44% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reside in Western Europe. NOTE: This question is heavily influenced by the sampling strategy that we used, which happened to target many western European languages, such as Spanish, Italian, French, and German.
this question is using raw data which needs to be weighted based on the sampling strategy. This question will be updated at a later date. --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 05:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the following best describes how you think of yourself? (optional)
3 – Participate in online Wikimedia events (e.g. a remote conference or meet-up) (6%)
4 – Support Mediawiki or Wikimedia software development (e.g. report a bug, test a product, have technical discussions, write software code, build tools) (10%)
5 – Organize community programs or events (e.g. editathons, GLAM, conferences, education program) (7%)
6 – Participate in a Wikimedia affiliate (e.g. Wikimedia chapter, thematic organization, user group) (13%)
7 – Conduct research related to Wikimedia (e.g. worked on a project on meta:research) (4%)
8 – Apply for any Wikimedia Foundation grant (e.g. Annual Plan Grants, Project and Event Grants, Rapid Grants, Project grants, Travel and Participation Support Grant) (4%)
Almost all survey participants (97%) participated in editing online
1 – Advocating to change laws that influence the Wikimedia movement (18%)
2 – Wikimedia movement fundraising efforts (8%)
3 – Partnerships with governments, universities, companies or other organizations (25%)
4 – Technical contributions, including everything from giving feedback, testing, and writing code (23%)
5 – None of the above (53%)
From the survey participants, 25% reported being strongly interested in partnerships, 23% in technical contributions, 18% in Wikimedia policy, 8% in movement fundraising, and 53% reported not being strongly interested in any of these topics.
Which of the following annual Wikimedia events that were supported by the Wikimedia Foundation have you attended in the last 3 years? (select all that apply)
1 – Wikimania (in Esino Lario, Mexico City, or London) (4%)
2 – Wikimedia Hackathon (in Jerusalem, Lyon, or Zürich) (1%)
3 – Wikimedia Conference (in Berlin) (1%)
4 – Don't know/Not sure (57%)
6% of respondents reported attending any of the major events in the last 3 years, while 53% reported that they are not sure or don't know these events. This may be due to an error in question design; a response option should have been included that said "None of the above".
23% of sampled editors who participated in the survey have collaborated or engaged with any staff from the Wikimedia Foundation in the last 12 months, in any way (online, in-person, etc.).
97% of sampled editors who responded to this question reported that when reading wikipedia it is fairly, quite or very important how the page looks on desktop.
83% of sampled editors who responded to this question reported that when reading wikipedia it is fairly, quite or very important how the page looks on mobile phones.
80% of sampled editors who responded to this question reported that when reading wikipedia it is fairly, quite or very important how the page looks on tablets. 15% of participants who answered the question selected "no opinion.
71% of sampled editors who responded to this question reported that when reading wikipedia it is fairly, quite or very important how the page looks on apps. 22% of participants who answered the question selected "no opinion.
87% of sampled editors who responded to this question reported that when reading wikipedia it is fairly, quite, or very important how the page looks on apps.
89% of sampled editors who responded to this question reported that when reading wikipedia it is fairly, quite, or very important how the page appears in search engine results.
78% of sampled editors who responded to this question reported that when reading wikipedia it is fairly, quite, or very important how the infobox looks on mobile phones. 18% of participants who answered the survey selected "No opinion".
79% of sampled editors who responded to this question reported that when reading wikipedia it is fairly, quite or very important how tables look on mobile phones. 15% of participants who answered the question selected "no opinion"
66% of sampled editors who responded to this question reported that when reading wikipedia it is quite important or very important whether the content is open-licensed.
From your perspective, how important are each of the following when reading Wikimedia projects? - Whether the embedded media does not use proprietary platforms
57% of sampled editors who responded to this question reported that when reading wikipedia it is quite important or very important whether the embedded media does not use proprietary platforms.
From your perspective, how important are each of the following when reading Wikimedia projects? - Whether the content always uses freely-licensed images
60% of sampled editors who responded to this question reported that when reading wikipedia it is quite important or very important whether the content always uses freely-licensed images.
