Talk:Community Engagement Insights/2016-17 Report/Technical Collaborations

Editors

Question 220 (TC45)

See this item: Community Engagement Insights/2016-17 Report/Question 220-TC45

A microsurvey could ask individual editors whether they are interested in translating, and then direct them to a landing/sign-up page. We might be able to get more translators this way. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm proposing to remove this question (phab:T170516) because I don't think the data and trend year over year is reliable (it depends on who takes the survey) and I don't see what will be do differently depending on the results. CE Insights is not a recruitment tool. Whatamidoing (WMF)'s proposal could be discussed somewhere else. Ping @Trizek (WMF): @Johan (WMF):. --Qgil-WMF (talk) 12:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I think there's nothing wrong in "using" Insights as a "recruitment" tool. The exit page could actually offer new ways to get involved, receive Wikimedia-related information, etc. I don't remember where it is located right now, but it did offer people to sign up for something IIRC (maybe hear about the survey results?). --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Given the choice, I'd much rather have a proper microsurvey tool instead of this question, even if this question leads to a sign-up page. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Question 224 (TC41)

See this item: Community Engagement Insights/2016-17 Report/Question 224-TC41

• There seems to be some confusion about Tech News at the Meta page vs Tech News on village pump pages (and what about on your own user talk page?).
• How can we find out whether the 30% that don't receive updates actually want them?

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, "Meta:Tech/News" might a be confusing denomination. I think this question is worth keeping, but maybe the list of options requires a review. For instance, I don't know what "Tech blogs and websites outside of Wikimedia Foundation"really means, and it may have some overlap with "Wikimedia news (Signpost/Kurier/RAW)". @Johan (WMF):. --Qgil-WMF (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that my first reaction when I analyzed the replies to this question, too. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I suggest simply changing to "Tech News". /Johan (WMF) (talk) 07:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Which goes for question 225 too, by the way. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 07:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Question 226 (TC43)

See this item: Community Engagement Insights/2016-17 Report/Question 226-TC43

• Respondents to this item claim to be significantly more interested in new product ideas than in prototypes or testing. However, when we have asked for feedback or engagement on ideas, we usually get next to nothing, but when we provide screenshots and interactive prototypes, we get a lot more engagement. Compare, e.g., the response to "new product ideas" at mw:Reading/Readers contributions versus the response to the same ideas presented as "first prototypes" and "designs to review" at mw:Reading/Readers contributions via Android. The same request, when presented as a prototype instead of a new idea, resulted in exactly ten times as many comments.
  • So I'm dubious about this response actually meaning that the respondents want to talk about new product ideas, because their real behavior does not line up with this response. Perhaps respondents mean something else, perhaps something more like, "I don't like being surprised by new products that seems to appear out of nowhere and often don't line up with my personal preferences or workflow", and this was just the closest option to that? I wish we could have asked this group what they meant by this.
  • Also: I wonder how many of the people asking for announcements of new product ideas are the 30% that don't receive any updates (from Question 224-TC41)?

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

This question is worth keeping, but maybe it needs to be clarified. Note that we are asking "Which are the most important announcements you are interested in hearing about?" and not "Which are the announcements you are most interested in hearing about?". Objective importance and subjective interest don't have to match. I would focus on people's interests.

Another thing is the interest about the announcements versus the engagement on discussions. Maybe it is true that a lot of people want to know about new project ideas, even if many of them at the end don't find themselves inclined to comment anything. Or maybe we are not even reaching to them. Or maybe the new project ideas are being expressed in a way that they don't find engaging.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Technical contributors

Question 518 (TC16)

See this item: Community Engagement Insights/2016-17 Report/Question 518-TC16

• Tech volunteers say that they prefer mw.org to Meta (or other wikis). I wish we could ask them why? Could it be the dev-to-non-dev ratio of contributors, the culture at that wiki, the presence of Flow, something else?
• Is Gerrit comparable to GitHub? (Gerrit appears in Question 519.13 (TC17), but not here.)
• Why isn't IRC in the list? (IRC appears in Question 519.11 (TC17).)
• What is Messenger (isn't that a Microsoft brand?), and should people have included other, non-Microsoft versions of that in this item?

