> Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 13:02:16 -0700
> From: Pine W
> Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Motivations for editing Wikipedia
>
> Has there been research done on what "sells" people into getting started on
> Wikipedia in the first place, particularly for editors who to on to make >5
> edits?
As others have noted, motivation for Wikipedia is one of the more studied topics: dozens of papers, plus papers on motivations for related kinds of projects, e.g., open source software.
Most of the work has looked at motivations as homogeneous, with participants having more or less or a different mix of them. In contrast, a colleague and I have a paper in which we argue that the motivations for getting started with projects like Wikipedia are different than the motivations for continuing to participate. The difference in motivations explains why there are a large number of people with just one edit: they had the first kind of motivations but not the second, so they tried it but didn’t stick.
You can find the paper here: http://crowston.syr.edu/node/254
Kevin Crowston
Syracuse University Phone: +1 (315) 443-1676
School of Information Studies Fax: +1 (815) 550-2155
348 Hinds Hall Web: http://crowston.syr.edu/
Syracuse, NY 13244-4100 USA
In the email below, this question is asked
> if there are surveys being done then can I suggest we answer this question, "How many edits by new male / female editors are reverted with the single-word edit summary of "irrelevant" or "unimportant"?
I am not sure we need a survey for this when we have big data available. Do we have any study or even simple stats on the most common words used into the edit summary of a revert? And the can we narrow it down to new editors (by some definition involving edit count < X) - I would assume so. And then finally can we narrow it down to make/female (recognising that this is a lot harder due to lack of self-identification, particularly by those who drop out while still newbie editors).
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Marie Earley <eiryel(a)hotmail.com>
> Date: 20 April 2015 12:34:01 pm AEST
> To: Gender Gap <gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Outcome of IdeaLab/Inspire campaign
> Reply-To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participation of women within Wikimedia projects." <gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>
> I recently attended an event for women thinking of getting into the creative digital sector. There were workshops on: writing content; monetizing blogs (through affiliate programs); and a basic introduction to coding.
>
> The coding workshops were really popular. I think the perception of Wikipedia by women is often that it is time consuming and complicated. When I first clicked on an edit button and saw a whole load of parameters and things I didn't understand, I thought:
> > "What do they mean by "anyone can edit Wikipedia", none of it even makes any sense?"
>
> My early edits are things like fixing dead links and creating wikilinks (with edit summaries that read "square brackets added to ......", rather than "added wikilink").
>
> If the pitch to women were "learn code by editing Wikipedia" then I think there would be a greater take up, as I think women use Pinterest because they find it contains things that are useful to them, and not as a chore with no reward.
>
> Also, if there are surveys being done then can I suggest we answer this question, "How many edits by new male / female editors are reverted with the single-word edit summary of "irrelevant" or "unimportant"?
>
> Marie
>
> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 16:36:23 -0700
> From: sbouterse(a)wikimedia.org
> To: kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com; gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Outcome of IdeaLab/Inspire campaign
>
> What Kerry said, particularly about using the survey to share your feedback on the experience.
>
> In terms of outcomes, here is some more info as of the end of March:
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/04/03/inspire-campaign-new-ideas/
>
> Moving many ideas into action will require more time and community discussion, no doubt. That said, by end of April we'll know which proposals will be given Inspire grant funding in order to execute in the near term. Around then we'll also put out a report on what we learned from the process of running an idea campaign (including your feedback via survey). Longer term impact of new initiatives coming out of the campaign will need to be assessed in the coming year.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Kerry Raymond <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I don’t think there has been any decision on which projects are being supported.
>
>
>
> The survey is about the process, and would provide you with ample opportunity to mention giving up in the face of hatred.
>
>
>
> Kerry
>
>
>
> From: gendergap-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of LB
> Sent: Tuesday, 14 April 2015 9:57 AM
> To: Gender gap mailing list
> Subject: [Gendergap] Outcome of IdeaLab/Inspire campaign
>
>
>
> My arm is in a cast/splint. Not in good spirits, not getting around well. Got a request to participate in a survey re the Inspire campaign. Made me wonder: What was the result? Which, if any, ideas are going to be supported.
>
>
>
> I gave up on WikiProject Women because there was so much hatred thrown at the idea and I had no idea how to proceed, even though a lot of people did support it.
>
>
>
> Finally: Could someone please tell me if this posts? I don't seem to get things that I post to this list!
>
>
>
> Lightbreather
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
>
> --
> Siko Bouterse
> Director of Community Resources
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>
> sbouterse(a)wikimedia.org
>
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.
> Donate or click the "edit" button today, and help us make it a reality!
>
> _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Hi,
I've never participated in mailing list before so if I'm doing this wrong,
please forgive me.
I've been trying to create a query in the online editor
<http://wdq.wmflabs.org/wdq/?q=claim[31:%28tree[12280][][279]%29]%20AND%20tr…>
such
that I can retrieve a relationship, unknown to me in advance, for two
alpha-numeric IDs (those Q numbers).
