Original
question posted at the Village Pump (assistance):
Hi, I wish to make a request to the administrators here. I am doing some research on Wikipedia and I wish to survey fellow Wikipedians on what motivates them to contribute their time, effort and knowledge to this great resource. I have prepared an online survey form hosted on my school server and I wish to contact Wikipedians to help me fill out this survey form, by email or by posting the link on the user's discussion page. Should the user not reply or delete my post , I would not pester them. Is this acceptable behaviour on WP? I don't wish to unwittingly flout the rules here. And also, any data collected would be kept private and confidential. I would only be asking questions that are related to my research and probably the most sensitive questions I would ask for are the Wikipedian's username and simple demographics (no income and such). I would require the Wikipedian's username because I am going to engage in a lucky draw for gift certificates as a reward for respondents who complete my survey. Is this OK? --WikiInquirer 15:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)talk to me
But I have drawn up a sample of Wikipedians to be surveyed (to satisfy some research criteria) and the only options open to me would be either to contact these people via email or post to the user's talk page. Can I post on the user's talk page and limit my request to just 4 lines like you said? I would KISS. In addition, I would state clearly that if the user deletes my post, then it is understood as a sign of objection and I would not pester them again. I would also send the soliciting message block to you for approval before circulation. --WikiInquirer 06:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC) talk to me
Original
question posted at the Village Pump (technical).
Hi, I noticed that the page hit count in table page is missing. Is this normal or a faulty dump? Specifically, I'm looking at stub-meta-current.xml.gz from the dump on 20061130. Alternatively, would stub-meta-history.xml.gz have the page hit count instead? Thank you! --
WikiInquirer 11:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
talk
The official announcement is in the Very Frequently Asked Questions. -- WikiInquirer 11:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I checked Wikicharts but it can show the hit counts for the top 1000 (or so, but less than 1100) most viewed pages. Are there any other internal or external tools out there that has captured the hit count of each page in the English Wikipedia? --
WikiInquirer 01:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
TALK
And I suppose the
Hitcounter table is also empty in enwiki? Sigh --
WikiInquirer 01:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
talk to me
Thank you, Tra and Shimray, for your replies. It's understandable and hey looking at the silver lining, this is a good sign -- Wikipedia is growing and growing! -- WikiInquirer 05:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC) talk to me
Hi, may I know when the next enwiki db dump would be released? As for previous dumps, can someone point me to a historical timeline, if available? Thank you -- WikiInquirer 11:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I have downloaded a portion of the English Wikipedia
database dump on 30th Nov 2006 and I have imported stub-meta-current.xml.gz (364.7 MB) on my machine. Curiously, I found that each of the following three tables: page, revision and text has exactly 6,635,199 records. As the label 'current' might suggest, is any of the data in the three tables truncated? I have a hunch that the tables revision and text are truncated at whatever the number of records that table page has. Is this correct? What does 'current' actually mean?
Furthermore, I wish to understand what are the differences among the following three files in the db dump:
Thank you -- WikiInquirer 11:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)( Talk)
Thanks Rich for the above reply. Does that mean that stub-articles.xml.gz contain only pages and no revisions/text? In stub-meta-current.xml.gz, why would the tables page/revision/text have exactly the same number of records? Any missing data here? -- WikiInquirer 04:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC) ( Talk)
Thank you very much, Simetrical. You answered my question on the spot. -- WikiInquirer 07:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC) ( Talk)
Posted the question on Helpdesk on 4th Jan item 5.8 -- WikiInquirer 05:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi there,
I am an IS undergrad doing some social research on the Wikipedian community -- What motivates people to contribute their knowledge to Wikipedia, in the absence of pecuniary compensation.
I am currently swimming through the archival data from the English Wikipedia database dump and I wish to find out how I can possibly get my hands on isolated fields in the private tables that should not violate Wikipedia's privacy policy?
Example being: In the user table (which is private), can I take a harmless peek at only the following three fields: user_id, user_name and user_registration? --with the intention of mapping the user's registration timestamp. Or are there any points of contact whom I can approach to make research-related inquiries?
Your help in this matter is very much appreciated. --
WikiInquirer 09:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice on
Private tables in the db dump. I shall go and comb the archives. Are user renaming actions captured in the logging table?
