維基百科調查——瑞典國會議員

表1。调查期间的回复率。

表2。调查对象的出生年代。

表3。调查对象的性别比例。

表4。调查对象的党派。

表5。调查对象的选取分布情况，人数和百分比。

表6。使用瑞典维基百科的调查对象。

表7。使用NE.se的调查对象。

表8。使用在线大英百科全书的受访者。

表9。维基百科的可靠度。你自己的看法。

表10。维基百科的可靠度。你的党派内的看法。

表11。维基百科的可靠度。其他党派的看法。

表12。推荐维基百科？

表13。不推荐使用维基百科？

表14。自动书写和编辑的可能性。

表15。写作或编辑？

國會議員是如何使用維基百科的？

瑞典国会成员是如何使用瑞典版本的维基百科的？被选入国会的瑞典人是如何理解自由的百科全书的？在2013年春，维基媒体协会瑞典分会决定通过网络问卷调查的方式来找到这些问题的答案。这份问卷包括15个问题：11个问题和瑞典版维基百科有关，其余的问题则属于背景调查。问卷被以电子邮件的方式发放给349位国会议员，每位议员有选择是否作答的自由。维基媒体协会瑞典分会没有使用任何特殊手段来增加作答的数量，但是这些国会成员在整个调查过程中收到了多份填写问卷的提醒。

調查規範

在 2010-2014 年任期内，议会共有349名议员，分别代表八个政党。议会是最高决策政治团体，议员的职责包括制定法律、管理税收和决定国家预算。这项任务除了需要良好的政治触觉，还需要外部环境监督的机会。尽管如此，议员们也不能没有辅助功能，如的议会调查处或议会图书馆。议会中不乏基于互联网的百科全书和数据库。通过议会图书馆的机构，议员们可以通过议会内联网访问一系列数字工具。从维基百科的角度来看，维基百科如何应对竞争是一个重要问题。因此，本研究旨在回答以下问题：

• 国会议员在何种程度上使用瑞典语维基百科？
• 国会议员在何种程度上使用其他线上百科全书？在此以NE.SE及大不列颠线上百科全书作例。
• 国会议员在何种程度上同意维基百科的内容之可信度？
• 国会议员在何种程度上认为其他人士对维基百科的支持程度比自身为何？
• 国会议员在何种程度上建议或反对其他人使用维基百科？
• 国会议员在何种程度上考虑过编纂维基百科？
• 国会议员在何种程度上尝试编辑过维基百科？

在瑞典维基媒体，我们相信我们知道研究是我们首先应该做的。我们首先关注成员的信息搜索行为，重点是维基百科。该调查的主题与 2009 年早些时候的一项研究 维基百科--爱还是恨？该研究是代表斯德哥尔摩大区图书馆进行的。当时，高中教师也回答了类似的问题。  在所有相关问题上，它都将议会调查的结果与 2009 年高中教师的研究结果进行了比较。

成果和失敗

议员可在4月7日至5月1日期间回答问卷

表1显示了提交答案数量的高点和低点。共有96名议员作答。96 名议员约占 349 名当选代表的 27.5%。结果低于预期，即至少有三分之一的 116 名议员做出答复。损失率为 72.5%。我们认为有几个原因。要考虑的因素是成员的时间有限和他们自己的优先事项。不能排除冷漠或调查疲劳等因素： 瑞典维基媒体在建议当选代表参加活动方面绝非独一无二。另一个失败的原因可能是，在任期内有几位成员被替换。一些替代者表示，他们无法正确回答问题。一些成员拒绝参与，理由是他们对维基百科这个项目或对调查问卷、其设计或两者都很关键。

瑞典维基媒体认为，能够吸引近 100 名瑞典议员参与调查是一项成就。我们可以认为，最先回答的人肯定是那些对维基百科最感兴趣或最欣赏维基百科的人。有可能是积极的人在回复者中的比例过高，而持怀疑态度和漠不关心的成员则回避回复。我们将这一反对意见牢记在心。与此同时，我们也注意到，回复的数量构成了就议会如何使用和理解维基百科进行富有成效的讨论的基础。瑞典维基媒体衷心感谢我们接触过的所有成员，感谢你们的参与和富有洞察力的评论。

回訪

年齡

Table 2 shows respondents divided by birth decades. More than two-thirds, 68 percent, of the respondents were either born in the 1950s or the 1960s. The result reflects the chamber age structure. The average parliamentarian's age is 48-49 years. 