72% of sampled very active editors who participated in the survey feel that the Wikimedia Foundation is mostly or completely meeting the technical needs of reviewing recent changes.
68% of sampled very active editors who participated in the survey feel that the Wikimedia Foundation is mostly or completely meeting the technical needs of reviewing new articles.
Do you feel the Wikimedia Foundation is meeting the technical needs of Wikimedia contributors in the following areas? - Identifying and surfacing content problems
42% of sampled very active editors who participated in the survey feel that the Wikimedia Foundation is mostly or completely meeting the technical needs of identifying and surfacing content problems.
52% of sampled very active editors who participated in the survey feel that the Wikimedia Foundation is mostly or completely meeting the technical needs of managing media.
45% of sampled very active editors who participated in the survey feel that the Wikimedia Foundation is mostly or completely meeting the technical needs of working with templates.
52% of sampled very active editors who participated in the survey feel that the Wikimedia Foundation is mostly or completely meeting the technical needs of categorizing content
47% of sampled very active editors who participated in the survey feel that the Wikimedia Foundation is mostly or completely meeting the technical needs of supporting gadgets.
43% of sampled very active editors who participated in the survey feel that the Wikimedia Foundation is mostly or completely meeting the technical needs of bots and third party tools.
2 – Help test new Wikimedia Foundation products (32%)
3 – Help document Wikimedia Foundation software products (15%)
4 – Submit bugs related to Wikimedia Foundation products through phabricator (44%)
5 – Use Wikimedia projects and products (72%)
6 – Other (specify): (12%)
From survey participants who have participated in developing software, 44% reported submitting bugs, 32% reported testing software, and 72% reported being users of Wikimedia projects.
48% of sampled editors who responded to this question reported that when they translate they find it easy or very easy to find the availability of new translations. 19% of those who answered the question selected "no opinion".
51% of sampled editors who responded to this question reported that when they translate they find it easy or very easy to find translations to update. 18% of those who answered the question selected "no opinion".
50% of sampled editors who responded to this question reported that when they translate they find it easy or very easy to find progression status for a translation. 21% of those who answered the question selected "no opinion".
31% of sampled editors who responded to this question reported that when they translate they find it easy or very easy to find the priority of different translations. 24% of those who answered the question selected "no opinion".
4 – Wikimedia Foundation product newsletters (Visual editor/Discovery weekly) (8%)
5 – Community pages/Village pump on wikimedia project (43%)
6 – Wikimedia Blog (11%)
7 – Tech blogs and websites outside of Wikimedia Foundation (18%)
8 – Social networks (16%)
9 – Other (4%)
10 – I don’t receive these updates (30%)
11 – Wikitech mailing list (7%)
12 – Phabricator (8%)
43% of participants selected receiving updates about WMF software on community pages/village pumps, and 30% selected that they do not receive these updates.
77% of sampled editors who participated in the survey know more than one language that they feel comfortable using when contributing to Wikimedia projects.
To what extent are you comfortable reading announcements in English, such as the following one about a software change?
"A team at the Wikimedia Foundation is planning to develop better tools for reviewing the edits of other users. This is because research suggests we often scare away newcomers who want to help. You can give the team suggestions by writing on their talk page."
29% of sampled editors who participated in this question reported that they edit wikipedia at least once a day. Please note that this response is heavily influenced by the sampling strategy, which oversampled editors who edit approximately 100 times per month.
Be cautious with interpreting the results. Read more >>
(From CE09) You mentioned before that you sometimes consider retiring from Wikimedia. We would like to learn why to see how we might address major issues across the projects. Please check all may that apply:
The majority of respondents (90%) contribute to Wikipedia at least once per month. Note that this question is heavily influence by the sampling strategy, since this survey oversampled Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata contributors.
31% of sampled editors who participated in the survey rated harassment as a moderate, severe, or very severe social problem in the Wikimedia projects in which they contribute.