WikiInquirer 05:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Tra, thanks for the above reply. Just to be sure, a user cannot rename herself as another user who already has that username right? Meaning to say, there can't be more than one Jimbo Wales. I checked the db schema and it says that user_name is an unique index and user_id is the primary key to the user table. -- WikiInquirer 05:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Tra. You have been a great help =) -- WikiInquirer 04:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a relatively new user who is conducting some research on the English Wikipedia. I downloaded the database dump on 20061130 and I have a few questions about the user_groups table: Are normal registered users listed in this table because it has only 1,319 records? Only 7 distinct user groups are shown here: boardvote, bot, bureaucrat, checkuser, developer, oversight, steward, sysop? Does this mean that normal registered users do not belong to any of the above 7 user groups? Thanks -- WikiInquirer 05:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Please indicate your interest on the meetup page. |
v • d • |
Terence Ong 14:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC) Hi WikiInquirer,
Could you confirm your attendance for the Wikipedia Meetup on Wikipedia:Meetup/Singapore 3? Please put your name under "Available" or "Not attending".
Once again, the meetup will be on this Saturday, 10 March 2007. Please meet at Queenstown MRT Station at 11.30 am on that day if you wish to attend the meetup.
Thank you.— Goh wz 15:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I have issues with some of the questions in the survey (which I just took). Among other things, not all editing is contributing knowledge, some is applying policy, helping resolve disputes, grammar and spelling corrections etc. Also, the inquiry of how many times people contribute a day should to be accurate have either approximations or be of the form "between x and y" number of times and a "less than littlelowerbound" and "more than bigupperbound" In particular, in my case I edit more than once a day often and there was no way of stating that. JoshuaZ 22:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Yes, although contributing knowledge is the major part of Wikipedia and producing an informative product, there are other aspects as a means to that end (although I can understand using the term as a generalization to keep things succinct). Thank you very much for taking the time to survey us though; we really appreciate it when the academic or public communities take an interest. — Deckill er 22:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way, will the results be available to the general public? -- Tail 16:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I am a little worried by the mass spamming of talk pages to promote your survey. Can you refer me to any discussion relating to this. Viridae Talk 02:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi there! Thank you for inviting me to participate. Please let the Wikimedia foundation have the $10 you offered. I'll have a look and be in touch. Cheers! David Cannon 03:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
You sent this to me as well. I started your essay, and actually have something you might be interested in knowing. It may be surprising, but a lot of the people here do not write articles. Your survey seems tailored to those who do, but many of us do other chores, fighting vandalism, deleting spam, fixing grammatical errors, linking and categorizing articles, as well as other, less obvious tasks. Because of this, it is very difficult for me to answer a lot of the 'knowlage' based questions, since my article contributions basically are F-15I (now merged into another article). Just thought it may improve your essay, Prodego talk 04:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled " Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:
The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.
Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 04:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi
You invited me to take the survey and I have done so. I trust that as promised you will keep my demographic data confidential. I am curious as to how people were selected. User Viridiae stated you had emailed him "and demonstrated how the users being "spammed" were chosen for the study." Could you make that information more public please?
I agree with some other comments above that some wikipedia work is not contributing knowledge (eg writing here :-) ) and the survey doesn't really cover the time spent on project organisation. Nonetheless I think knowledge contribution is an important part and I thought your exploration of the motivations interesting. Look forward to seeing the results. Regards -- Golden Wattle talk 05:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey I also wonder how you pre-select the people as well, several of the admins you gave the survey to doesn't really edit in the project anymore while others including me never got it. Thanks Ja wat's sup 05:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I received an inviation on my talk page but after reading the survey introduction and entering my personal details I was informed that I was not eligible.
This seems dodgy: what's going on?
prat 08:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
On User talk:Dino, you observe,
---
Yo, National University of Singapore! Been there. To Singapore twice. My first doctoral advisor spent some time at NUS in Singapore; once I was off to Bangkok and said, "Hey, lets drop by ..."; she pulled one or two strings and I spent two nights in Temasek Hall, NUS.
I drink coffee without sugar, and shortly learned that when in Singapore, one says, "Coffee, no sugar," as they always put sugar in it. Blech! Interesting place, Singapore.
