Research:The role of citations in how readers evaluate Wikipedia articles/Surveys

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Round 1 (EN)[edit]

The primary purpose of the first survey is to collect free-text responses to question related to "why do you trust (or distrust) Wikipedia content?". These responses will be analyzed in order to develop a taxonomy of reasons why people (dis)trust Wikipedia. The taxonomy will replace the free-text responses in subsequent rounds of survey data collection. The secondary purpose is to validate that the survey workflow and QuickSurvey technology is working (i.e. the survey prompt shows up when it's supposed to, people can access the survey platform, and responses are being recorded), and that the survey instrument collects good quality data. Therefore survey responses will only be collected for a relatively small number of readers this round.

A. Information need, familiarity, and trust[edit]

  1. Why are you reading this article today?
    1. I am reading the article to get an overview of the topic
    2. I am reading the article to look up a specific fact or to get a quick answer
    3. I am reading the article to get an in-depth understanding of the topic
  2. Prior to visiting this article today, how familiar were you with the topic of this article?
    1. 1-4 scale from I was not familiar with the topic at all and I am learning about it for the first time” to “I was already very familiar with the topic”
  3. In general, how much do you trust the information you read on Wikipedia?
    1. 1-4 scale from “I never trust it” to “I always trust it”
  4. What about Wikipedia makes you [never/seldom/usually/always] trust the information you read in it?
    1. Optional
    2. free text
  5. How much do you trust the information in the article you are reading right now?
    1. 1-4 scale from “I don’t trust it at all” to “I trust it completely”
  6. What about the article you are reading right now makes you [not/slightly/somewhat/completely] trust the information you are reading in it?
    1. Optional
    2. free text
  7. How much do you trust the information in this article related to the specific fact or quick answer that you visited this article to learn?
    1. Show if they selected option #1 in question #1
    2. 1-4 scale from “I don’t trust it at all” to “I trust it completely”
  8. Why do you [not/slightly/somewhat/completely] trust the information in this article related to the specific fact or quick answer you visited this article to learn?
    1. Show if they selected option #1 in question #1
    2. Optional
    3. free text

Round 2 (EN)[edit]

This survey contains a set of matrix-style questions based on the taxonomy of reasons for (dis)trusting Wikipedia developed from the responses from the first survey.

A. Information need, familiarity, and trust[edit]

  1. Why are you reading this article today?
    1. I am reading the article to get an overview of the topic
    2. I am reading the article to look up a specific fact or to get a quick answer
    3. I am reading the article to get an in-depth understanding of the topic
  2. Prior to visiting this article today, how familiar were you with the topic of this article?
    1. 1-5 scale from I was not familiar with the topic at all and I am learning about it for the first time” to “I was already very familiar with the topic”
  3. How much do you trust the information you are reading in this article?
    1. 1-5 scale from “Not at all” to “A great deal”

B. Trust in article[edit]

Matrix with 1-6 scale (strongly disagree --> strongly agree + "not applicable") for each question

4. I believe that this article...

  • provides accurate information on the topic it covers
  • provides detailed and comprehensive information on the topic it covers
  • Contains enough references to external information sources
  • Contains references to high quality external information sources
  • is written in a professional way
  • is written in a way that is clear and easy to understand
  • is written in a neutral and unbiased way
  • is well-structured
  • has been written by many people
  • has been reviewed and corrected by many people
  • has been read by many people
  • is ranked highly by search engines

C. Trust in editors[edit]

Matrix with 1-6 scale (strongly disagree --> strongly agree + "not applicable") for each question

5. I believe that the people who wrote this article...

  • know a lot about the topic
  • try to keep incorrect information from being added to the article
  • will fix incorrect information when they see it
  • want to present information in a neutral and unbiased way
  • want to help readers understand how much to trust the information in the article

D. Trust in topic[edit]

Matrix with 1-6 scale (strongly disagree --> strongly agree + "not applicable") for each question

6. I believe that the topic of this article...

  • has been written about in many other information sources (not just Wikipedia)
  • is written about in a neutral and unbiased way in other in other sources I have read
  • is a controversial topic

E. Recruitment for follow-up study[edit]

7. We are interested in talking to readers like you about your experience with Wikipedia. Please add your email address below if you are willing to be contacted to participate in an interview with one of our researchers. We will only use your email address to contact your for research, not for any other purpose. We will not share your email address with any other organization.