48% of sampled editors who participated in the survey rated incivility and rudeness as a moderate, severe, or very severe social problem in the Wikimedia projects in which they contribute. 7% of respondents who answered the question selected "No opinion".
56% of sampled editors who participated in the survey rated vandalism as a moderate, severe, or very severe social problem in the Wikimedia projects in which they contribute. 6% of respondents who answered the question selected "No opinion".
34% of sampled editors who participated in the survey rated spam and promotional editing as a moderate, severe, or very severe social problem in the Wikimedia projects in which they contribute. 9% of respondents who answered the question selected "No opinion".
48% of sampled editors who participated in the survey rated complicated policies and procedures as a moderate, severe, or very severe social problem in the Wikimedia projects in which they contribute. 9% of respondents who answered the question selected "No opinion".
46% of sampled editors who participated in the survey rated unwelcoming environment for new editors as a moderate, severe, or very severe social problem in the Wikimedia projects in which they contribute. 9% of respondents who answered the question selected "No opinion".
41% of sampled editors who participated in the survey rated new editors unwilling to follow the rules as a moderate, severe, or very severe social problem in the Wikimedia projects in which they contribute. 12% of respondents who answered the question selected "No opinion".
51% of sampled editors who participated in the survey rated that it is too difficult to gain consensus on changes as a moderate, severe, or very severe social problem in the Wikimedia projects in which they contribute. 10% of respondents who answered the question selected "No opinion".
50% of sampled editors who participated in the survey rated that there is too much work that goes undone as a moderate, severe, or very severe social problem in the Wikimedia projects in which they contribute. 11% of respondents who answered the question selected "No opinion".
44% of sampled editors who participated in the survey rated lack of diversity among contributors as a moderate, severe, or very severe social problem in the Wikimedia projects in which they contribute. 17% of respondents selected "no opinion".
37% of sampled editors who participated in the survey rated ineffective block and ban processes as a moderate, severe, or very severe social problem in the Wikimedia projects in which they contribute. 21% of respondents who answered the question selected "No opinion".
32% of sampled editors who participated in the survey rated copyright infringement on Wikimedia projects as a moderate, severe, or very severe social problem in the Wikimedia projects in which they contribute. 17% of respondents who answered the question selected "No opinion".
23% of sampled editors who participated in the survey rated top-down control by the Wikimedia Foundation as a moderate, severe, or very severe social problem in the Wikimedia projects in which they contribute. 28% of respondents who answered the question selected "No opinion".
77% of sampled editors who participated in the survey feel that editing pages using the standard wikitext and visual editors is quite important or essential.
76% of sampled editors who participated in this survey were satisfied or very satisfied with editing pages using the standard wikitext and visual editors (e.g. adding or removing text; inserting headings, citations, and images)
55% of sampled editors who participated in the survey are satisfied and very satisfied with editing pages using specialized editing software (e.g. on Wikisource or Wikidata)]
47% of sampled editors who participated in the survey feel that Communicating with one or two other contributors (e.g. using the thank button; welcoming a new user; writing on another user’s talk page) is quite important or essential.
70% of sampled editors who participated in the survey are satisfied or very satisfied with software that supports communicating with one or two other contributors (e.g. using the thank button; welcoming a new user; writing on another user’s talk page)
47% of sampled editors who participated in the survey feel that holding large, structured discussions with multiple contributors (e.g. discussing a page’s deletion; voting on a new policy) is quite important or essential.
49% of sampled editors who participated in the survey are satisfied or very satisfied with software that supports holding large, structured discussions with multiple contributors (e.g. discussing a page’s deletion; voting on a new policy)'
52% of sampled editors who participated in the survey feel that keeping track of new events and discussions (e.g. getting notifications about reverts and mentions; watching noticeboard pages) is quite important or essential.
62% of sampled editors who participated in the survey are satisfied or very satisfied with software that supports keeping track of new events and discussions (e.g. getting notifications about reverts and mentions; watching noticeboard pages)
51% of sampled editors who participated in the survey feel that organizing and curating existing pages (e.g categorizing; tagging pages by quality or status; merging or renaming pages) is quite important or essential.
