Research talk:Expert participation survey

Promotion

Dan tweeted to me that this is now running and live. So I've been doing some promotion. I created a fairly rubbish banner ad and posted it on wikipedia:Template:Wikipedia ads. These show on the user pages of people who have opted in. Unfortunately, this doesn't help get non-Wikipedians involved, but with a bit of luck, it might get some Wikipedians involved who can forward it on to colleagues, teachers, supervisors, fellow graduate students and so on.

I've also posted it up on the suggestions page for Wikipedia Signpost. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I've also asked over on wikipedia:Wikipedia talk:Geonotice about whether we could specifically use something like Wikipedia Geonotices to target those in universities based on domains (.edu, .ac.uk). We had exactly the same discussion while doing outreach for the Wikipedians at Imperial College (proposed) student society on Wednesday. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tom, many thanks for helping with the survey, I think it's very important to have Wikipedian experts participate (so far it looks like we are getting a nice mix of editors and non-editors). I need to look into geonotices as I am not familiar with it, it sounds like a very effective way to recruit participants. Shame for Wednesday, I was supposed to join the wikicrowd at IC but I finally didn't make it. --DarTar 17:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, Geonotices as they currently exist won't help find academics specifically, and they certainly won't help get a very scientific survey, as they'll target only people with registered accounts on English Wikipedia. I don't know if other language editions of WP have Geonotices. If you guys put together a talk page message, you could possibly post it on the talk pages of people in wikipedia:Category:Wikipedians with PhD degrees, with an invitation to forward it out to their colleagues and co-workers. Also, it might be worth contacting people involved in the GLAM-BM and GLAM-BL projects as they can often help find experts (more on the historical/humanities side of things). —Tom Morris (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I added a link from wikipedia:Category:Wikipedians with PhD degrees to the survey. -- Daniel Mietchen 04:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Problems accessing survey : « ...underclass, physical disability, emotional disability, cognitive disability. »

I went to the page, < http://survey.nitens.org/?sid=21693 >, & found no clear definition of a participant, nor any way to participate, nor any application to participate. I, only, found a verbose page which does not lead anywhere worth being led to. Although I have found thousands of helpful articles via wikimedia, wiktionary, & wikipedia, I have also found that much of it leads either nowhere, as in this case, or, @ other times, worse.

DonFphrnqTaub Persina

hopiakuta DonFphrnqTaub Persina 10:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, to take the survey you should click on the Next button at the bottom of the page. --DarTar 12:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The button marked "next" had likely been hidden somehow. I had moved the page to the right, & left; but, I had not located it until just this moment. I verify that my signature is specific, emphatic, assertive, & intentional.

Regardless of whether the survey does continue to load, I could tell my comments via a telephone-number, &, if more is needed, somewhere in wikipedia : Desert Empire. &, yes, this portion is not indented.

Thank You,

hopiakuta DonFphrnqTaub Persina 02:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Actual marginal success!:

< http://survey.nitens.org/index.php >:

"Done, thanks! "Thank you very much for participating in this survey!

"To follow up on the results or read more about this initiative, you can visit this page.

"We would also be glad if you could forward the link to the survey within your expert communities: http:/ / bit.ly/ExpertBarriers . Thank you again!"

In much of the survey I chose "no answer", not of disinterest; but, as I did not interpret the question or answer as applicable to me as a disabled person or the disability community.

I do think that there should be studies regarding underclass, physical disability, emotional disability, cognitive disability. You have severely neglected us.

"Spam protection filterFrom Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki "Jump to: navigation, search "The text you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to a blacklisted external site.

"The following text is what triggered our spam filter: http:// bit.ly "

Thank You,

hopiakuta DonFphrnqTaub Persina 02:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

< http://preview. tinyurl.com/4955ghs >;

< http://t inyurl.com/preview.php?num=4955ghs >.

hopiakuta DonFphrnqTaub Persina 03:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hopiakuta, I agree that accessibility barriers should have the highest priority in Wikimedia, but this should be the focus of another, dedicated initiative: it's too important an issue to be reduced to a corollary of the present survey. As to the problem with bit.ly you report, I made the same discovery a few weeks ago: I didn't know that bit.ly (as well as other URL shorteners) had been blacklisted by Wikimedia projects, but the reason is that they represent a potential security threat and as such they are not allowed. --DarTar 20:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank You: I do agree; but, I, also, knew. But, Since June, 2006, I have attempted to do; but, I am not permitted to.

Further, I emphasize my signature, partially because, I want to stress my screenname as lowercase, & my actual name as uppercase, or camelcase. I am not my screenname; my screenname is only a matter of internet,.... only. My turtle is HopiaKuta.

hopiakuta DonFphrnqTaub Persina 00:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • Emergency: please do help me; see why on my

Thank You.

hopiakuta DonFphrnqTaub Persina 21:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

If so

The second page of questions has a column titled "If so, how does this affect your motivation to contribute?"

This phrasing is very confusing - does it refer to my answer in general, or only if it's positive?

I re-read the instruction on the top of the page and understood that it's only about the positive answer. If so (pun intended), then the "how does this affect" dropdown menu should not be selectable when the answer is not positive. --Amir E. Aharoni 23:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I too got confused by the sentence "If so, how does this affect your motivation to contribute?". A simple fix would be to change the sentence to "If you agree, how does this affect your motivation to contribute?". And as Amir suggested, that second column should only be selectable if/when a user has answered "Agree" or "Strongly agree".

--David Göthberg 02:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree (with your suggested changes). Although the page says "If so, how does this affect your motivation to contribute?", when I disagree with the survey questions, this still affects my motivation - for example:

• "Editing Wikipedia may help build my scientific reputation" - Disagree, but couldn't care less
• "Wikipedia's rules make it hard for me to participate" - - Strongly Disagree, And it motivates me to use it!
• "My scientific/academic expertise is not valued in Wikipedia" - Strongly Disagree, And it motivates me to use it!

But I see how the negative questions, negative answers and corresponding motivations could get very confusing. Maybe we should avoid using 'not', and switch to positive statements! Twilsonb 18:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for interaction

Would appreciate an opportunity for a skype. Am an academician in the throes of deciding whether to leave wikipedia writing. If you are not the best person with whom to interact, perhaps an alternative can be suggested after we speak. see Meduban at US / English wikipedia ... Prof D 67.175.21.171 16:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Status in 2015

There appear to have been no substantiative changes to this page for four years. The project is said to be "in progress" with the survey "being analyzed". Will a full set of results be formally openly published? Will the data be made openly available? Or is it now abandoned? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 05:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I assume the answer is "abandoned". Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 05:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I changed the status to 'completed'. Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

But sadly without addressing the questions. So, no full publication of the final results or the data, then. Pity. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

There's a ton of data in that slide deck, which has been openly published on Commons. It's also archived here. Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

But not the full data set, and not in a usable form. If you do not intend to publish the full dataset, or a final analysis, just say so. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I don't know who the "you" is in this scenario. I don't know all the details, but I see from the infobox and the page history that this research project was completed by volunteers over 5 years ago. But if you would like access to the raw data, you might want to try contacting the researchers involved directly, or at least @mentioning them. They are unlikely to be actively monitoring this page. Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

"You" is (are?) the person who marked it as complete. So you are claiming to know that no further publications will be forthcoming -- in other words you are implicitly answering my questions. I am making that implicit answer explicit, and I think it's a pity that there will not be any further output. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I understand you. Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The survey is no longer at the link http://survey.nitens.org/?sid=21693 given in this page but it does give a name and contact info. I also came here looking for more info about the survey. --mikeu ^talk 23:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)