On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:04 AM, Delphine Ménard <notafishz(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, sorry to fish out a very old message, but since
the survey is
about to go live, I would like to share some concerns I have about it.
Unfortunately, I was on holidays as this announcement came out, so
couldn't do it earlier.
I find the idea of an editor's survey to be extremely important, since
it is (among other) a good indicator of how the editing community
perceives the atmosphere in the projects, the evolution of the
software and such things. However, I feel this survey is a bit of a
missed opportunity on different aspects.
There is a mix of "feedback about the projects and the community" and
"satisfaction about the WMF", which does not, in my opinion, quite fit
together. I find we should separate those things so as to keep people
free of personal opinions about what the organisation may or may not
do for/with them and let them focus better on their editor's
experience as such. Moreover, this would allow for more questions
about editing, maybe a short presentation of new tools, rating them
etc. which seems to be quite absent from this questionnaire. For
example, I would love to see a question in the technology part about
whether people want/edit from their mobile device, or if they are
familiar with the mobile apps and use them, that kind of stuff.
(rationale given for taking these questions out was length of the
survey, but I think these things are much more relevant to the
well-editing of the contributors than how well they rate the WMF
work). Not to mention that trying to get some feedback from sister
projects would be good also (Commons is already a good first step).
If, however, we're going to mix editor's experience and satisfaction
about Wikimedia, I am cruelly missing any kind of feedback question
about the work of the chapters and/or other organisations or groups in
the Wikimedia Universe that would give people the right scope about
what is happening in a more "offline" kind of way. Of course, we could
do a separate survey for chapters, but if we're truly an international
movement, then all Wikimedia entities that support/interact with the
community probably would benefit from being put in the same bag in
order to fine tune their support and help for the Wikimedia
communities.
Sue in Washington at Wikimania pulled out the results of one question
that was asked in the editor's survey about whether people were
satisfied about the work of the Foundation and the work of the
chapters. She underlined herself that the results to this question
were probably difficult to interpret out of the box since at no point
in the survey was there a question about whether people were aware
that there was a chapter in their country, which would have qulified
the results a bit.
I'm not sure she actually said that. In any case, it is
wrong -
question D6 in the last survey asked if there was a Wikimedia chapter
in the country where the respondent lived
(
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:December_2011_Wikipedia_E…
).
This was already quite criticized last time, yet
the question is still there, unchanged, and without more context than
it had last time. (under FINAL THOUGHTS).
We tried to avoid modifying questions in
order to preserve consistence
and be able to do some longitudinal analysis (as it was already begun
for that question in
http://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=14296 ).
Still, I was aware that there had been some objections to that
question by chapter representatives (which I don't assume have to do
with the fact that respondents rated chapters' performance lower than
that of other entities in the two previous surveys), and looked into
these concerns while the present questionnaire was prepared; I also
reached out to one of the critics in person at Wikimania. But I still
haven't seen a compelling argument why the way the question is asked
should be biased against chapters. The argument that the opinion of
Wikimedians who live in countries without chapter should not count
seems weak to me, e.g. because the projects that the work of chapters
aims to support are international, and because the question asked
about chapters in general, not one particular chapter.
In any case, in parallel to preparing the upcoming survey, we have
recently been compiling the public dataset with the anonymized
responses from the last survey, which was uploaded yesterday here:
http://dumps.wikimedia.org/other/surveys/editorsurveynov-dec2011/
Using this, anyone can do the analysis you suggest and check if
ratings differed significantly in chapter/non-chapter countries.
In short people are asked to
rate the Foundation about everything it does, while the chapters are
never mentionned, and then people are asked to rate the work of both.
Interesting way to look at it.
We're doing much better, but there is still some English Wikipedia
centrism in Question F2 for example. ;-)
: How well do you believe the Foundation supports:
English Wikipedia?
Wikipedia sites in other languages?
Finally, what I regret most, is that o little time was allocated to
reviewing this survey collaboratively. There was about 20 days to
review, comment, give feedback, translate etc. and this in the mist of
the summer holiday for a big part of our community. When I see such
processes as the ToS revision [1] conducted successfully allowing for
120 days of discussion, and such surveys rushed through the summer,
when their data will probably be used to decide much of the strategic
orientation of the next year, I'm thinking we're missing out on trying
to collect data that is truly relevant to the work we do and that
helps us to review our orientations and adjust how well we support our
editing community.
Of course there are lots of interesting and important questions
that
had to be left out of this survey. As said earlier, the idea is to run
the editor survey more frequently from now on, probably quarterly and
in a more lightweight version, with a different focus in each.
Best,
Delphine
[1]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Christine Moellenberndt
<christinemoe(a)gmail.com> wrote:
*Hi everyone,
It's been a bit since I last emailed this list (or any list, for that
matter!)... you may remember me, I worked at the Foundation last year in the
Community Department, working with Philippe on any number of issues, as well
as with the OTRS team. I've come back to work on a short term project with
the Foundation, and I have to say it's great to be back! (and a great break
from my Master's thesis!)
We're getting ready to run the next version of the Editor Survey, for August
2012. This will be the third incarnation we've run since 2011. As with the
prior incarnations of the survey, we'll be looking at a variety of topics,
this time with the goal of not only understanding your needs and pressing
issues while interacting with fellow editors, but also focusing on editors'
satisfaction with the work of the Foundation.
The last time we ran an editor survey, it was completed by over 6,000
respondents. When you break that down, it means that each minute of time
demanded by the survey corresponds to 100 hours of Wikipedians' time. We
want to make sure that this time is spent wisely, ensuring that the
questions we have are worded clearly, don't cause confusion, and will
generate meaningful answers. So we'd like to ask you to take a look at the
survey, and give us feedback on the questions. You can find them here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_Editor_Survey_August_201…
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research:Wikipedia_Editor_Survey_August_2012/Questions>
... and please leave your feedback on the talk page there so we can keep the
discussion in one place :)
You can find out more information about the survey here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_Editor_Survey_August_2012
Also, we are planning an IRC Office Hour on the survey, this **Tuesday, July
31 at 1700 UTC.** (See
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hoursfor
general information about IRC Office hours)
I know there has been some discussion about offering Office Hours in a
broader range of times, and I know this time may not be the greatest for
some... but this was the best time we could find currently.
Thanks everyone!!
-Christine
Wikimedia Foundation*
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
--
@notafish
NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost.
Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive -
http://blog.notanendive.org
Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto -
http://photo.notafish.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
--
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB