User talk:TAndic (WMF)

Community Survey

I'm sorry, I decline to e-mail you.

The link to the survey doesn't work. It just whirrs forever. Possibly Qualtrics is unprepared for anyone to be using a less than cutting edge browser. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

What browser/operating system are you using? Remagoxer (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

No worries about emailing, @Yngvadottir. Thank you for informing me about this; I'm sorry to hear that the opt-in/opt-out with Qualtrics is not working for you. If you would like to try to take the survey through Qualtrics, ping me here and I can send you a private link via EmailUser (you won't have to respond to that email either). In either case, thank you very much for your time. - TAndic (WMF) (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Remagoxer: Firefox on Win 7 (Firefox is demanding to install an update; I'll report back here if that fixes the issue, which was still the same when I tried clicking the link again a few minutes ago). TAndic, thanks for the offer, but still no thanks, no e-mailing. I'm also concerned that others may be affected. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Rebooting my comp and letting Firefox update didn't help. I was forced to paste the URL into Chrome, where it came up at once and I was able to complete the survey. Not everyone has this option. Please get this fixed. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion of a minor fix to your Community survey notice

Hello TAndic,

Would you consider changing the link to the Community Insights page from [[Community Insights]] to [[m:Community Insights|Community Insights]] please? It currently leads to a non-existing page when reading your user page on other wikiprojects (for example, on FR.WP and EN.WP), without any way of knowing what is this page. With this change, everyone you ping about this survey (like me) and who reads your local user page would be able to easily read the page on Meta. ;-) Lutincertain (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for pointing this out @Lutincertain! Done! - TAndic (WMF) (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome and thank you too for changing it. :-) Lutincertain (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Community Insights/Timeline

Any updates on the Community Insights/Timeline? It's been awhile since the page has had activity. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @MJL, thank you so much for asking. I'm trying my hardest to get the report posted by the end of June. I sincerely apologize for the delay, it's my first time being the main person working on this project and I have to say I'm in awe of my predecessors -- there's a lot to clean, analyze, and digest and then hopefully make it into a report that is readable and useful while having all the details needed for researchers to be independently able to assess the quality of the analyses. - TAndic (WMF) (talk) 09:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for the ping and the response. I'll just use the 2020 Report for now. Best of luck with the rest of your work! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello @MJL! I'm happy to report that the 2023 Community Insights Report (of 2022 survey data) is now live! TAndic (WMF) (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. Amazing work!! I can see why it took so long; it's really in depth! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 22:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

2024 Community Insights report?

Hi! Any update on when we can expect the 2024 Community Insights report? Thanks! --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @LiAnna (Wiki Ed), thank you for checking in! My aim is to have the report posted by the end of September. I'll ping you when it's up to make sure you have it as soon as it's available :) Best, - TAndic (WMF) (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Great, thanks! --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Just checking in since it's the last day of September. :) I am including some data from the report in slides I'm preparing for a talk at WikiConference North America on Friday -- I can use last year's but in case the data is ready now, I'd love to use the most updated data. Do you still expect it to be ready in the next couple days? Thanks for any update! --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, it's taking a bit longer than anticipated (I feel like I say this every year.. high hopes, and then the making-a-long-report reality hits!). Unfortunately it won't be ready before Friday, but in general I don't see *major* changes from 2022. If there's anything you'd like to run by me first, let me know here or feel welcome to email me! -TAndic (WMF) (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Just following back up on this, is there a new ETA for the Community Insights Report? --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Pinging again in case my last ping got lost in the holidays! --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, sorry I missed it! It's in the proofreading and final feedback stage now, so *soon* - TAndic (WMF) (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @LiAnna (Wiki Ed) -- The first draft is posted! Let me know if you find any errors, I'll likely be making some minor edits over the next few days before I do announcements. Thank you! - TAndic (WMF) (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so much, @TAndic (WMF):. One question as I dig in here -- in 2021, there was a gender breakdown by a few different sub-categories. Specifically, I'm interested in North America, which was shown in this chart. It feels disingenuous to compare my organization (Wiki Education, which works in the U.S. and Canada) to the overall numbers, when the 2021 data showed there are a lot more women editors in North America than the overall numbers show. Do you have the North American respondents gender breakdown data? Thanks! --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @LiAnna (Wiki Ed)! Using the same method for the 2024 overall reporting (that is, weighting on project+activity and inclusive of those who prefer not to say in the variable), in Northern America (US+Canada) the proportion of women for 2024 is 16%, and the difference from the 2020 data is not statistically significant (it was 19% in 2020 using this method).