58% of sampled editors who participated in the survey are satisfied or very satisfied with software that supports organizing and curating existing pages (e.g categorizing; tagging pages by quality or status; merging or renaming pages
Uploading and editing media items (e.g. uploading photos, sound recordings, and videos; adding subtitles to videos; using copyright templates; writing file descriptions)
How important is this activity in your contributions to Wikimedia projects?
59% of sampled editors who participated in the survey feel that uploading and editing media items (e.g. uploading photos, sound recordings, and videos; adding subtitles to videos; using copyright templates; writing file descriptions) is quite important or essential.
How satisfied are you with the software that supports this activity?
[Uploading and editing media items (e.g. uploading photos, sound recordings, and videos; adding subtitles to videos; using copyright templates; writing file description)]
56% of sampled editors who participated in the survey are satisfied or very satisfied with software that supports uploading and editing media items (e.g. uploading photos, sound recordings, and videos; adding subtitles to videos; using copyright templates; writing file descriptions).
57% of sampled editors who participated in the survey feel that patrolling the contributions of other users (e.g. checking recent changes and watchlists; reverting edits) is quite important or essential.
67% of sampled editors who participated in the survey are satisfied or very satisfied with software that supports patrolling the contributions of other users (e.g. checking recent changes and watchlists; reverting edits.
43% of sampled editors who participated in the survey feel that translating or moving content between wikis (e.g moving entries from Wikipedia to Wiktionary; translating an article from one language to another) is quite important or essential.
46% of sampled editors who participated in the survey are satisfied or very satisfied with software that supports translating or moving content between wikis (e.g moving entries from Wikipedia to Wiktionary; translating an article from one language to another).
44% of sampled editors who participated in the survey feel that using advanced user rights (e.g. protecting pages, blocking users, and deleting revisions) is quite important or essential.
58% of sampled editors who participated in the survey are satisfied or very satisfied with software that supports using advanced user rights (e.g. protecting pages, blocking users, and deleting revisions).
63% of sampled editors who participated in the survey feel that learning information about the past activity on a wiki (e.g. viewing history pages, move logs, and talk page archives) is quite important or essential.
69% of sampled editors who participated in the survey are satisfied or very satisfied with software that supports learning information about the past activity on a wiki (e.g. viewing history pages, move logs, and talk page archives).
57% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported that the number of banners they have seen on Wikipedia while logged in were about right, while 34% reported too much or far too much and 9% reported too little or far too little.
In the last 90 days when you were logged into your Wikipedia account, how often did you see a banner at the top of the page about a conference, event or contest?
57% of survey participants reported sometimes seeing a banner related to events or contests when they logged in, while 23% of survey participants reported seeing a banner most of the time or all of the time.
2 – Stories/blogs/videos about editors and projects (25%)
3 – Training materials on editing/advanced editing (46%)
4 – None of the above (20%)
5 – Other (specify) (5%)
55% of survey participants selected that they would like to see messaging about new Wikimedia software features and 46% would like to see messaging about training materials about editing/advanced editing.
This question has a design error. The question should have said "to what extent do you agree or disagree" rather than just "agree." It is unclear to what extent this affected results.--EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 06:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To what extent do you agree with the following statement:
‘’The Wikimedia Foundation should actively support communities & affiliates in the recruitment of new editors from our readers”
71% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported that they agree or strongly agree with the statement "The Wikimedia Foundation should actively support communities & affiliates in the recruitment of new editors from our readers".
From the sampled editors who participated int he survey, 12% reported participating in an editing/photo competition or local event/conference as a result of seeing banner.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements: - The Wikimedia Foundation's software development has benefited the communities I’m part of.
84% of sampled editors who participated in the survey agree or strongly agree with the statement "The Wikimedia Foundation's software development has benefited the communities I’m part of."
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements: - The Wikimedia Foundation's software development focuses on the right priorities.
53% of sampled editors who participated in the survey agree or strongly agree with the statement "The Wikimedia Foundation's software development focuses on the right priorities." 28% of participants selected no opinion.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements: - When the Wikimedia Foundation introduces new software, it is reliable and ready to be used.
