I tried to respond but got a "you already answered or your session expired" error message. David.thompson.esq ( talk) 16:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I notice you are surveying Wikipedians for your academic research project. Please take a look at
Wikipedia:Ethically researching Wikipedia. Wikipedia would prefer your cooperation, as we are always interested in the state of Wikipedia but we want to ensure studies involving our editors remain ethical. Indeed, we are an interested audience to your work as well as being your test subjects. If you have any questions, please ask.
Chris Troutman (
talk) 21:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Chris Troutman! We certainly appreciate your concern. In fact, we've taken many steps to ensure that we are in conformity with Wikipedia's standards and ethical processes. Please see our research page ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics) and it's talk page ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics) where we've gone to great lengths to abide by the community's standards. Additionally, we've obtained an IRB from the University of Chicago for this survey. Let me know if you have any additional concerns that are not covered in any of these materials. Yours, Porteclefs ( talk) 21:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
• Sorry! I didn't see the invitation until just now, and it looks like the survey is over. Robg37 ( talk) 18:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
• I've responded to your survey. – •Raven .talk 09:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
•:Done, btw don't edit much politically focused wikipedia articles but I do follow politics in general DoctorHver ( talk) 15:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• I've responded to your survey. Please do NOT report me to the authorities: they'll turn me over to Nurse Ratched - and then I'll be never heard of again... .. .
Sintermerte (
talk) 17:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
•Thank you for conducting this survey. I am concerned about the subjective nature of Wikipedia in general. I strive to be objective in editing Wikipedia. Unfortunately, it's sometimes a battle of which side has the most editors and the most persistent editors. However, the area of the most concern to me is the weighting/volume of "support" and "criticism" sections in certain articles. For example, a criticism section could be long and dominate. I've also seen support sections have a lot of, "well some people claim this as support, but it's not true." Another example was a recent article on a bill that changed Federal Student Loans, it listed a lot of positive changes and cited a source that is generally regarded as politically biased, but failed to list criticism or negative after effects of the legislation.-- Ldurkin ( talk) 19:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
First off, this talk page has gotten off to a confusing start. Everyone is just adding their topic into the first conversation. TOPICS, folks. Start a new one, if you have a question or comment. MY topic is IRB. Please tell me about an IRB. My academic background was long ago and far away, and not involving social sciences. Sorry to be suspicious snd uncooperative. My experiences online have taught me cynicism and skepticism in spades. 'Sides, my editing is usually pretty politically neutral, if not neutered: grammer, redundant phrasing, spelling, predication and verb tenses, etc. I read political articles to inform myself, and fix typos as I find them. Not really issue-driven, usually. That being said, I'm impressed by what little I know of the U of C. I know you need a sizeable body of data to generate anything useful. Mayhaps ... rags ( talk) 11:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I hope that this answers your questions :)
Blue Rasberry , thank you for your concern. I've taken it under advisement and have attempted to answer your questions as I understand them. Additional concerns should be voiced on this project's research page. Porteclefs ( talk) 14:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello,
thank you for the invitation to participate in the study. I however noticed that you are using the insecure http:// link to solicit responses. This could be a bad idea for some of your subjects, since it allows deanonymizing their Wikipedia identity if their Internet traffic is being monitored by a hostile party. You should instead use the https:// version of the link to shield the identity of the respondents. So instead of asking them to go to http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=XXXX please ask them to go to https://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=XXXX. I checked, and this site seems to be served by either protocol correctly, so you should probably use the encrypted (https://) version instead. Thank you, hydrox ( talk) 13:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Porteclefs. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. MrOllie ( talk) 16:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
I tried to respond but got a "you already answered or your session expired" error message. David.thompson.esq ( talk) 16:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I notice you are surveying Wikipedians for your academic research project. Please take a look at
Wikipedia:Ethically researching Wikipedia. Wikipedia would prefer your cooperation, as we are always interested in the state of Wikipedia but we want to ensure studies involving our editors remain ethical. Indeed, we are an interested audience to your work as well as being your test subjects. If you have any questions, please ask.
Chris Troutman (
talk) 21:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Chris Troutman! We certainly appreciate your concern. In fact, we've taken many steps to ensure that we are in conformity with Wikipedia's standards and ethical processes. Please see our research page ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics) and it's talk page ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics) where we've gone to great lengths to abide by the community's standards. Additionally, we've obtained an IRB from the University of Chicago for this survey. Let me know if you have any additional concerns that are not covered in any of these materials. Yours, Porteclefs ( talk) 21:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
• Sorry! I didn't see the invitation until just now, and it looks like the survey is over. Robg37 ( talk) 18:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
• I've responded to your survey. – •Raven .talk 09:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
•:Done, btw don't edit much politically focused wikipedia articles but I do follow politics in general DoctorHver ( talk) 15:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• I've responded to your survey. Please do NOT report me to the authorities: they'll turn me over to Nurse Ratched - and then I'll be never heard of again... .. .
Sintermerte (
talk) 17:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
•Thank you for conducting this survey. I am concerned about the subjective nature of Wikipedia in general. I strive to be objective in editing Wikipedia. Unfortunately, it's sometimes a battle of which side has the most editors and the most persistent editors. However, the area of the most concern to me is the weighting/volume of "support" and "criticism" sections in certain articles. For example, a criticism section could be long and dominate. I've also seen support sections have a lot of, "well some people claim this as support, but it's not true." Another example was a recent article on a bill that changed Federal Student Loans, it listed a lot of positive changes and cited a source that is generally regarded as politically biased, but failed to list criticism or negative after effects of the legislation.-- Ldurkin ( talk) 19:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
First off, this talk page has gotten off to a confusing start. Everyone is just adding their topic into the first conversation. TOPICS, folks. Start a new one, if you have a question or comment. MY topic is IRB. Please tell me about an IRB. My academic background was long ago and far away, and not involving social sciences. Sorry to be suspicious snd uncooperative. My experiences online have taught me cynicism and skepticism in spades. 'Sides, my editing is usually pretty politically neutral, if not neutered: grammer, redundant phrasing, spelling, predication and verb tenses, etc. I read political articles to inform myself, and fix typos as I find them. Not really issue-driven, usually. That being said, I'm impressed by what little I know of the U of C. I know you need a sizeable body of data to generate anything useful. Mayhaps ... rags ( talk) 11:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I hope that this answers your questions :)
Blue Rasberry , thank you for your concern. I've taken it under advisement and have attempted to answer your questions as I understand them. Additional concerns should be voiced on this project's research page. Porteclefs ( talk) 14:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello,
thank you for the invitation to participate in the study. I however noticed that you are using the insecure http:// link to solicit responses. This could be a bad idea for some of your subjects, since it allows deanonymizing their Wikipedia identity if their Internet traffic is being monitored by a hostile party. You should instead use the https:// version of the link to shield the identity of the respondents. So instead of asking them to go to http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=XXXX please ask them to go to https://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=XXXX. I checked, and this site seems to be served by either protocol correctly, so you should probably use the encrypted (https://) version instead. Thank you, hydrox ( talk) 13:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Porteclefs. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. MrOllie ( talk) 16:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)