But you ask of the research project. Sure I'll take part. Drop me a line if its still available.
dino 17:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I thank you for the opportunity. Regards. -- Bhadani 09:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I've just filled out the form. Thank you for the option to either give to the WMF or a gift voucher: I have chosen to give the gift to the Foundation, as they are who need it the most! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Can I be in the survey? I could use ten dollars. Use the force 03:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
...as a editor mostly working on Malaysian articles. I don't really need a voucher though, but a donation to Wikipedia is OK. - Two hundred percent 08:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, with reference to the above on my talkpage, I wish to inform you that I have completed the survey - pl. gift US$10 to the Wikimedia foundation. Thanks for undertaking this survey and hope that a summary of results would be made available to the respondents, -- Gurubrahma 06:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the invitation. I was not eligible for the reward but completed the survey anyway. Some of the questions are worded strangely (the one that stood out read "look forward to contribute" when it should read "look forward to contributing" as it is future tense) but it was quick and easy to complete. I would also be interested in seeing the results.-- Opark 77 17:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Reward recipients, please list your signatures here. Thanks! -- WikiInquirer 02:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Duh! Well, I did the survey. Should I bounce through Singapore again, someday, I'll drop you a line. Don't count on it in the near future, though -- life's busy in the States.
dino 19:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I would be interested in taking part in your project if you are still accepting participants. If you are, perhaps you could let me know via my talk page? All best wishes to you, and good luck with the research. Armeria 18:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC) ( talk)
Thanks for getting back to me. I shall take the survey - the reward wasn't my concern (I would have nominated the Foundation anyway) - I was just interested in finding out about your project. Again, all best. Armeria 17:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC) ( talk)
Hello, WikiInquirer! Thank you for the gift card! What I was wondering was how you selected the individuals doing the survey. — Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 23:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
So, where are the results of the research? :) -- PaxEquilibrium 15:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
do you finally decided to go to taiwan in august? Chaerani 10:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the report. It is very interesting and I am yet to go through it more carefully. It seems like you must have made some real SQL gymnastics to get some of the needed data ! I was wondering however, if there was also not a game-theoretic framework for examining the subject. I have been mulling over the idea that there should be a kind of visible payoff for I lose-You lose - but we all win, especially when you consider that several authors here are capable enough of publishing their own books. It may be interesting to compare the situation with citizendium or other qualification dependent wiki. Best wishes. Shyamal 10:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
At a quick read, (not that quick, a good half hour skim) it looked fairly high-level stuff to me, cetrainly postgrad level, but maybe academic standards have got much tougher since I wrote my undergrad BA Hons. dissertation back in 1975! However, a plain english summary would be helpful...as a manager I like my reports to be one or at the most two pages of A4 - what were you looking for, how did you do it, what did you find out? It looks interesting, probably fascinating, but I'm struggling to discover the lessons learned and what changes you suggest are needed as a result. Excalibur 22:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Please indicate your interest on the meetup page. |
v • d • |
Hi WikiInquirer, you were originally invited to Singapore meetup 4. However, due to the lack of response, the date of the meetup has been changed to November. Please refer to this page for more information. -- ZhongHan (Email) 05:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I saw that you protected the Season 5 page of Dancing with the Stars. I was wondering how you did that so that the main Dancing with the Stars page for the US could be protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktb529 ( talk • contribs) 04:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Please indicate your interest on the meetup page. |
v • d • |
Hi WikiInquirer, you have been invited to attend the SGpedians' meetup on 29 December 2007. We are planning to make this a full day event, but you may join/leave at anytime you wish. If you can or cannot make it, please leave your name here. It will be good to have you at the meetup. Terence ( talk) 08:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear WikiInquirer,
I read with great interest your study. I have often wondered what possesses people to volunteer hour after hour to an encyclopedia, no less. Very interesting! I hope you go to grad school to continue your research. Renee ( talk) 14:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Please indicate your interest on the meetup page. |
v • d • |
