User talk:Cooldenny

Help us

• Project Page at the WMF
• User:cooldenny/Questionnaire

Note that the thread has been archived from the main Help desk page. I suggest that you ask any further questions here, on your talk page, and I'll watch for changes here. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, John of Reading. I will post what I would like to know here as you recommended. cooldenny (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I needs your help, especially the help from those who can use multi-language. I am trying to assess the featured articles across diverse languages on Wikipedia in order to find what factors affect the difference of the quality of the featured articels by language.

As you know, I cannot manually evaluate all featured articles from diverse Wikipedia languages because the total number of featured article approved over all the languages reaches thousands. I need to select a representative that explains the quality of the featured article group of each language on Wikipedia as a sample for the quality evaluation.

I established the criteria for selecting the sample as follows:

• Not translated, that is the representative article does not use other language source as reference as less as possible
• concerns history, particularly historical person whom most sources about was written in its own language
• When a language does not have a featured article satisfying the criterion above, the article from other topic, for example geography can be a representative article for the test.
• When a language has more than one article meeting with the criteria above, the best quality article is preferable

I have found the representative article candidates for each language as seen in the table below. Please give me your opinion on the candidate list, and the advice for updating the list if you know the better one for candidate for what I try to do, with short explanation of why you recommend the new article. cooldenny (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Other helpers: I've tried to assist Cooldenny at the Help desk a couple of times. Does anyone know a good contact within Wikipedia/Wikimedia where researchers can get assistance? -- John of Reading (talk) 07:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The helpme template isn't well-suited for this type of question. A helpme alerts editors who have variety of expertise in general Wikipedia issues, and some collection of specialized expertise, but it would be quite fortuitous if someone with the required expertise responded to the request. Languages aren't my strength, but there may be better places to look. As John suggests, perhaps someone with the Foundation has thoughts on how to proceed. There is someone who has the status of researcher (although I don't know the editor), while I don't expect that they would have the required expertise, if cooldenny is intending to do some serious research, it might may sense to check in with that person. More specifically, the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language is a better place to find editors with multi-language experience. It might make sense to check in with the volunteers at Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages, again they are more likely to have the multi-language expertise, and may be interested in helping.--SPhilbrickT 17:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can try looking at Wikipedia:Featured articles for a list of featured articles. I don't know if that will help though. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK; I am cancelling out this helpme for now - because honestly, I don't think it will find anyone who can help.

Typically, a 'helpme' is answered within an hour. I am confident that many helpers have looked at this, and all decided there was nothing much they could do.

There is one inportant question about it: why do you want to gather this information? For what purpose?

It will be quite difficult to find people to assess the articles in any objectively comparable manner. Each language Wiki have their own standards. Enwiki standards for FA are much higher than all others.

Not all Wikis even have "FA" and "GA". Some do things their own way, with various rating systems.

I think the best approach is, if you can clarify exactly what you want to achieve, and why - and if it is of benefit to Wikipedia, ask on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). You might find additional links to ask about this on Wikipedia:Translation.

I'm sorry, but due to the nature of this request, it is a bit beyond what we can answer on a {{helpme}}.

If you have further specific questions though, please do add another {{helpme}} clarifying what you want.  Chzz  ►  00:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I will ask a couple of other people, who know more about Wikipedia/research, if they can add further advice here.  Chzz  ►  00:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John of Reading, Sphilbrick, Reaper Eternal, and Chzz, I really appreciate for your sincere helps. Removing the "help me' tag from this page is reasonable. I will try to post the same message of this page on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) and Wikipedia:Translation, following Chzz's advice. Thanks a lot.

I am trying to compare the quality of different language versions of Wikipedia project. As Chzz said, it is not easy because we cannot establish reasonable variables for the comparison. Up to now, Wikimedia foundation uses the depth as a proxy variable for the quality of each language version. However, I think we can measure directly the quality of each language because the FAs of each language are the best articles among all other articles of the language. Thus, I think that the comparison of FAs, one of the best article of all language versions is meaningful to assess the quality of each language version.

