling out this helpme for now - because honestly, I don't think it will find anyone who can help.
Typically, a 'helpme' is answered within an hour. I am confident that many helpers have looked at this, and all decided there was nothing much they could do.
There is one inportant question about it: why do you want to gather this information? For what purpose?
It will be quite difficult to find people to assess the articles in any objectively comparable manner. Each language Wiki have their own standards. Enwiki standards for FA are much higher than all others.
Not all Wikis even have "FA" and "GA". Some do things their own way, with various rating systems.
I think the best approach is, if you can clarify exactly what you want to achieve, and why - and if it is of benefit to Wikipedia, ask on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). You might find additional links to ask about this on Wikipedia:Translation.
I'm sorry, but due to the nature of this request, it is a bit beyond what we can answer on a {{helpme}}.
If you have further specific questions though, please do add another {{helpme}} clarifying what you want. Chzz ► 00:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
John of Reading, Sphilbrick, Reaper Eternal, and Chzz, I really appreciate for your sincere helps. Removing the "help me' tag from this page is reasonable. I will try to post the same message of this page on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) and Wikipedia:Translation, following Chzz's advice. Thanks a lot.
I am trying to compare the quality of different language versions of Wikipedia project. As Chzz said, it is not easy because we cannot establish reasonable variables for the comparison. Up to now, Wikimedia foundation uses the depth as a proxy variable for the quality of each language version. However, I think we can measure directly the quality of each language because the FAs of each language are the best articles among all other articles of the language. Thus, I think that the comparison of FAs, one of the best article of all language versions is meaningful to assess the quality of each language version.
In addition, the quality of a representative FA of each language is a dependent variable. I will make some independent variables; for example, the ratio of active users to language speakers. After gathering all data, I would like to make a regression model to find out which factors affect the quality of each language version. cooldenny ( talk) 02:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
cooldenny, is this for uni(real?) research. If so, your lit review should include a few good examples of 'featured' analysis across a few of the major wikipedia. If you have already found those, and they arnt helpful, I dont need to tell you about them ;-) I can assist more, but want to understand what sort of research this is before I commit too much time to helping.
Also, mail:wiki-research-l is a good place to ask these types of questions, and you can find other people to talk to at meta:Research. -- John Vandenberg ( chat) 03:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Tuscumbia ( talk) 16:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll participate; why not. Will you share the results when you process all responses?— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); April 14, 2011; 17:58 (UTC)
I filled out the survey. Abyssal ( talk) 19:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Cooldenny. I answered the questions, as requested, but I don't know how helpful they were for you. Perhaps you should include a short area for editors to state why they work on Wikipedia. Fergananim ( talk) 16:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't sure if I was understanding the intent of some of the questions: when you say "I will try to make at least 100 edits per article page in the forthcoming 30 days", to me that sounds like "for each article that I edit, I will make at least 100 individual edits to that in 30 days). I don't think you'll find a lot of editors that edit that way, unless they are making a long series of piecemeal edits. Do you mean "in the article space, I will make at least 100 edits in 30 days"? The confusing word may be "per", which means "for each". OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the "assume that"-part (disclaimer?) in front youre questions is extremely irritating. Is it supposed to have any relation to the actual questions? If so I completely fail to understand it.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 18:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
You might want to give some information about who you are and why you are doing the research. Might make some (including, obviously, me) more interested in completing your questionaire. -- Sjsilverman ( talk) 19:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
To a native speaker of English, the questionnaire seems almost impossible to answer in a way that I would consider to be suitable for subsequent scientific analysis. I think that you really should have paid attention to the comments you received regarding this when you posted your preliminary suggestion at the Village Pump. It is not your fault that English is not your first language, but you are surveying people on English Wikipedia and you are not going to get great results if the questions are as "mangled" as at present. Indeed, they are "cognitively laborious" - too much so for me, sorry. - Sitush ( talk) 19:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I stumbled on your survey and took a look. A question about the first two questions, "I will try to make at least 100 edits to the article pages in the forthcoming 30 days" and "I will try to make edits to article pages every day in the forthcoming 30 days". Are these about intention, as in goals, or expectation? For example, I don't intend to edit Wikipedia at all and have no goals in this regard, but I will likely make at least 100 edits over the next 30 days. So do I "strongly disagree" or "strongly agree"? I'm guessing you are asking about intention/goals. If so perhaps it would be better worded "I intend to make at least 100 edits to article pages over the next 30 days", just to be clear? Also, I don't understand the question "I intend to make at least 10 edits per the article pages chosen in the forthcoming 30 days." Which "chosen" pages? ...anyway, I finished it and submitted, even though I'm not sure I understood all the questions. This one was particularly confusing: "My contribution makes it successful to accomplish the job that is attainable by only considerably large number of people." Pfly ( talk) 20:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny ( talk) 21:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