女性與男性

Table 3 shows the percentage of male and female respondents. Behind 64 percent of the responses are Men. Men are slightly over-represented in the survey compared to their share, 56 percent, in the chamber. Parliamentary women are similarly underrepresented in the survey: 36 percent of the responses came from female MPs while 44 percent in the chamber are women. In five cases, the respondents did not answer the question about gender.

黨籍

Table 4 shows respondents' party affiliation. Compared to the balance of power in parliament, the Christian Democrats, the Green Party and the Left Party are over-represented in the survey, while the Social Democrats and the Sweden Democrats are under-represented. The participation from other parties reflects roughly their size in the chamber.

區域歸屬

Table 5 illustrates representation from constituency affiliation. All circuits are represented in the survey, except Gotland and Blekinge. Some biases in terms of representativeness is worthy of commenting. Replies from big cities dominate the survey. The responses from representatives of Stockholm community and Stockholm County comprises of 26 percent of the survey. The two constituencies are over-represented when compare with the balance of power in parliament, where they make up 19 percent of the seats. Even Östergötland and Jönköping are over-represented in the survey.

關於使用維基百科和其他百科的問題

用途

Table 6 displays the answers on the question When was the last time you used the Swedish language version of Wikipedia? All 96 respondents answered the question. Of them, 60 percent reported having used the Swedish Wikipedia during the last week. 82 percent of respondents used the It sometime within the last month, while 4 percent said that they had never used it. Table 7 and 8 show that respondents in the same period had used the other requested Internet-based encyclopedias to a lesser degree. 26 percent reported that they had used Wikipedia's main Swedish competitor NE.SE sometime last month, while a third of respondents replied that they had never used NE.SE. A common explanation for the lower use of NE.SE compared with Wikipedia is that NE.SE is a subscription service while Wikipedia is freely available. However, in the Swedish parliament NE and Wikipedia are equally easy to access through the intranet. The teacher survey from 2009, reflected the same tendency. Then 66 percent of teachers had used the Swedish language version of Wikipedia at some point during the last 30 days, while 37 percent stated, that during the same period had used the National Encyclopedia Internet Edition.  The using of Britannica Online showed a low degree regardless if compared to NE or Wikipedia. 11 percent of respondents said that they had used this tool sometime during the last 12 months. 88 percent said they had never used this English-language option.

可靠性

A common question is if Swedish Wikipedia is reliable. What MPs think about the contents reliability is shown in the Table 9. 80 percent thought that the contents of the Swedish Wikipedia at least is fairly reliable. 20 percent chose one of the lower options regarding reliability. This can be compared to the measurement in the 2009 teacher survey, where 67 percent of respondents thought Swedish Wikipedia's content at least was fairly reliable, while 22.9 percent chose one of the more Wikipedia sceptical options.  the proportion of MPs who either chose one of the options very reliable or Not reliable at all went up to 6 percent.

In order to know how MPs understand their colleagues, within or outside their own party, if those I are more or less critical to Wikipedia than the MPs are themselves, we asked the questions: do you think that other MPs in your party find the content on the Swedish Wikipedia reliable? and How reliable do you think, that MPs from other parties believe that the content is on Swedish Wikipedia? (cf. Table 10 and 11). A major failure suggests that these questions were a bit unpopular, and the answers gave no support for claiming, that other members would be more or less critical than the requested MP. Here, the result differs significantly from the teacher survey, where a majority of secondary school teachers 2009 believed that their colleagues were more critical of Wikipedia than they were themselves. 

向他人推薦或阻止維基百科

Tables 12 and 13 summarize the responses to questions on whether MPs recommend or advise against using Swedish Wikipedia. The proportion of MPs who advised colleagues against using Wikipedia is almost negligible: 3 percent. The question seems to be easy to answer, because there was no failure at all. One-third indicated that they at least once in the last year had recommended Wikipedia to another member of parliament. The answers to these two questions indicate that MPs engage in conversations about information seeking and that very few think Wikipedia as something you should warn others for.

輸入與編輯

As shown in Table 14, 83 percent of the respondents were at least fairly positive about the possibility of writing and editing Wikipedia. It was a better grade compared to the result of the teacher survey, where it was a draw. Now a slight majority either declined to answer or were less positive or not positive at all. Perhaps there is among MPs a perception that crowdsourcing works. A majority of respondents had not yet worked on it. As shows in Table 15, two-thirds have not tried to edit or write on Swedish Wikipedia.