In addition, the quality of a representative FA of each language is a dependent variable. I will make some independent variables; for example, the ratio of active users to language speakers. After gathering all data, I would like to make a regression model to find out which factors affect the quality of each language version. cooldenny (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the extra info, Cooldenny. That does help, actually. It sounds a worthwhile mission, and I wish you the best of luck with it. Unfortunately, this sort of cross-wiki stuff...it can be hard to find the right person to ask. I have, however, asked a couple of people who I think might be able to either help, or point you in the right direction - so maybe they'll add things here. And/or, the requests on those other pages may bear fruit. I'll check back, too. Best of luck.  Chzz  ►  02:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Chzz. I will be looking for valuable advices from your colleagues and you. cooldenny (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cooldenny, is this for uni(real?) research. If so, your lit review should include a few good examples of 'featured' analysis across a few of the major wikipedia. If you have already found those, and they arnt helpful, I dont need to tell you about them ;-) I can assist more, but want to understand what sort of research this is before I commit too much time to helping.

Also, mail:wiki-research-l is a good place to ask these types of questions, and you can find other people to talk to at meta:Research. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Vandenberg, I appreciate for the wonderful information you gave me. As you recommended, I had subscribed to [[mail:wiki-research] and visited meta:research. After reading the pages, I will join the Wikipedia research community.

I am preparing some real studies about Wikipedia. The comparison across diverse language versions is one of them. Thanks a lot for giving very helpful advice on the study I am trying to conduct. If you have some good examples of FAs across a few of the major Wikipedia, please let me know them. cooldenny (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Roth, the research analyst for the Public Policy Initiative, has been leading some research assessing Wikipedia article quality on English Wikipedia, using both external reviewers and a detailed rubric for Wikipedian reviewers. She may have some insights and ideas about how to effectively compare quality across languages and communities. I suggest emailing her (in addition to posting about your ideas on wiki-research-l). Good luck! It sounds like a worthy, if very challenging, project. One other thing that may be useful for framing how you analyze quality is looking at the differences in the nominal featured article criteria across languages. This could possibly be tabulated, so that we could see which factors are part of the criteria in each language.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tuscumbia (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll participate; why not. Will you share the results when you process all responses?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 14, 2011; 17:58 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation. Of course, I will share the results with you as you want. Note that this is a pilot study, not main one. cooldenny (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not asking for a special treatment :) If you make the results public, I'd be thrilled to see them; if not, I also understand. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 14, 2011; 18:06 (UTC)

