I'm just wondering if this survey could be combined with an upcoming WMF
survey, and combined with the survey I proposed regarding female editors on
projects other than English Wikipedia.
Pinging Tilman and Jaime to ask for their comments about those suggestions.
On Apr 12, 2015 12:51 PM, "WereSpielChequers"
1 are you defining your super editors by total or recent edits? Whilst we
have pretty good editor retention amongst high edit count editors, even
amongst those with over a 100,000 edits there are inactive and semi active
2 how are you going to ensure that talkpage invites are only responded to
by the targeted editors?
3 have you considered emailing your survey? Yes that loses you at least
the 30% who haven't set an email, but you are much more likely to get your
responses from the intended target group, also it is quite an effective way
to contact the inactive and former editors who might not see a talkpage
4 What are you going to do to avoid trying to survey deceased Wikipedians?
Especially with talkpage notes.
5 how does one make requests to add other questions to your survey?
6 you mention using census categories to ask the ethnicity question, may
one ask whose census, Australia, Canada, India, the UK or the USA? Also are
you intending to replicate the census questions or base your questions
literally on the census categories generated from those questions?
On 12 Apr 2015, at 20:49, Christina Shane-Simpson <
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
- - 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.
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l mailing list