G'day! You are cordially invited to a meetup Tuesday evening (tomorrow; 4 September). Sorry about the short notice. Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Singapore 6. I hope to see you there! John Vandenberg ( chat) 04:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, there is another Singapore meetup 31 October (Wednesday). Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Singapore 7. Cheers, John Vandenberg ( chat) 14:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Original
question posted at the Village Pump (assistance):
Hi, I wish to make a request to the administrators here. I am doing some research on Wikipedia and I wish to survey fellow Wikipedians on what motivates them to contribute their time, effort and knowledge to this great resource. I have prepared an online survey form hosted on my school server and I wish to contact Wikipedians to help me fill out this survey form, by email or by posting the link on the user's discussion page. Should the user not reply or delete my post , I would not pester them. Is this acceptable behaviour on WP? I don't wish to unwittingly flout the rules here. And also, any data collected would be kept private and confidential. I would only be asking questions that are related to my research and probably the most sensitive questions I would ask for are the Wikipedian's username and simple demographics (no income and such). I would require the Wikipedian's username because I am going to engage in a lucky draw for gift certificates as a reward for respondents who complete my survey. Is this OK? --WikiInquirer 15:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)talk to me
But I have drawn up a sample of Wikipedians to be surveyed (to satisfy some research criteria) and the only options open to me would be either to contact these people via email or post to the user's talk page. Can I post on the user's talk page and limit my request to just 4 lines like you said? I would KISS. In addition, I would state clearly that if the user deletes my post, then it is understood as a sign of objection and I would not pester them again. I would also send the soliciting message block to you for approval before circulation. --WikiInquirer 06:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC) talk to me
Original
question posted at the Village Pump (technical).
Hi, I noticed that the page hit count in table page is missing. Is this normal or a faulty dump? Specifically, I'm looking at stub-meta-current.xml.gz from the dump on 20061130. Alternatively, would stub-meta-history.xml.gz have the page hit count instead? Thank you! --
WikiInquirer 11:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
talk
The official announcement is in the Very Frequently Asked Questions. -- WikiInquirer 11:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I checked Wikicharts but it can show the hit counts for the top 1000 (or so, but less than 1100) most viewed pages. Are there any other internal or external tools out there that has captured the hit count of each page in the English Wikipedia? --
WikiInquirer 01:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
TALK
And I suppose the
Hitcounter table is also empty in enwiki? Sigh --
WikiInquirer 01:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
talk to me
Thank you, Tra and Shimray, for your replies. It's understandable and hey looking at the silver lining, this is a good sign -- Wikipedia is growing and growing! -- WikiInquirer 05:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC) talk to me
Hi, may I know when the next enwiki db dump would be released? As for previous dumps, can someone point me to a historical timeline, if available? Thank you -- WikiInquirer 11:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I have downloaded a portion of the English Wikipedia
database dump on 30th Nov 2006 and I have imported stub-meta-current.xml.gz (364.7 MB) on my machine. Curiously, I found that each of the following three tables: page, revision and text has exactly 6,635,199 records. As the label 'current' might suggest, is any of the data in the three tables truncated? I have a hunch that the tables revision and text are truncated at whatever the number of records that table page has. Is this correct? What does 'current' actually mean?
Furthermore, I wish to understand what are the differences among the following three files in the db dump:
Thank you -- WikiInquirer 11:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)( Talk)
Thanks Rich for the above reply. Does that mean that stub-articles.xml.gz contain only pages and no revisions/text? In stub-meta-current.xml.gz, why would the tables page/revision/text have exactly the same number of records? Any missing data here? -- WikiInquirer 04:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC) ( Talk)
Thank you very much, Simetrical. You answered my question on the spot. -- WikiInquirer 07:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC) ( Talk)
Posted the question on Helpdesk on 4th Jan item 5.8 -- WikiInquirer 05:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi there,
I am an IS undergrad doing some social research on the Wikipedian community -- What motivates people to contribute their knowledge to Wikipedia, in the absence of pecuniary compensation.
I am currently swimming through the archival data from the English Wikipedia database dump and I wish to find out how I can possibly get my hands on isolated fields in the private tables that should not violate Wikipedia's privacy policy?
Example being: In the user table (which is private), can I take a harmless peek at only the following three fields: user_id, user_name and user_registration? --with the intention of mapping the user's registration timestamp. Or are there any points of contact whom I can approach to make research-related inquiries?
Your help in this matter is very much appreciated. --
WikiInquirer 09:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice on
Private tables in the db dump. I shall go and comb the archives. Are user renaming actions captured in the logging table?