• Done :) - would also be interested in seeing the results, cheers. GiantSnowman 18:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Giant. I will let you know the result after processing all data. cooldenny (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I filled out the survey. Abyssal (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,Abyssal. cooldenny (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, just did the survey. Only question that confused me was "My contribution makes it successful to accomplish the job that is attainable by only considerably large number of people", which didn't really strike me as making a whole lot of sense. I assumed it meant that "my contributions make it possible to achieve something that is only attainable if a large number of people also contribute", but I'm not 100% sure that I read it correctly. Anyway, I found it interesting and I'd also be interested in seeing the results when they're published. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. The question you confused is what you guessed. I feel the question have to be modified. cooldenny (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cooldenny. I answered the questions, as requested, but I don't know how helpful they were for you. Perhaps you should include a short area for editors to state why they work on Wikipedia. Fergananim (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your effort to complete the questionnaire and your comments on it, Fergananim. I am conducting what motivation factors affect the contribution of Wikipedians, using psychological motivation model and a series of social science theories. This pilot test will be expanded and clarified. I will add a text box, following your advice. cooldenny (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure if I was understanding the intent of some of the questions: when you say "I will try to make at least 100 edits per article page in the forthcoming 30 days", to me that sounds like "for each article that I edit, I will make at least 100 individual edits to that in 30 days). I don't think you'll find a lot of editors that edit that way, unless they are making a long series of piecemeal edits. Do you mean "in the article space, I will make at least 100 edits in 30 days"? The confusing word may be "per", which means "for each". OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your effort to fill out the questionnaire and finding a mistake on the questionnaire, User:Ohnoitsjamie. The statement you addressed is originally as follows: ""I will try to make at least 100 edits to the article pages in the forthcoming 30 days." I am sorry that my mistake make you confusing. cooldenny (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "assume that"-part (disclaimer?) in front youre questions is extremely irritating. Is it supposed to have any relation to the actual questions? If so I completely fail to understand it.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your valuable comments, Kmhkmh. I would like to give assumption to the questionnaire that the contribution by Wikipedians occurs only on the article pages, not on the types of pages such as talk page, user page, and etc. I am using English as a second language, so my writing is not good. If you can write it well, please give me a good expression. cooldenny (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But that is faulty assumption to begin with, as most wP authors use discussion pages, personal pages and project pages. Do you want to exlude those authors from your questionnaire?--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know many user use other types of pages you addressed. First, I also assumed that the contribution to Wikipedia can be through editing any kind of pages on Wikipedia. However, I have tried to focus only on editing the article pages because the questionnaire cannot contain everything relevant to Wikipedia. After your comments, I am considering whether or not editing other pages is included into the questionnaire. Thanks again. cooldenny (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KmhKmh, I have changed the concept of contribution to Wikipedia following your comment: more broadly. Thanks. cooldenny (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool: I am simply too unorganised to be able to answer any of the questions on the first page, sorry for opting out of the survey. Perhaps a study of editor's history would be a more accurate way of arriving at some kind of conclusion. Regards and all the best. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice,Yogesh Khandke. As you addressed, using editor's history is better. I had already known the fact. However, it requires Wikipedia user IDs in order to check edit history. I will put the question in the main study. This pilot test is for the main study. Thanks again. cooldenny (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to give some information about who you are and why you are doing the research. Might make some (including, obviously, me) more interested in completing your questionaire. --Sjsilverman (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for leaving your comments here, Sjsilverman. You can identify basic information about me and the purpose of the research on the beginning part of the questionnaire. Do you mean that you want to know more than the information on the questionnaire? cooldenny (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To a native speaker of English, the questionnaire seems almost impossible to answer in a way that I would consider to be suitable for subsequent scientific analysis. I think that you really should have paid attention to the comments you received regarding this when you posted your preliminary suggestion at the Village Pump. It is not your fault that English is not your first language, but you are surveying people on English Wikipedia and you are not going to get great results if the questions are as "mangled" as at present. Indeed, they are "cognitively laborious" - too much so for me, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your wonderful comments for the survey, Sitush. Following your advice, I will improve the English expression on the questionnaire by receiving from good advisers like you. If you do not mind, please let me know some examples for "mangled" expression. cooldenny (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is stuff below and, of course, there was this. No offence, but you seem to have ignored much of what was said when you invited comment at the Pump. - Sitush (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments. First, this is a pilot study using small number of questions, so I use a subset of the whole questions you had seen at Village Pump in the pilot test. Second, many people, some natives and second-language users, have helped me, so the previous set was modified. cooldenny (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you, I can read the recent comments on the question I posted at Village Pump. cooldenny (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled on your survey and took a look. A question about the first two questions, "I will try to make at least 100 edits to the article pages in the forthcoming 30 days" and "I will try to make edits to article pages every day in the forthcoming 30 days". Are these about intention, as in goals, or expectation? For example, I don't intend to edit Wikipedia at all and have no goals in this regard, but I will likely make at least 100 edits over the next 30 days. So do I "strongly disagree" or "strongly agree"? I'm guessing you are asking about intention/goals. If so perhaps it would be better worded "I intend to make at least 100 edits to article pages over the next 30 days", just to be clear? Also, I don't understand the question "I intend to make at least 10 edits per the article pages chosen in the forthcoming 30 days." Which "chosen" pages? ...anyway, I finished it and submitted, even though I'm not sure I understood all the questions. This one was particularly confusing: "My contribution makes it successful to accomplish the job that is attainable by only considerably large number of people." Pfly (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you stumbled. And your comments are very interesting. I intended to measure "your intention as in goals" at the time when you answer, with the question. If you do not have no goal, you can answer with "strongly disagree". In addition, if you expect you would make about 100 edit over the next 30 days, you can put 100 into the third question, "How many edits are you likely to make to article pages in the forthcoming 30 days?". For the second comment, I am sorry that the question confused you. "chosen" means "chosen and edited by you." How about changing the expression into "to each article page." cooldenny (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you stumbled - when the user said "I stumbled on your survey" it was a figure of speech. If your grasp of the English language is so awful that you can't understand that, how do you hope to understand the results of this survey? Let alone use them to construct something useful? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 12:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the invitation. I'm actually a retired veteran editor and administrator just gnoming around now. Does this still apply to me? --Anentiresleeve (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for visiting my talk page and giving your question. There is no restriction on the subjects for the questionnaire if someone is a Wikipedian. cooldenny (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence in particular made no sense to me: "My contribution makes it successful to accomplish the job that is attainable by only considerably large number of people." Kaldari (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can only guess that this refers to some group collaborative aspect. "It is cognitively laborious to contribute to the English Wikipedia." is another confusing one, I wonder if this was supposed to be "challenging due to mental effort" or such? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like surveys (maybe I have Aspergers?) but I guess I'll come back once the questions are clearer. Feel free to bump me then.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to fill out your survey if I understood what the questions were asking. I'm going to go along with everyone else who is requesting that you restate your questions more clearly and then request another note. Dismas|^(talk) 10:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)4[reply]

