Please feel free to leave comments or suggestions!
Hi, I notice you describe this as "our talk page" please can you confirm that that was a slip of the tongue and that only one individual has access to the password of this account. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
So who, exactly, is conducting this study? I see no names whatsoever, whether grad student, doctoral candidate, principal investigator, or faculty advisor. And the outside website used for gathering data -- I would have thought Carnegie-Mellon, of all places, might have the ability to pull together a functional webpage -- gives me enormous pause. I still remember Marty Rimm, after all. -- Calton | Talk 17:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Just leaving a note to inform you folks that I started, but did not complete a survey. The format at present, where I have to categorize every single characteristic (including many that I don't bother checking up on for RfA candidates) is a strong disincentive for completion. After about 10 I felt as though I was dragging phrases from left to right just to finish. I know that the alternative (allowing participants to sort as little as they like) will make it difficult to weed out aborted attempts and result in drastic under-representation of traits, it may be worth considering if your response is lackluster. For what it's worth I wish you luck but I probably won't go back to reattempt it. Protonk ( talk) 05:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, CMUResearcher, and welcome to Wikipedia!
Please, always sign your entries on Village Pump or elsewhere. The edit bar has an icon for doing it. Beyond that, I am put off by remarks above about how difficult it is to finish your survey. Do you learn something from those who start but don't finish? -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 12:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
In an effort to keep conversations on topic, I moved the following here from other pages: — Sebastian 22:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I know personally Kraut, Kittur, and Burke (though not Collier himself). They are well-known and highly qualified scientists. What they (and I, as a researcher myself) are trying to do is learn how Wikipedia works in a scientifically rigorous way, to glean lessons from this unique and successful community/information resource -- which can then be applied to other areas, leading to better communication and better decision-making in a variety of venues.
The claimed affiliation could be falsified, of course, but it seems very unlikely to me that an evildoer would choose this rather obscure fictitious identity.
You can look me up in the real world as Reid Priedhorsky. -- R27182818 ( talk) 14:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback! As with any research there are always tradeoffs to be made when trying to collect data. In this case, we had the option of including less than the true number of measures or more than the true number of measures. I'm not sure what your background in research is, but imagine that there are 15 good measures of an RfA candidate. If we came up with 10 and had the community rank them, we would be missing 5. If came up with 20 and had the community rank them, when we do the cluster analysis over a large sample, it becomes statistically evident that 5 of them are not good measures, and we throw them out. In your examples above, any one person cannot affect the results so do not worry about skewing anything. If you found 4 or 5 items you thought were poor, place them anywhere randomly, and when we analyze data over 100+ users we will see that people are not consistently placing items in the same bin, and thus they are a poor measure. In addition, when naming measures and categories it was a challenge to make them short enough so you aren't required to read a paragraph every time you made a decision, but long enough to be meaningful. While we spent substantial time improving the survey and piloting it, I'm sure as with any piece of research we make errors in clarity vs. brevity.
To perhaps say the same thing more clearly, in both lists there are good and poor measures, and good and poor categories. Rather than have the research team simply decide what is good and bad, we have asked the community. If a measure is poor, we will find that out because the community cannot agree what category it is for across a large number of people. We're sorry if that has created in frustration in taking the survey because you feel some measures are poor, but if you would complete the survey we would have the data to empirically confirm the measures are poor from community consensus.
Thank you again for all the feedback, I hope I've addressed the issues you've raised and feel free to continue to comment.
CMUResearcher ( talk) 17:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi CMUResearcher. Assuming these aren't deeply personal questions that require anonymous answers, you might have a bit better luck just asking people to take the survey on Wikiversity, which is more or less "in house". I'm sure you would find plenty of people willing to help set it up on the Colloquium if you're not familiar with wiki-markup or data processing. -- SB_Johnny | talk 23:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi CMU, Based on your earlier survey I wondered if you would be interested in a problem area on the Wiki that would benefit from research - see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Admin retention. Alternatively perhaps your existing research can cast light on our problems with RFA and adminship. Ϣere SpielChequers 16:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I saw that you added your name to the list of supporters in the project proposal for WikiProject Research. We started the the actual project a couple of days ago. You might want to add your name there. -- EPOCHFAIL( talk| work) 16:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm messaging you about this because you are listed as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Research. PiperNigrum and myself are about to start the (poorly documented) process of submitting WP:Research for review by the community and I'm making one last call for cleanup and input. Please give the article a careful read if you have a chance. Unless major flaws are discovered, we'll be adding the {{ rfc}} template to the talk page to start the process on March 2nd. That's one week from this posting. -- EpochFail( talk| work) 22:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Aaron,
An article I wrote was recently deleted by an admin but I need to access the article (or at least the text of the article).
Is there any easy way for me to do this? Can you (or another admin) send me the text of my article?
