On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Toby Negrin tnegrin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Interesting discussion!
Leila - if I understand correctly the categories were arrived at by asking a number of readers for a free form response, then hand coding these into larger categories - is that right?
Correct.
I should look at the hand-coding numbers from last year to refresh my mind. Off the top of my head, round 2-3% of the randomly selected hand-coded respondents/responses were referring to the fact that they are there to check a page they have edited or to edit the page. (A side-track note: this number was more than what we expected, btw, because the ratio of enwiki editors to readers is nowhere close to that number.)
Leila
-Toby
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 08:43 Leila Zia leila@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
I think that I understand WereSpiekChequers problem. I received similar feedback from an experienced Hebrew Wikipedia editor: he said he was disappointed that "I was reading this article to fibd something to
improve".
aaah! now I understand.
No problem. Without giving too much away: There is an "Other" field in the motivation question and if a reason is not captured in the options offered, they can use Other. The other two questions still apply, if you go there to find something to improve.
I guess that this is a very common reason for experienced Wikipedians,
but
not necessarily for casual readers, at whom this survey is targeted, and that's why it's not a suggested answer. But go figure, maybe there are
more
people who want to improve Wikipedia than we think there are... :)
Yes, we observed this in the survey last year as well. :)
Leila
בתאריך 22 ביוני 2017 06:09 PM, "Leila Zia" leila@wikimedia.org כתב:
Hi,
[for others who may not know what this question is referring to: we starting running surveys in 14 languages a couple of hours ago. These surveys will help us expand the result of Why We Read Wikipedia to more languages. The 14 languages participating are documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Characterizing_ Wikipedia_Reader_Behaviour/Robustness_across_languages# Participating_languages .]
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 4:57 PM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, if anyone on this list was involved in today's survey
here I am. :)
you lost my response at "
I am reading this article to *
- get an overview of the topic.
- get an in-depth understanding of the topic.
- look up a specific fact or to get a quick answer.
There is no way for us to unfortunately enter this response as part of our pool of responses as we will need to know the unique ID which gets generated for your specific survey session to be able to use this response further. :(
Making people choose one of those options loses anyone who is there to
find
a typo or for any other reason.
I'm not following this part. Can you help me understand your suggestion? The goal of the survey is to help us understand the prevalence of Wikipedia use-cases across languages and help us characterize these use-cases in each language as a function of the data in webrequest logs associated with the survey session. The setup of the survey is not to accommodate the other use-cases you mentioned.
Best, Leila
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- -Toby _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l