Thank you everyone for being interested in the survey. I am sorry that my poor English made you confused. I will clarify the questionnaire after reviewing it from volunteers such as User:RHM22. I will post the results of the pilot survey because some people what to get it even though the questions are not clear to some people. Thanks again. cooldenny (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a locket next to your external link? GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a link to a secure https secure website. Rklawton (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna avoid it, as these things make me concerned about worms. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Worms? — Bility (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a Korean guy with a research survey. It's pretty harmless, takes minutes. No issues here. --Seduisant (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took your questionnare, but parts of it were a little hard to understand. Is Korean your native language? If you're interested, I would happy to help you improve the wording of the survey so it's a little easier to understand. If you're interested, leave a message on my talk page.-RHM22 (talk) 02:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second RHM22. Your results will be skewed do to people being confused or annoyed. I highly suggest you get such surveys proofread by a native speaker; on Wikipedia it shouldn't be that hard to find volunteers. Are you aware of the https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. How do you decide who you are contacting for this survey? Any indication on how many of those user talk page posts you are going to make? I notice that you contacted e.g. User:Ting Tong88, an indef blocked sockpuppeteer. Such indiscriminate mass contacting efforts are often frowned upon. Have you discussed this previously somewhere? Fram (talk) 08:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into your edits a bit further, it seems as if you are inviting blocked users on purpose (I noticed at least three more in the last few notifications). This seems bizarre... Fram (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering the exact same thing... why pick me? Virtually none of my edits are in the mainspace, so (using the X's edit counter) I had to put "3" in the number of monthly edits box, because you're excluding the WP: namespace! —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 19:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that my invitation to a pilot study had flown at you. First, I would like to explain how I chose who I contacted for this survey. I chose first exactly 388 users who edited recently on the last Thursday, and then I saw the data gathered has a skewed distribution because recent editors made many times edits. Therefore, I need data from those who made small number of edits or none, so I selected exactly 190 users from the Wikipedia user list page, specifically choosing those who have their user ID from 12,000,000 ~ 12,005,500 or 13,000,000~13,000,500 and also has their own user page, not talk page. Second, I am sorry I invited exactly 26 indefinite blocked sockpuppeteers. Including sockpuppeteer is by chance and I thought they also can view their user talk page and can visit the survey. It's my wrong thought. I did not intent to target the blocked users. I will delete my message posed on their talk page. Third, I did not indicate the number of how many users I would contact in advance. I posted the first version of survey questions on Village Pump. I am sorry again. I really appreciate your comments on the pilot survey. For Main survey for this study, I will post how many users I will contact after Wikipedia user's revisions. cooldenny (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Sorry, we are unable to retrieve the document for viewing or you don't have permission to view the document." GiantSnowman 17:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I forgot changing the permission of the file. Now you can get the results file. cooldenny 17:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope, same error message. GiantSnowman 19:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. The link was modified. I also check the link by asking other person to check the link. You can access the results of the survey. cooldenny 05:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