So for instance, I have Terrell Buckley (Q5571382) and Miami Dolphins
(Q223243) I was trying to maybe use one of them as a 'TREE' and then check
to see if the other was existing on one of the nodes and them take the
relationship that equates to the link traversed to get from one to the
other, is that reasonable?
But so far I've not been able to figure it out nor find any illuminating
resources online.
Thank you for you consideration.
Sincerely,
Matthew
Hi all,
Has there been research done on what "sells" people into getting started on
Wikipedia in the first place, particularly for editors who to on to make >5
edits?
For example:
1. It's fun
2. I'm part of a class that has Wikipedia editing as an option or
requirement
3. I edit to fulfill required community service hours
4. I'm an advocate for a cause
5. I'm a member of <culture/language/religion/geography> and I want to
share it with the world
6. I'm interested in subject <x> and I like to publish information about it.
6. I want to talk with other people who are interested in <x>
7. I want to be part of a social network
8. I'm paid to edit on behalf of an individual or organization
9. I want to expose misconduct
10. I want to start or edit my own biography
11. I want to start or edit the article about my own organization, product
or service
12. I want to start or edit the article about a competitor's organization,
product or service
Thanks,
Pine
*This is an Encyclopedia* <https://www.wikipedia.org/>
*One gateway to the wide garden of knowledge, where lies The deep rock of
our past, in which we must delve The well of our future,The clear water we
must leave untainted for those who come after us,The fertile earth, in
which truth may grow in bright places, tended by many hands,And the broad
fall of sunshine, warming our first steps toward knowing how much we do not
know.*
*—Catherine Munro*
Hi all,
I'm just wondering if any WMF researchers will be attending the Wikimedia
Conference in Berlin. It would be great to see you in person, and some of
your work informs how programs are designed and executed by affiliates.
Thanks,
Pine
*This is an Encyclopedia* <https://www.wikipedia.org/>
*One gateway to the wide garden of knowledge, where lies The deep rock of
our past, in which we must delve The well of our future,The clear water we
must leave untainted for those who come after us,The fertile earth, in
which truth may grow in bright places, tended by many hands,And the broad
fall of sunshine, warming our first steps toward knowing how much we do not
know.*
*—Catherine Munro*
Hi everyone,
I would really love your feedback on my Inspire Grant proposal, "Bored with
Boards: Attract Pinterest Users to Wikipedia
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Bored_with_Boards:_Attract_P…>
."
The project would entail initiating a match-making program between
Wikipedia articles and women who are actively engaged in content creation
and evaluation on female-dominated social networks, such as Pinterest. The
project would also require a large research component, in an attempt to
determine the sort of status quo of women's participation in crowdsourced
projects like Wikipedia, and then identifying and examining any barriers to
participation.
Thanks a lot!
Bored with Boards
(a.k.a. user:Hahahammond)
Hello Aaron and Other Wiki Researchers,
Thank you for responding so quickly and thoroughly to my recent proposal! Many of your concerns align with issues I’ve been discussing with my research team, so I’m glad to hear that we’re overlapping in that sense. Apologies in advance for the length of the following:
- - Sampling: I completely agree with your concerns in response to the (relatively) recent revisit to the original Gender Gap results. As an exploratory study, I don’t think we could accurately represent the entire Wikipedia community or make causal inferences about the community as a whole due to the voluntary nature of the survey and the potential for inaccuracies in self-reporting. However, I’m hoping that this preliminary project could reveal a few new patterns that might be explored in greater depth at a later date.
Based on the Wikipedia editor rankings, I’d planned to pull the top 20% of editors and post on their Talk Pages, giving us the “super-editor” sample. Since the two remaining samples are more difficult to recruit, I’m currently exploring the most effective way to obtain a randomized sample of the active (moderate) and inactive editors (infrequent edits) – this will likely be developed with the assistance of someone more skilled in programming than myself. I’ve also been speaking with a statistician about alternative methods, beyond propensity-matching, where we might account for response biases that are likely to occur. However, I’d be very open to suggestions from this community about effectively sampling from Wikipedia and methods you’ve used to account for biases common in these surveys.
- - Self-Report Measures of Edit History: This would only serve to verify the editor ranking and provide a more thorough context by which the editor feels he/she makes contributions to the Wikipedia community. Since we’ll have usernames – via Talk Pages – as you suggested, I’d like to explore actual editing behaviors given that we’d have the resources to do so.
- - Collaboration: Participant fatigue is a huge concern with all of these online surveys targeting active editors. I believe you’re correct that the WMF is planning another editor survey, but I had hoped to provide some foundation for other themes that might be explored in these larger surveys. The prior WMF surveys didn’t provide as much depth as we might need to reveal any patterns in editing behaviors. I’ve also reached out to a couple of other proposals, with similar interests, to determine whether we can compliment each other’s efforts. I think these types of collaborations are very do-able and may help us to limit the frequency of Wikipedia editor surveys.
- Missing Measures and People: I was able to access your article, so thank you for linking it! I’ve been reviewing the literature to clarify variables (such as the web use you identify) to determine which should be included in the survey. In order to keep the survey at a reasonable length, I’d hoped to capture some of these editing barriers via themes captured in the open-ended responses. This might be particularly relevant in the context of editors’ perceived barriers, which might vary based on the aforementioned traits. However, I agree that the study would likely benefit form some further questioning about editing experiences and I’ll be adding this into the proposal.