Using the same weights and variable construction from the 2021 report/2020 data (weighted on activity, and removing prefer not to say responses) the proportion of women in 2024 in Northern America is 18%, and also not statistically different from the 2020 data (22%, as in the linked chart). Either statistic is within the margin of error of each other, so there's technically no "real" difference, just an analysis style and methodological choice.

That's all a detailed way to say: if you want to be aligned with the 2024 reporting, use 16% as your comparison for 2024, if you've been working with the 2021 reporting as a referent and want to stick with that, then use 18% for 2024. Let me know if anything I wrote doesn't make sense! - TAndic (WMF) (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Just what I needed, thank you! --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Request for Central Notice Banner Approval Assistance

Hello @TAndic (WMF),

Kindly check and approve the request for the central notice banner, applied for the Africa Wiki Challenge here Africa Wiki Challenge Central Notice Banner Request

The campaign has started, and the banner has not yet been approved.

Thanks Znyadzi (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your message @Znyadzi -- I see you changed the CentralNotice message as my approval isn't needed (excellent, thank you!). However, I think your ping didn't get to me on CentralNotice the first time, and I wonder if it was because your discussion message was unsigned? Signing it should also open the discussion for others to reply as well, so that may help. All the best and good luck with your campaign! - TAndic (WMF) (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay thanks.

I will check that Znyadzi (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Community survey geographies and distribution

Hello Tanja -- US wikimedians (WikiPortraits and others) have been talking about how to get more detailed survey data and followups from contributors across the country. And how to improve the coverage of who communicates their work and needs through regional events. I see that you are thinking about alternate distribution mechanisms for the annual survey this year, and would love to learn more! I'm generally busy during your Thursday office hours (competing meetings) but glad to learn more on-wiki. –SJ talk  21:43, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi SJ, thanks for reaching out! My plan with Community Insights is to attempt a distribution/invitation through QuickSurveys rather than email, to make the opt-in process easier and reach editors on-wiki. This attempt would first be on English Wikipedia so we can check if this approach is viable overall (that is, we need the data to be comparable to past data, so we'll test with enwiki first as it has the largest subsample -- the good thing is, even if it's not comparable, we still get nice data about one project with the caveat that we're talking about a slightly different population compared to the current CI survey). Unfortunately QuickSurveys isn't too finely-grained in who it reaches, which works for Community Insights (we want the whole editor population) but would not work well with more specific groups (e.g. participants in certain WikiProjects, etc, since the tool is sampling "browser sessions" rather than individual users if that makes sense? It's kind of like a slightly more sophisticated CentralNotice banner).

Can you tell me more about what you're thinking with the potential survey data and followups? That is, who are the contributors you're most interested in, what do they "do" right now, where are they based, what would you like to ask them, etc. I might be able to brainstorm some approaches.

Likewise, happy to accomodate another time to meet if it's easier for you; feel welcome to send me an email with some times that usually work and I'll figure out what fits with my calendar :) All the best in the meantime, - TAndic (WMF) (talk) 09:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

This makes sense, thanks you! Just back from some travel. We are interested in reaching contributors who edit from regions where there are few known in-person events, to see if they have regular collaborators and what they know about the peer support networks; readers and contributors from underrepresented demographics to learn how they see editing + their experiences with it; and participants in a few specific programs (WikiCurious; WikiEdu trainings; multimedia programs like WikiPortraits that focus on uploads and metadata, not article editing) to see how those experiences might lead into a longer-term community pipeline. For each of these some sort of longitudinal study would be interesting; but even spot checks that just sample from browser sessions of logged-in readers on certain pages would be useful.

Some anecdotal observations we want to explore: groups of media uploaders + wikidata editors have many fewer edit conflicts to deal with (for media: if there's an intermediary* to take care of copyright-clearance discussions), with a power-law distribution of participation: a few participants become very active, and then become anchors for others. Racial and demographic distribution of participants in editathons / photo contests / photo walks are significantly broader than average editor distribution. Is this a function of topic / context / socialization / time? On-ramps to contribution that let people build their portfolios can attract pros and enthusiasts alike, who also take an interest in peer review, peer training, and iterating towards higher quality work. –SJ talk  07:10, 9 September 2025 (UTC)