-- John of Reading (talk) 09:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had no luck. I have replied at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 April 14#Unable to confirm my email address which is currently transcluded at Wikipedia:Help desk but may leave it after today. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, PrimeHunter. I will try to do as you recommended. cooldenny 15:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 14 is no longer transcluded at Wikipedia:Help desk so I will not reply there. I have always received Wikipedia mails within seconds at both my tested email accounts (hotmail and local ISP). I guess they are sent right away but there is a delay somewhere on the route to your work mail. The risk of ending in a spam folder is a known problem mentioned at Help:Email confirmation#Known issues. I don't know why your work address fails confirmation every time. Most people rarely or never use Wikipedia's mail function so hopefully you can live with this. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for solving the email confirmation problem, PrimeHunter. I have to use my previous email address on Wikipedia for a while. It would take not little time to solve the problem You and I do not understand clearly. As you mentioned, I also think the problem would occur from my workplace email server. I need more time to solve it. Thanks again. cooldenny 05:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completed the survey. Good luck. --Kumioko (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. cooldenny (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to take the survey for you. I'm gonna do it right now. Falcons8455 (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. I am looking forward to your participation cooldenny (talk) 02:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know when you post the results of this surveyBoldwin (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will post the results of the study as soon as possible. However, some users recommend me contact the WMF rCom. I am waiting fro a reply from the committee after send email to the committee. Thanks, Boldwin cooldenny (talk) 04:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did the survey. Glad to have been of assistance. All the best! --B. Jankuloski (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. cooldenny (talk) 03:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely survey, can I see a copy of the results?

You deserve a cookie! user:Purplepox01 03:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your participation. Sure, I will let you see the results of the survey. cooldenny (talk) 03:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just completed your survey. I hope that helps with some of your research. ;) HorrorFan121 (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. cooldenny (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Survey complete. I'd like to see a compilation of the results when you are done. Ckruschke (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