This sentence in particular made no sense to me: "My contribution makes it successful to accomplish the job that is attainable by only considerably large number of people." Kaldari ( talk) 20:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Why is there a locket next to your external link? GoodDay ( talk) 19:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. How do you decide who you are contacting for this survey? Any indication on how many of those user talk page posts you are going to make? I notice that you contacted e.g. User:Ting Tong88, an indef blocked sockpuppeteer. Such indiscriminate mass contacting efforts are often frowned upon. Have you discussed this previously somewhere? Fram ( talk) 08:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry that my invitation to a pilot study had flown at you. First, I would like to explain how I chose who I contacted for this survey. I chose first exactly 388 users who edited recently on the last Thursday, and then I saw the data gathered has a skewed distribution because recent editors made many times edits. Therefore, I need data from those who made small number of edits or none, so I selected exactly 190 users from the Wikipedia user list page, specifically choosing those who have their user ID from 12,000,000 ~ 12,005,500 or 13,000,000~13,000,500 and also has their own user page, not talk page. Second, I am sorry I invited exactly 26 indefinite blocked sockpuppeteers. Including sockpuppeteer is by chance and I thought they also can view their user talk page and can visit the survey. It's my wrong thought. I did not intent to target the blocked users. I will delete my message posed on their talk page. Third, I did not indicate the number of how many users I would contact in advance. I posted the first version of survey questions on Village Pump. I am sorry again. I really appreciate your comments on the pilot survey. For Main survey for this study, I will post how many users I will contact after Wikipedia user's revisions. cooldenny ( talk) 05:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
"Sorry, we are unable to retrieve the document for viewing or you don't have permission to view the document." Giant Snowman 17:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
-- John of Reading ( talk) 09:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I had no luck. I have replied at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 April 14#Unable to confirm my email address which is currently transcluded at Wikipedia:Help desk but may leave it after today. PrimeHunter ( talk) 13:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I completed the survey. Good luck. -- Kumioko ( talk) 01:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I would love to take the survey for you. I'm gonna do it right now. Falcons8455 ( talk) 02:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Please let me know when you post the results of this survey Boldwin ( talk) 02:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I did the survey. Glad to have been of assistance. All the best! -- B. Jankuloski ( talk) 02:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Lovely survey, can I see a copy of the results?
Purplepox01 has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
You deserve a cookie! user:Purplepox01 03:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I just completed your survey. I hope that helps with some of your research. ;) HorrorFan121 ( talk) 03:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Survey complete. I'd like to see a compilation of the results when you are done. Ckruschke ( talk) 19:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke
Please be sure to sign all comments you leave on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). You forgot to do this on my talk page. Scartol • Tok 01:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
While some questions were hard to understand, I hope our participation assists in your research. —
James (
Talk •
Contribs) • 12:16pm •
02:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
You invited User talk:Ray3232 to participate in your survey. I have just reverted all this users contributions to Wikipedia, as they appear to constitute vandalism. This may suggest what his/her motives are.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 05:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
No thanks. — KV5 • Talk • 02:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello Cooldenny - Have you made arrangements with the WMF for this survey? I ask because there have been some serious questions raised in various venues about the methods for surveys, and the WMF is currently conducting its own editor survey. One of the issues brought up with relation to other survey requests is the "spamming" of user talk pages with the messages; others are the methods to ensure that the personal information of wiki(p)(m)edians is retained confidentially and not used in other ways, whether the results will be released to the project and whether or not the information gathered will be used in any way other than to create an anonymized collated report. I would be interested in hearing back from you. Risker ( talk) 02:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Risker and Philippe mentioned and are worried about this survey in terms of individual privacy and data confidentiality. First I did not understand their worries about data handling because I showed who I am and I addressed I will use the data only for identifying editing histories and register date. In addition, only volunteers fill out the survey form. However, now I understand their concern about privacy and confidentiality. Now I have three options to solve the privacy and confidentiality issue with better safety. First, I can ask a trustee on Wikipedia (e.g., a member of the WMF like Philippe) to gather the data for our study. The trustee creates a survey form on Google Docs, and gives me an editing right of the form. Then I write the questions for survey on the form, and the trustee close my editing right to the form. After gathering all data, the trustee collects additional data (e.g., total editing count since a user registered, his/her register date and etc) instead of me. Finally the trustee transforms user ID acquired into anonymous one and give the data secured to me. I think this method solve the privacy and confidentiality issue mentioned by Philippe. The Second, I ask respondents to put their total editing volume and his/her register date by themselves. In this case, I have to offer the website where they can retrieve their history on Wikipedia Toolserver. The last option, I eliminate the question of requesting user ID. cooldenny ( talk) 07:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't wish to partake in this survey, and I don't think it's very wise to send a link to your survey page to so many people at once - it's spamming even if it's a noble cause. Thanks. Harry ( talk) 03:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
FYI -- I have alerted
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents of your spamming activity as I feel it is in violation of Wikipedia rules and policy.