WikiInquirer 05:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Tra, thanks for the above reply. Just to be sure, a user cannot rename herself as another user who already has that username right? Meaning to say, there can't be more than one Jimbo Wales. I checked the db schema and it says that user_name is an unique index and user_id is the primary key to the user table. -- WikiInquirer 05:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Tra. You have been a great help =) -- WikiInquirer 04:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a relatively new user who is conducting some research on the English Wikipedia. I downloaded the database dump on 20061130 and I have a few questions about the user_groups table: Are normal registered users listed in this table because it has only 1,319 records? Only 7 distinct user groups are shown here: boardvote, bot, bureaucrat, checkuser, developer, oversight, steward, sysop? Does this mean that normal registered users do not belong to any of the above 7 user groups? Thanks -- WikiInquirer 05:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Please indicate your interest on the meetup page. |
v • d • |
Terence Ong 14:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC) Hi WikiInquirer,
Could you confirm your attendance for the Wikipedia Meetup on Wikipedia:Meetup/Singapore 3? Please put your name under "Available" or "Not attending".
Once again, the meetup will be on this Saturday, 10 March 2007. Please meet at Queenstown MRT Station at 11.30 am on that day if you wish to attend the meetup.
Thank you.— Goh wz 15:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I have issues with some of the questions in the survey (which I just took). Among other things, not all editing is contributing knowledge, some is applying policy, helping resolve disputes, grammar and spelling corrections etc. Also, the inquiry of how many times people contribute a day should to be accurate have either approximations or be of the form "between x and y" number of times and a "less than littlelowerbound" and "more than bigupperbound" In particular, in my case I edit more than once a day often and there was no way of stating that. JoshuaZ 22:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Yes, although contributing knowledge is the major part of Wikipedia and producing an informative product, there are other aspects as a means to that end (although I can understand using the term as a generalization to keep things succinct). Thank you very much for taking the time to survey us though; we really appreciate it when the academic or public communities take an interest. — Deckill er 22:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way, will the results be available to the general public? -- Tail 16:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I am a little worried by the mass spamming of talk pages to promote your survey. Can you refer me to any discussion relating to this. Viridae Talk 02:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi there! Thank you for inviting me to participate. Please let the Wikimedia foundation have the $10 you offered. I'll have a look and be in touch. Cheers! David Cannon 03:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
You sent this to me as well. I started your essay, and actually have something you might be interested in knowing. It may be surprising, but a lot of the people here do not write articles. Your survey seems tailored to those who do, but many of us do other chores, fighting vandalism, deleting spam, fixing grammatical errors, linking and categorizing articles, as well as other, less obvious tasks. Because of this, it is very difficult for me to answer a lot of the 'knowlage' based questions, since my article contributions basically are F-15I (now merged into another article). Just thought it may improve your essay, Prodego talk 04:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled " Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:
The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.
Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 04:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi
You invited me to take the survey and I have done so. I trust that as promised you will keep my demographic data confidential. I am curious as to how people were selected. User Viridiae stated you had emailed him "and demonstrated how the users being "spammed" were chosen for the study." Could you make that information more public please?
I agree with some other comments above that some wikipedia work is not contributing knowledge (eg writing here :-) ) and the survey doesn't really cover the time spent on project organisation. Nonetheless I think knowledge contribution is an important part and I thought your exploration of the motivations interesting. Look forward to seeing the results. Regards -- Golden Wattle talk 05:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey I also wonder how you pre-select the people as well, several of the admins you gave the survey to doesn't really edit in the project anymore while others including me never got it. Thanks Ja wat's sup 05:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I received an inviation on my talk page but after reading the survey introduction and entering my personal details I was informed that I was not eligible.
This seems dodgy: what's going on?
prat 08:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
On User talk:Dino, you observe,
---
Yo, National University of Singapore! Been there. To Singapore twice. My first doctoral advisor spent some time at NUS in Singapore; once I was off to Bangkok and said, "Hey, lets drop by ..."; she pulled one or two strings and I spent two nights in Temasek Hall, NUS.
I drink coffee without sugar, and shortly learned that when in Singapore, one says, "Coffee, no sugar," as they always put sugar in it. Blech! Interesting place, Singapore.