- Missing People and Sampling: Your main concern also parallels the concerns of my research team. I’ve been speaking with my team about potentially recruiting a passive Wikipedia user sample that would serve as a comparison. It was my original hope that a small incentive would encourage even the infrequent editors to complete the survey measure, but in the event that they don’t we’ll need that comparison group. Our greatest barrier would be matching the “pertinent” comparison sample characteristics with our super-editors. I’m not sure that we can achieve this yet, but more to come as I explore this option.
Thank you again Aaron for your thorough feedback! As I’ve been following this listserv, I’m incredibly grateful that we have developed such a strong research-oriented Wikipedia community.
Sincerely,
Christina
Greeting Christina!
Thanks for sharing this and notifying us on the list.
Overall, I am very supportive of additional attempts to do more rigorous
survey research on Wikipedians. Some questions that I think you could try
to address in the proposal:
- *Sampling*: You mention that you plan to stratify your sample based on
past edit history and recruit via talk page messages. However, beyond this
you say nothing about the logistics of subject sampling, recruitment, or
any approaches you will take to address the fact that conducting
representative surveys in online communities is very, very difficult. Can
you elaborate on this aspect of your study? In particular, how will your
approach address shortcomings in data and sample quality that have affected
previous surveys
<http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065782>
of Wikipedia contributors?
- *Self-report measures of edit history: *Why ask the respondents to
self-report their edit histories (this kind of thing is notoriously hard to
do accurately) when you could ask them to provide their usernames or at
least link their usernames to their survey responses (since you're
recruiting via talk page messages anyway)?
- *Collaboration w related studies: *There are several other ongoing
efforts to survey wikipedians -- even at least one other one
<http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2145264>(link to "official" publication
is gated, but other versions are available for free) focused on social
psychological concerns. Also, my impression is that the WMF is involved in
planning another editor survey in the near future. How will your approach
complement/extend/overlap with these other efforts? Will you make any
effort to collaborate with these ongoing studies? How will your study avoid
subject exhaustion -- especially among more active wikipedians who may find
themselves invited to participate in many surveys?
- *Missing measures and missing people:* Previous studies have shown that a
variety of additional factors may figure in shaping the participation
practices of Wikipedians as well as those who might edit Wikipedia but
choose not to do so. For example, in a recent paper
<http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369118X.2014.957711#.VSqb244adE4>
(again,
gated link, but I am also happy to provide copies to those who would like
access) that I co-wrote w Eszter Hargittai, we find that web use skills
are, in some ways, even more robust predictors of wikipedia contribution
than gender. There are many other examples of important measures that
predict participation in various ways as well, whether it be individual's
trust/caution attitudes, newcomer experiences, etc. Which of these measures
will you include? How will you ensure that you have included the most
important measures in this survey study since survey results are otherwise
quitre prone to omitted variable bias?
*Missing people and sampling on the dependent variable: *Maybe most
importantly, insofar as you say that you are interested in understanding
factors that determine who edits, you are selecting on the dependent
variable (wikipedia editing) by limiting your study to individuals who have
accounts on the encyclopedia and edit already. It strikes me as especially
egregious that you are requiring survey respondents to read and reply to
the survey recruitment materials via talk page message. This means that
precisely those individuals who participate least (and who would provide
your study with necessary variation on the outcome of interest) are the
least likely to respond and to be included in the study. As a result, I
fear that your findings will not speak to these questions effectively
unless you find an alternative method of sampling and recruitment.
I hope that these comments are helpful for you as you continue to refine
the study design. I really think you're pursuing a critical set of concerns
in this study and I am eager to see it succeed in the most effective way
possible!
yours,
Aaron
On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Christina Shane-Simpson <
christinam.shane(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Fellow Wiki Researchers,
>
> I’ve recently posted a project proposal under the Inspire Campaign and
> would love feedback from this community on the research proposal, *Characterization
> of Editors on Wikipedia*:
>
> In order to accurately explore the main goals of the Inspire Campaign,
> we must be able to effectively characterize our community. Any
> interventions that we develop should reflect and match the needs of the
> target population, requiring a thorough understanding of the traits and
> behaviors of our community of editors. As a direct extension of the recent
> gender gap research on Wikipedia and to explore other potential areas of
> inequality, we’d like to conduct another study that compares the traits of
> the super-editor, the active editor (moderate editing), and the inactive
> editor (infrequent edits).
>
> The proposed project would use an online self-report survey that is posted
> on editor talk pages. The research team has experience conducting online
> surveys and will monitor responses on this survey to identify any potential
> misuse of the survey (i.e. vandalism) and/or outliers in the data. This
> entire project would only be implemented after an IRB approval from the
> lead researcher's academic institution.
>
> Full proposal:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Characterization_of_Editors_…
> Thank you in advance for your assistance in developing this proposal!
>
> Christina Shane-Simpson
> Psychology Department
> The College of Staten Island and
> The Graduate Center, CUNY
>
>