48% of sampled editors who participated in the survey agree and strongly agree with the statement "When the Wikimedia Foundation introduces new software, it is reliable and ready to be used." 24% of participants who answered the question selected "no opinion).
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements: - I have enough opportunities to participate in the Wikimedia Foundation’s software development.
26% of sampled editors who participated in the survey agree or strongly agree with the statement "I have enough opportunities to participate in the Wikimedia Foundation’s software development. 44% of respondents of all the respondents who selected an option chose "No opinion"."
49% of sampled editors who participated in the question reported knowing that Wikipedia has a multi-language app for Apple and Android phones and tablets
To what extent do you think that a banner at the top of Wikipedia pages on mobile phones and tablets, informing Wikimedia readers that there’s a Wikipedia app would be beneficial or harmful?
44% of sampled editors who participated in this question reported thinking that a banner at the top of Wikipedia pages on mobile phones and tablets, informing Wikimedia readers that there’s a Wikipedia app would be beneficial or very beneficial. 22% of participants who answered the question reported that they had "no opinion".
4 – Other special collections or research libraries (15%)
5 – Other institutional resource (specify): (4%)
6 – Personal subscriptions to academic databases (13%)
7 – Personal subscriptions to newspapers or genealogical databases. (17%)
8 – Personal research collection or privately held library (50%)
9 – Other personal resource (specify): (5%)
56% of survey participants have access to a public or government library, 50% have access to their personal libraries and 35% have access to a university library.
79% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported searching or using often or almost always for non-Wikimedia resources (books, websites, research papers) when creating content on Wikimedia projects.
79% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported using using a search engine (e.g. Yahoo, Google) to start research for contributing to Wikipedia articles.
16% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported searching on Google Scholar to start research for contributing to Wikipedia articles. 58% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported that they never use Google scholar
12% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported starting research by often or almost always looking at recommendations on-wiki. 35% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported that they never start research by looking at recommendations on-wiki.
17% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported starting research by often or almost always looking at source recommendations created by other Wikis. 38% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported that they never start research by looking at source recommendations created by other Wikis.
36% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported starting research by often or almost always searching in a database that I have access to. 31% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported that they never start research by searching in a database that I have access to.
17% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported starting research by often or almost always going to the library. 42% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported that they never start research by going to the library.
37% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported starting research by often or almost always using Open Access repositories or databases. 24% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported that they never start research by using Open Access repositories or databases.
46% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported starting research by often or almost always in another way from previous options. 37% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported that they never start research in another way from previous options.
3 – Free publisher research access through The Wikipedia Library (11%)
4 – Wikipedia Visiting Scholars (6%)
5 – Open Access Signalling Project and/or OABot (1%)
6 – Book or research grants offered by my local affiliate or chapter (10%)
7 – Internet Archive’s Wikipedia bot to fix dead-links in Wikipedia citations (21%)
8 – The visual editor’s Citoid (3%)
9 – Forward to Libraries (6%)
10 – Special:BookSources (7%)
11 – Wikipedia:Research help (WP:RH) on English Wikipedia only (3%)
12 – The Books & Bytes Wikipedia Library Newsletter (3%)
21% of respondents are familiar with the Wikipedia Library Reference desk and 21% are familiar with Internet Archive’s Wikipedia bot to fix dead-links in Wikipedia citations. It's important to note that 51% of all the respondents who saw the question did not select any option.
33% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported often or almost always running into challenges searching for research materials needed for contributing to Wikimedia projects.
1 – A message that asks you for a donation to Wikimedia (77%)
2 – A message that invites you to a photo/editing competition or to a local event or conference (64%)
3 – None of the above (9%)
77% of participants have seen a banner related to donations in the last year while 64% have seen a banner invitation to a photo/editing competition or to a local event or conference
To what extent do you feel the following message represents you and your work on Wikipedia?