But you ask of the research project. Sure I'll take part. Drop me a line if its still available.
dino 17:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I thank you for the opportunity. Regards. -- Bhadani 09:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I've just filled out the form. Thank you for the option to either give to the WMF or a gift voucher: I have chosen to give the gift to the Foundation, as they are who need it the most! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Can I be in the survey? I could use ten dollars. Use the force 03:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
...as a editor mostly working on Malaysian articles. I don't really need a voucher though, but a donation to Wikipedia is OK. - Two hundred percent 08:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, with reference to the above on my talkpage, I wish to inform you that I have completed the survey - pl. gift US$10 to the Wikimedia foundation. Thanks for undertaking this survey and hope that a summary of results would be made available to the respondents, -- Gurubrahma 06:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the invitation. I was not eligible for the reward but completed the survey anyway. Some of the questions are worded strangely (the one that stood out read "look forward to contribute" when it should read "look forward to contributing" as it is future tense) but it was quick and easy to complete. I would also be interested in seeing the results.-- Opark 77 17:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Reward recipients, please list your signatures here. Thanks! -- WikiInquirer 02:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Duh! Well, I did the survey. Should I bounce through Singapore again, someday, I'll drop you a line. Don't count on it in the near future, though -- life's busy in the States.
dino 19:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I would be interested in taking part in your project if you are still accepting participants. If you are, perhaps you could let me know via my talk page? All best wishes to you, and good luck with the research. Armeria 18:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC) ( talk)
Thanks for getting back to me. I shall take the survey - the reward wasn't my concern (I would have nominated the Foundation anyway) - I was just interested in finding out about your project. Again, all best. Armeria 17:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC) ( talk)
Hello, WikiInquirer! Thank you for the gift card! What I was wondering was how you selected the individuals doing the survey. — Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 23:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
So, where are the results of the research? :) -- PaxEquilibrium 15:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
do you finally decided to go to taiwan in august? Chaerani 10:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the report. It is very interesting and I am yet to go through it more carefully. It seems like you must have made some real SQL gymnastics to get some of the needed data ! I was wondering however, if there was also not a game-theoretic framework for examining the subject. I have been mulling over the idea that there should be a kind of visible payoff for I lose-You lose - but we all win, especially when you consider that several authors here are capable enough of publishing their own books. It may be interesting to compare the situation with citizendium or other qualification dependent wiki. Best wishes. Shyamal 10:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
At a quick read, (not that quick, a good half hour skim) it looked fairly high-level stuff to me, cetrainly postgrad level, but maybe academic standards have got much tougher since I wrote my undergrad BA Hons. dissertation back in 1975! However, a plain english summary would be helpful...as a manager I like my reports to be one or at the most two pages of A4 - what were you looking for, how did you do it, what did you find out? It looks interesting, probably fascinating, but I'm struggling to discover the lessons learned and what changes you suggest are needed as a result. Excalibur 22:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Please indicate your interest on the meetup page. |
v • d • |
Hi WikiInquirer, you were originally invited to Singapore meetup 4. However, due to the lack of response, the date of the meetup has been changed to November. Please refer to this page for more information. -- ZhongHan (Email) 05:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I saw that you protected the Season 5 page of Dancing with the Stars. I was wondering how you did that so that the main Dancing with the Stars page for the US could be protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktb529 ( talk • contribs) 04:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Please indicate your interest on the meetup page. |
v • d • |
Hi WikiInquirer, you have been invited to attend the SGpedians' meetup on 29 December 2007. We are planning to make this a full day event, but you may join/leave at anytime you wish. If you can or cannot make it, please leave your name here. It will be good to have you at the meetup. Terence ( talk) 08:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear WikiInquirer,
I read with great interest your study. I have often wondered what possesses people to volunteer hour after hour to an encyclopedia, no less. Very interesting! I hope you go to grad school to continue your research. Renee ( talk) 14:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Please indicate your interest on the meetup page. |
v • d • |
G'day! You are cordially invited to a meetup Tuesday evening (tomorrow; 4 September). Sorry about the short notice. Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Singapore 6. I hope to see you there! John Vandenberg ( chat) 04:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, there is another Singapore meetup 31 October (Wednesday). Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Singapore 7. Cheers, John Vandenberg ( chat) 14:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)