Thanks for your participation. The current survey has some problem in recruiting respondents as you can see above. Up to now about fifty people have completed the survey form. I will post brief results as soon as possible. cooldenny (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please be sure to sign all comments you leave on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). You forgot to do this on my talk page. Scartol • Tok 01:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will do cooldenny (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While some questions were hard to understand, I hope our participation assists in your research. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 12:16pm • 02:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, James. If you do not mind, it is very helpful to address specifically what questions make you confused. cooldenny (talk) 05:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You invited User talk:Ray3232 to participate in your survey. I have just reverted all this users contributions to Wikipedia, as they appear to constitute vandalism. This may suggest what his/her motives are.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Ray3232 was invited into the survey because he/she belonged to our invitation list generated from the RecentChange page. The objective of this study is to explain what factors affect contribution volume of Wikipedians. As other social studies follows, this study also would try to make its sample data represent the population (i.e., entire Wikipedians in this case) as possible as we can. Of course, We excluded blocked-users, but Ray3232 is not. Therefore we invited him/her. I know his/her motivation to contribute may be different from other users. However, he/she has its own reason to edit on Wikipedia, and it affect his contribution volume. His/her contribution is also one of Wikipedians' contributions in terms of editing volume. Thus we can not priorly exclude him/her from the invitation list. cooldenny (talk) 06:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. — KV5 • Talk • 02:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. I am sorry if my message bothered you. cooldenny (talk) 03:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cooldenny - Have you made arrangements with the WMF for this survey? I ask because there have been some serious questions raised in various venues about the methods for surveys, and the WMF is currently conducting its own editor survey. One of the issues brought up with relation to other survey requests is the "spamming" of user talk pages with the messages; others are the methods to ensure that the personal information of wiki(p)(m)edians is retained confidentially and not used in other ways, whether the results will be released to the project and whether or not the information gathered will be used in any way other than to create an anonymized collated report. I would be interested in hearing back from you. Risker (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Risker. I had not arranged with the WMF for this study. I know the questionnaire has some serious questions such as Wikpedia User ID, age, education level, and sex. However, this study will handle all data with confidentiality as other behavioral social science studies follow the standard of conducting research. In addition, all data collected will be transformed into anomynous name after identifying respondant's edit volume. I also know the WMF are conducting many studies about editors. However, this study has some different perspective about motiviation to contribute to Wikipedia from the WMF studies. Our study focus on collective motivation, not private motivation. I am sorry you felt my message for invition to the survey "a spam." However, I think the message on user's talk page is the best way for inviting those who are interested in the survey and are willing to take par in it after I experienced a little number of participation when I posted invitation message on Village Pump. This study will be included into my PhD thesis, which is managed by my university. If you have any question or request to withdraw from this study, you can contact me at any time. cooldenny (talk) 03:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to echo Risker's concerns about this survey. I strongly suggest you get in touch with the Wikimedia Foundation's research list and verify that you are following best practices regarding confidentiality and human subjects research. As it stands now, I would be extremely uncomfortable giving you this information, since I"m not sure what standards you are applying. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean this study also follows the principles of the participants confidentiality and anonymity as other research does. Following your recommendation, I will contact the WMF research committee. cooldenny (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had also created the project page for the study at the Wikimedia Foudation cooldenny (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Risker and Philippe mentioned and are worried about this survey in terms of individual privacy and data confidentiality. First I did not understand their worries about data handling because I showed who I am and I addressed I will use the data only for identifying editing histories and register date. In addition, only volunteers fill out the survey form. However, now I understand their concern about privacy and confidentiality. Now I have three options to solve the privacy and confidentiality issue with better safety. First, I can ask a trustee on Wikipedia (e.g., a member of the WMF like Philippe) to gather the data for our study. The trustee creates a survey form on Google Docs, and gives me an editing right of the form. Then I write the questions for survey on the form, and the trustee close my editing right to the form. After gathering all data, the trustee collects additional data (e.g., total editing count since a user registered, his/her register date and etc) instead of me. Finally the trustee transforms user ID acquired into anonymous one and give the data secured to me. I think this method solve the privacy and confidentiality issue mentioned by Philippe. The Second, I ask respondents to put their total editing volume and his/her register date by themselves. In this case, I have to offer the website where they can retrieve their history on Wikipedia Toolserver. The last option, I eliminate the question of requesting user ID. cooldenny (talk) 07:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to partake in this survey, and I don't think it's very wise to send a link to your survey page to so many people at once - it's spamming even if it's a noble cause. Thanks. Harry (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I will post the invitation message at the Village Pump. cooldenny (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Count me in on that too. Seems as bad as a spammer. I won't participate and ask that you please do not contact me again about any other survey or study. Sector001 (talk) 04:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry my message bothered you. cooldenny (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI -- I have alerted Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents of your spamming activity as I feel it is in violation of Wikipedia rules and policy. Sector001 (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I am sorry again.cooldenny (talk) 06:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cooldenny. I noticed you have spammed hundreds of talk pages, including IPs and vandals, with a survey invitation. Can I ask, where exactly is your community approval to perform these talk page spam invites? I ask this after reading a request to do the same, which failed overwhelmingly: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive222#Researchers requesting administrators’ advices to launch a study. Please point me to a link where your survey was approved by the community. (Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.)