I greatly appreciate any assistance you can provide,
Please feel free to leave comments or suggestions!
Hi, I notice you describe this as "our talk page" please can you confirm that that was a slip of the tongue and that only one individual has access to the password of this account. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
So who, exactly, is conducting this study? I see no names whatsoever, whether grad student, doctoral candidate, principal investigator, or faculty advisor. And the outside website used for gathering data -- I would have thought Carnegie-Mellon, of all places, might have the ability to pull together a functional webpage -- gives me enormous pause. I still remember Marty Rimm, after all. -- Calton | Talk 17:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Just leaving a note to inform you folks that I started, but did not complete a survey. The format at present, where I have to categorize every single characteristic (including many that I don't bother checking up on for RfA candidates) is a strong disincentive for completion. After about 10 I felt as though I was dragging phrases from left to right just to finish. I know that the alternative (allowing participants to sort as little as they like) will make it difficult to weed out aborted attempts and result in drastic under-representation of traits, it may be worth considering if your response is lackluster. For what it's worth I wish you luck but I probably won't go back to reattempt it. Protonk ( talk) 05:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, CMUResearcher, and welcome to Wikipedia!
Please, always sign your entries on Village Pump or elsewhere. The edit bar has an icon for doing it. Beyond that, I am put off by remarks above about how difficult it is to finish your survey. Do you learn something from those who start but don't finish? -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 12:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
In an effort to keep conversations on topic, I moved the following here from other pages: — Sebastian 22:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I know personally Kraut, Kittur, and Burke (though not Collier himself). They are well-known and highly qualified scientists. What they (and I, as a researcher myself) are trying to do is learn how Wikipedia works in a scientifically rigorous way, to glean lessons from this unique and successful community/information resource -- which can then be applied to other areas, leading to better communication and better decision-making in a variety of venues.
The claimed affiliation could be falsified, of course, but it seems very unlikely to me that an evildoer would choose this rather obscure fictitious identity.
You can look me up in the real world as Reid Priedhorsky. -- R27182818 ( talk) 14:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback! As with any research there are always tradeoffs to be made when trying to collect data. In this case, we had the option of including less than the true number of measures or more than the true number of measures. I'm not sure what your background in research is, but imagine that there are 15 good measures of an RfA candidate. If we came up with 10 and had the community rank them, we would be missing 5. If came up with 20 and had the community rank them, when we do the cluster analysis over a large sample, it becomes statistically evident that 5 of them are not good measures, and we throw them out. In your examples above, any one person cannot affect the results so do not worry about skewing anything. If you found 4 or 5 items you thought were poor, place them anywhere randomly, and when we analyze data over 100+ users we will see that people are not consistently placing items in the same bin, and thus they are a poor measure. In addition, when naming measures and categories it was a challenge to make them short enough so you aren't required to read a paragraph every time you made a decision, but long enough to be meaningful. While we spent substantial time improving the survey and piloting it, I'm sure as with any piece of research we make errors in clarity vs. brevity.
To perhaps say the same thing more clearly, in both lists there are good and poor measures, and good and poor categories. Rather than have the research team simply decide what is good and bad, we have asked the community. If a measure is poor, we will find that out because the community cannot agree what category it is for across a large number of people. We're sorry if that has created in frustration in taking the survey because you feel some measures are poor, but if you would complete the survey we would have the data to empirically confirm the measures are poor from community consensus.
Thank you again for all the feedback, I hope I've addressed the issues you've raised and feel free to continue to comment.
CMUResearcher ( talk) 17:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi CMUResearcher. Assuming these aren't deeply personal questions that require anonymous answers, you might have a bit better luck just asking people to take the survey on Wikiversity, which is more or less "in house". I'm sure you would find plenty of people willing to help set it up on the Colloquium if you're not familiar with wiki-markup or data processing. -- SB_Johnny | talk 23:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi CMU, Based on your earlier survey I wondered if you would be interested in a problem area on the Wiki that would benefit from research - see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Admin retention. Alternatively perhaps your existing research can cast light on our problems with RFA and adminship. Ϣere SpielChequers 16:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I saw that you added your name to the list of supporters in the project proposal for WikiProject Research. We started the the actual project a couple of days ago. You might want to add your name there. -- EPOCHFAIL( talk| work) 16:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm messaging you about this because you are listed as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Research. PiperNigrum and myself are about to start the (poorly documented) process of submitting WP:Research for review by the community and I'm making one last call for cleanup and input. Please give the article a careful read if you have a chance. Unless major flaws are discovered, we'll be adding the {{ rfc}} template to the talk page to start the process on March 2nd. That's one week from this posting. -- EpochFail( talk| work) 22:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Aaron,
An article I wrote was recently deleted by an admin but I need to access the article (or at least the text of the article).
Is there any easy way for me to do this? Can you (or another admin) send me the text of my article?
I greatly appreciate any assistance you can provide,