Sector001 (
talk)
00:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Cooldenny. I noticed you have spammed hundreds of talk pages, including IPs and vandals, with a survey invitation. Can I ask, where exactly is your community approval to perform these talk page spam invites? I ask this after reading a request to do the same, which failed overwhelmingly: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive222#Researchers requesting administrators’ advices to launch a study. Please point me to a link where your survey was approved by the community. (Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.)-- 64.85.214.234 ( talk) 16:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi there; I remember getting one of these surveys a couple of years ago. I've gone through a few user pages filling in surveys for other people, because you've put in no safeguards to prevent that from happening. Either several PhD students are using the same template - perhaps some kind of fake degree farm in India, or something - or it's an extremely unproductive mass-marketing attempt. You aren't doing a PhD and you aren't even a university student; why do you bother? What are you after? It's dead fishy and I would love it if you went away. - Ashley Pomeroy ( talk) 12:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm curious whether you've worked with the Wikimedia Foundation's Research Committee on this? There are many experts there who can help you. If you'd like to be put in touch with them, just ask... but otherwise, I have grave and serious concerns about this survey. I do not see that it complies with best practices around human subject research, nor does it delineate the privacy implications of completion. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 03:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Pardon me, but have you received any reply from WMF as to your survey? I'm very concerned about your canvassing activities, and further concerned that you are requesting information of users. While I am willing to assume good faith, such material could be used for social engineering. If you have not received any reply, and until we get some official notification from a WMF representative I'm afraid I have to ask you to stop. Syrthiss ( talk) 14:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
*sigh* someone else brought this to the Admin Noticeboard. I have notified the board that you are discussing this with me and with WMF, but here is your courtesy notice.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Syrthiss ( talk) 15:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I am the editor who brought this up on WP:AN. What concerns me is that in offering users here a free gift card, and a chance to win another gift card, in return for providing their e-mail address, you are exhibiting the earmarks not of an academic study, but of a commercial study, and I vociferously protest against anyone using Wikipedia's commentary system for commercial purposes. I consider your recent messages, the one offering cards and seeking e-mail addresses, to be commericial spam, and I have deleted the majority of those messages. Please do not send any more e-mails concerning your study until you have settled matters with the WMF, and do not post commericial messages here of any kind at any time in the future. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 02:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I've replied to your email at my talk page. -- John of Reading ( talk) 17:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
And I've replied to your next three emails here. -- John of Reading ( talk) 15:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
For recruiting method, I have another option that has little difference from directly posting survey invitation on their talk pages. First, I choose target respondents, about 1,000 users and then post the list on our project page on meta-wiki. Then we wait until they tell us "agree to participate" or "not agree to participate." After a few days, we post the news that they are selected for the survey, but if they are not willing to participate in the survey, they do not need to do anything. If they are willing to do, we ask them to visit our project page and take part in the survey. cooldenny ( talk) 16:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
-- John of Reading ( talk) 07:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
How does the word currently benefit your user page? Would the meaning of the page change at all if it were removed throughout? Kittybrewster ☎ 16:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I invite you to participate in a discussion at Talk:Audie Murphy before it becomes an edit war. Thank you, in advance, Bullmoosebell ( talk) 01:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)