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• I believe the current brand "Messenger" is Facebook Messenger. The old MSN Messenger was absorbed by Skype. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
• I think the question is relevant, but needs to be more precise. "Which of the following channels do you prefer for participating in Wikimedia software development?" doesn't refer to software development itself, otherwise "Twitter" would not be an option. :) It's more about discussion/collaboration. The options offered need a revision, and probably be aligned with 224 "In which of the following ways do you receive updates and news about WMF software development?".--Qgil-WMF (talk) 13:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Should we be asking about live sessions with Hangout/Blue Jeans, assuming this was all about online tools? --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Questions 520.x

I don't think asking a different question for each area has resulted in something as useful as we expected. One question asking to check the areas they work on (multiple answers being possible) seems to be enough.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Question 520.05 (TC25)

See this item: Community Engagement Insights/2016-17 Report/Question 520.05-TC25

This should probably be re-worded to say "gadgets and user scripts". Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• Agree. --Qgil-WMF (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Questions 521.x

I don't think asking a different question for each area has resulted in something as useful as we expected. One question asking to check the programming languages they know (and only programming languages) seems to be enough.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Question 521.14 (TC24)

See this item: Community Engagement Insights/2016-17 Report/Question 521.14-TC24

44% of respondents claim intermediate or advanced skill with communications. What does this mean? (Are they thinking "ability to talk to other devs" or "Comms"?) I think this question needs to be validated. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what does this mean, neither what we will do with this information. In the section above I am proposing to ask only about programming languages.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Questions 529

Why was the VE one on a scale 1-5 and the Collaboration one 1-4? --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 10:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Question 530 (TC05)

See this item: Community Engagement Insights/2016-17 Report/Question 530-TC05

This is far less useful if only technical contributors are asked the question. It should either get a wider audience (it's even more relevant if non-technical editors are reading the newsletter sporadically, as those involved in technical spaces are more likely to hear about news in other ways). More people should be asked this question. If that is not possible and we need to ask fewer questions, I think it can be removed. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 07:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, if kept, the options need to include "never" (or perhaps "once or twice a year"). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Question 554

Quim, can you elaborate on why you want to remove this? Is it because it is hard to make a distinction between what WMF builds, partners build, volunteers build, and between products/features/gadgets, are we the wrong team to ask this question, or? --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Elitre (WMF): the question is "To what extent are you familiar with the software created by the Wikimedia Foundation". First, I think it is a vague question. Familiar with the use of the software, with the software itself, with the reasoning behind it, future plans...? Also only the software created by the WMF? Authorship is frequently a lot more mixed than that, especially from the point of view of users. Being familiar is very subjective, and different people with the same actual familiarity might provide different responses based on how humble they are. Also, there is the point that only those very familiar or not familiar at all can really judge how familiar they are, the area in between doesn't really have enough information to judge. But more importantly, I don't see what we will do with this information. How would this data and a trend impact our plans, even if the answers would be clear and reliable. --Qgil-WMF (talk) 08:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I do not know what the point of that question was in the first place: I am assuming it wanted to find out "If I ask you about VE or Flow, do you even know what I'm talking about?", and probably exclude people from being asked further questions? --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Question 557

Same. I think this is the closest thing we have to "survey about community satisfaction" that is in our Annual Plan? I think we should probably expand on this area rather than avoiding it? --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Elitre (WMF): In phab:T170516 I am proposing to keep 557.01 as is, for the same reasons that you explain. However, I think 557.02 is very problematic. Agreeing or not with "The Wikimedia movement builds the best software it can" may mean many things. People might agree on "Wikimedia builds the best software it can" but the meaning of that agreement is completely different if they think that the software created is great or horrible. Also, even if the question would be more like "Do you agree/disagree that Wikimedia builds great software", I think the question would belong more to Audiences/Technology. We as technical Collaboration cannot do much about the answers and trends. --Qgil-WMF (talk) 08:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

New question

Should there be a question about whether the respondent is on staff? What if only WMF staff like Phabricator (for example), but we think that this is typical for all technical contributors regardless of whether they were paid to figure out how to use Phabricator?

I think that the question might offer choices similar to these:

1. Volunteer only
2. Current WMF staff
3. Former WMF staff
4. Paid to develop MediaWiki or related software, but through another organization (Wikimedia Deutschland, Wikimedia Education Foundation, Facebook, Phacility, etc.)

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes - thank you for documenting this here. This was definitely an oversight this year and something that will change next year. What the question will look like depends on what is the most important thing, but I feel as though it will focus on whether someone is currently paid or not from the Foundation or any other movement-affiliated organization. I do hope that you include this question in your team's proposal next year :) --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

meta question

I wonder how many people select the "middle choice"(neither... or...) when they actually mean no opinion. I don't know if the latter is always an option, but I do believe I'm guilty of confusing the choices. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)