Dear readers, We'll get right to it: Today we ask you to help Wikipedia. To protect our independence, we'll never run ads. We're sustained by donations averaging about $15. Only a tiny portion of our readers give. Now is the time we ask. If everyone reading this right now gave $3, our fundraiser would be done within an hour. That's right, the price of a cup of coffee is all we need. If Wikipedia is useful to you, please take one minute to keep it online and growing. We're a small non-profit with costs of a top website: servers, staff and programs. We serve millions of readers, but we run on a fraction of what other top sites spend. We believe knowledge is a foundation. A foundation for human potential, for freedom, for opportunity. We believe everyone should have access to knowledge for free, without restriction, without limitation. Please help us end the fundraiser and improve Wikipedia. Thank you.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement:
Wikimedia Foundation should seek voluntary donations from large external organisations that extensively use Wikimedia data in their commercial services
70% of sampled editors who participated in the survey agree or strongly agree with the statement "Wikimedia Foundation should seek voluntary donations from large external organisations that extensively use Wikimedia data in their commercial services"
To what extent do you feel prepared to explain anything related to Wikipedia or Wikimedia (e.g. culture, programs) to a non-Wikimedian who only reads Wikipedia?
44% of sampled editors who participated in this question reported feeling mostly or completely prepared to explain anything related to Wikipedia or Wikimedia (e.g. culture, programs) to a non-Wikimedian who only reads Wikipedia.
1 – I have never heard of GLAM-Wiki projects (71%)
2 – I have only heard of GLAM-Wiki projects, but never participated in one (23%)
3 – I have participated in GLAM-Wiki projects, but never organized one (4%)
4 – I have organized GLAM-Wiki projects in the past, but no longer organize them (1%)
5 – I am currently an organizer of GLAM-Wiki projects (1%)
71% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported never having heard of GLAM-wiki projects and 6% of participants reported participating in a GLAM-wiki project or having organized one currently or in the past.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following:
When any Wikimedia organization partners with external organizations like universities, museums or technology companies…- ...it helps us further our educational mission.
87% of sampled editors who participated in this question reported that they agree or strongly agree with the following statement: "When any Wikimedia organization partners with external organizations like universities, museums or technology companies it helps us further our educational mission." 17% of those who answered the question selected "no opinion".
To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following:
When any Wikimedia organization partners with external organizations like universities, museums or technology companies…it helps us further our free content mission.
82% of sampled editors who participated in this question reported that they agree or strongly agree with the following statement: "When any Wikimedia organization partners with external organizations like universities, museums or technology companies it helps us further our free content mission." 15% of those who answered the question selected "no opinion"
To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following:
When any Wikimedia organization partners with external organizations like universities, museums or technology companies…- ...it strengthens offline communities.
79% of sampled editors who participated in this question reported that they agree or strongly agree with the following statement: "When any Wikimedia organization partners with external organizations like universities, museums or technology companies it strengthens offline communities." 26% of those who answered the question selected "no opinion"
To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following:
When any Wikimedia organization partners with external organizations like universities, museums or technology companies… - ...it creates conflicts of interest in our community.
17% of sampled editors who participated in this question reported that they agree or strongly agree with the following statement: "When any Wikimedia organization partners with external organizations like universities, museums or technology companies it creates conflicts of interest in our community." 26% of those who answered the question selected "no opinion".
64% of sampled editors who participated in this question reported that they agree or strongly agree with the following statement: "GLAM-wiki helps diversify our content and community." 63% of those who answered the question selected "no opinion"
67% of sampled editors who participated in this question reported that they agree or strongly agree with the following statement: "GLAM-wiki helps diversify our content and community." 62% of those who answered the question selected "no opinion"
52% of sampled editors who participated in this question reported that they agree or strongly agree with the following statement: "GLAM-wiki brings needed experts to help us fill knowledge gaps." 63% of those who answered the question selected "no opinion"
14% of sampled editors who participated in this question reported that they agree or strongly agree with the following statement: "GLAM-wiki creates special interest groups that damage the community." 64% of those who answered the question selected "no opinion"