關鍵數位

• Approximately one quarter of the members answered the Wikimedia Sweden survey.
• 82 percent of the members had used the Swedish Wikipedia sometime in the last 30 days.
• 26 percent of the members had used NE.SE some time in the last 30 days.
• 4 percent of the members had never used the Swedish Wikipedia.
• 33 percent of the members had never used NE.SE
• 88 percent of the members had never used Britannica Online.
• 80 percent of the members felt that the content on Swedish Wikipedia at least was pretty reliable.
• 33 percent of the members had ever recommended a fellow member to use Wikipedia. This suggests There is a debate in Parliament about which sources of information you can use.
• 83 percent of the members were at least fairly positive to the opportunity to write and edit on Wikipedia.
• 33 percent of the members had ever tried to write and edit on the Swedish language version of Wikipedia.

附件

• 瑞典语问卷调查原文

維基百科成員的辯論

Attached to the user-study, here a brief report of to which extent Wikipedia so far has been mentioned in parliamentary debates. A search of the Parliamentary protocols  shows that Wikipedia was mentioned in the Chamber's debates 14 times between 1 January 2001 and 30 June 2013. It is not an astonnishingly high figure compared to other things and other media players, for instance:

• Aftonbladet, newspaper: 280 Mentions
• Usama Bin Laden: 55 mentions
• Financial Times: 55 mentions
• Janne Josefsson, high profiled journalist: 7 mentions
• Winnie the Pooh: 12 mentions
• National Encyclopedia: 19 mentions
• Nobel Peace Prize: 27 mentions
• Svenska Dagbladet, newspaper: 447 Mentions
• TV4, tv-channel: 33 mentions
• Veckans affärer, business magazine: 27 mentions
• Wikileaks: 12 mentions
• Zlatan Ibrahimovic, football player: 6 Mentions

How do MPs use Wikipedia in parliamentary debates? It seems it is mentioned for mainly two reasons: to give the speaker support for their own definitions, second as examples of a modernity which signals the arrival of a new era or both.

Wikipedia was mentioned in the Chamber for the first time during the parliamentary year 2005/2006 by the People's Party member Anne-Marie Ekström . There was a debate about asylum seekers with apathetic children where Ekström reproduced some of the Wikipedia article infants.  The same thing happened on June 14, 2007, the Green Party MP Gunvor G. Eriksson  quoted from am article on wellfare support, in a speech about livelihood support. 

Almost a year later, in a debate about cultural heritage issues, the Liberal party MP Cecilia Wikström in Uppsala brought  attention to Wikipedia and Google as two signs of the times. 

"Sometimes I have to say that we live in the Google era. We get used to things moving fast, and information is available by pressing a button on Google or Wikipedia. This offers great opportunities, but it is also a depletion. Public service must maintain the good ideals about offers of programs with quality and excellence for the citizens, at the same time people adapting themselves to the new situation of diversify and tough competitions." 

In a debate in 2011 about the civil society the Centre Party's representative Per Lodenius explained  that he had used the free encyclopedia:

"I did like most people nowadays and turned to Wikipedia: "In Swedish the expression often includes organizations like associations, educational associations, colleges and all other entities that are not part of the authorities. "Then it's quite clear what the civil society is." 

The only thing that can possibly be compared to some warning words against Wikipedia, more or less seriously meant, came in 2010 from the Moderate Party MP Walburga Habsburg Douglas  in a debate on globalization.

In her speech, Habsburg Douglas compared the content in to encyclopedias.

"In The National Encyclopedia it states: Globalization means that countries, companies and people in the world are becoming increasingly interdependent. And Wikipedia, write more in detail: Globalization can be seen as a collective term that refers to the international development of politics, economy and culture that followed by an extended and less locally entrenched worldview. It means in political view power shift from the national level to the top and intergovermental bodies, but generally globalization aimed mostly at how national economies continuously are twisted together." 

Outside the chamber's debates, Wikipedia is metioned in other parliamentary documents. In several cases, Wikipedia has been placed as the basis for claims in the reports and motions, for example, in the report Follow-up of the state's commitment to sustainable cities and in a party bill from the Green Party with the title A greener city is a nicer city. In the last example, a report on traffic and transportation needs, members referred to an article in the French version of Wikipedia as an evidence to some of the allegations.