--64.85.214.234 (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I bothered you. Right after some people addressed spamming issue for this survey, I did not post any more invitation message on user's talk pages. In addition, I asked to a contact point of the WMF rCom, Dario Taraborelli and have been waiting for his reply. Further, I had created the project page for our study. We will change our recruit method into email contact as other Wikipedia surveys do cooldenny (talk) 05:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suits me, as long as you've stopped the spamming. I had asked another WMF user to stop by your talk page to point you in the right direction, but I see Phillipe pointed you to Dario, which is what I was hoping would happen anyway. As long as the spamming has stopped, I'm satisfied. Good luck with the survey then! Rgrds. (Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) --64.85.221.143 (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there; I remember getting one of these surveys a couple of years ago. I've gone through a few user pages filling in surveys for other people, because you've put in no safeguards to prevent that from happening. Either several PhD students are using the same template - perhaps some kind of fake degree farm in India, or something - or it's an extremely unproductive mass-marketing attempt. You aren't doing a PhD and you aren't even a university student; why do you bother? What are you after? It's dead fishy and I would love it if you went away. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 12:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. It is very interesting that some people fake their degree or affiliation in gathering data. You told that I could grantee nothing on me and my behavior even though I am actually a PhD candidate in a university and provide the correct information on me such as my email address and University homepage. Basically I agree to your opinion, though some people still have their willingness to take part in the survey voluntarily. I am trying to modify the questionnaire and our recruiting method to meet Wikipedia standard.Thanks again. cooldenny (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious whether you've worked with the Wikimedia Foundation's Research Committee on this? There are many experts there who can help you. If you'd like to be put in touch with them, just ask... but otherwise, I have grave and serious concerns about this survey. I do not see that it complies with best practices around human subject research, nor does it delineate the privacy implications of completion. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you recommendation. I send email to Dario Taraborelli of the WMF research committee, and am looking forward to receiving a reply from him. cooldenny (talk) 04:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I had created the project page for my study m:Research/Projects/Motivation_to_Contribute_to_Wikipedia,_a_Collective_Work cooldenny (talk) 06:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, but have you received any reply from WMF as to your survey? I'm very concerned about your canvassing activities, and further concerned that you are requesting information of users. While I am willing to assume good faith, such material could be used for social engineering. If you have not received any reply, and until we get some official notification from a WMF representative I'm afraid I have to ask you to stop. Syrthiss (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ninety users, or nine. Stop. When your survey is vetted you will have my deepest apologies. If you'd like me to ping some of the WMF folks, I will on your behalf...but the material you are requesting seems unwise to me regarding personal identifiable information. Syrthiss (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have pinged Sage Ross with MWF at User_talk:Sross_(Public_Policy)#Cooldenny.3F. I don't want to hinder your research, but at the same time I don't want to expose editors to a potential social engineering scheme. Thanks. Syrthiss (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he has suggested a user to contact, in that section on his talk page. Syrthiss (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* someone else brought this to the Admin Noticeboard. I have notified the board that you are discussing this with me and with WMF, but here is your courtesy notice.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Syrthiss (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The direct link is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Is_this_spam.3F. Syrthiss (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am the editor who brought this up on WP:AN. What concerns me is that in offering users here a free gift card, and a chance to win another gift card, in return for providing their e-mail address, you are exhibiting the earmarks not of an academic study, but of a commercial study, and I vociferously protest against anyone using Wikipedia's commentary system for commercial purposes. I consider your recent messages, the one offering cards and seeking e-mail addresses, to be commericial spam, and I have deleted the majority of those messages. Please do not send any more e-mails concerning your study until you have settled matters with the WMF, and do not post commericial messages here of any kind at any time in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've replied to your email at my talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're planning to deliver this new questionnaire via Special:Emailuser, make sure you have clearance to do this, as it could easily be seen as disruptive and/or a misuse of Wikipedia (as I mentioned in this archived help desk thread). -- John of Reading (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, John of Reading. As you mentioned, I could not make what you concerned clear. I have just tried to follow the recruiting method of other Wikipedia projects (e.g., m:Research/Projects/Wikipedia_Progression_of_Participation), as I wrote at m:Research/Projects/Motivation_to_Contribute_to_Wikipedia,_a_Collective_Work. Even though some people do not like any invitation posting to a survey on their usertalk pages, however other more people were interested in the survey. If sending email or posting on usertalk pages is not allowed for inviting respondents, I think there is no way to recruit them. cooldenny (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about sending our invitation email via WikiEn-I@lists.wikimedia.org or via WikiEn-I-Owner@lists.wikimedia.org cooldenny (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an answer for this one. See this AN archive section, where a suggestion for a bulk email did not go down well. Are you talking to Dario Taraborelli of the Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee? His email is at the bottom of meta:Research Committee. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I sent email to him a few days ago, However I have not yet received any reply cooldenny (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I've replied to your next three emails here. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, John of Readingcooldenny (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For recruiting method, I have another option that has little difference from directly posting survey invitation on their talk pages. First, I choose target respondents, about 1,000 users and then post the list on our project page on meta-wiki. Then we wait until they tell us "agree to participate" or "not agree to participate." After a few days, we post the news that they are selected for the survey, but if they are not willing to participate in the survey, they do not need to do anything. If they are willing to do, we ask them to visit our project page and take part in the survey. cooldenny (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-- John of Reading (talk) 07:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does the word currently benefit your user page? Would the meaning of the page change at all if it were removed throughout? Kittybrewster ☎ 16:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to participate in a discussion at Talk:Audie Murphy before it becomes an edit war. Thank you, in advance, Bullmoosebell (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]