Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikitravel hits spammy oblivion

2012-09-10 Thread Thomas Morton
Gloating (and throwing insults) is childish, and will not help resolve the


On 10 September 2012 12:49, David Gerard wrote:

 Noticed by Keegan Peterzell.

 Turns out you can't replace 48 volunteer admins with one incompetent
 employee. Who'da thunk.

 - d.

 Wikimedia-l mailing list

Wikimedia-l mailing list

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Upcoming Survey, Feedback requested, and Office Hour

2012-09-10 Thread Delphine Ménard
Hello Tilman,

On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Tilman Bayer wrote:
 Hi Delphine,

 On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 6:57 AM, Delphine Ménard wrote:
 On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Tilman Bayer wrote:

 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.

 That is not the argument I was trying to make (ie. voices of
 Wikimedians in a country without chapter don't count). Rather, there
 is a long list of things the Foundation does, where people are asked
 whether they knew about it, or not. And after that, right when people
 have been made aware of everything the Foundation does, they are asked
 to rate the work of the Foundation. The same question about the
 chapters comes after absolutely nothing has been said about chapter
 work, which, I believe, does introduce a bias. In short, people are
 being asked to rate something they *at this point in the survey* have
 an idea about (for the WMF) although they might have had no idea about
 it before starting the survey.
 All I'm asking is that we review the context in which this question is
 being asked so results make more sense.
 OK, after some other people also remarked that preceding this question
 by other questions which conveyed quite some information about the
 Foundation's activities but not about the chapters' activities. we
 have now rearranged the questions so that this is no longer the case.

 This is a bit of a compromise regarding the structuring of the
 questionnaire into sections, but fortunately it could be done without
 invalidating existing translations or changing the variables of the
 resulting dataset.

Thanks. I will not hide that I am still not sure whether we don't now
have two out of context questions instead of just one, but I guess
it's what we could do for this round, so thank you for doing this.

I sincerely hope that we can all together revisit this part of the
survey to give results that can be used by all of us to increase
satisfaction and performance in the future. Contrarily to Sue, I do
think that these surveys (should) have a real-world impact and
(should) keep us all on our toes, fine tuned to the critisicism, needs
and wishes of the editors of the WIkimedia projects. As such I expect
us to make sure that we do get as precise a picture as possible of
what those are.



NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost.
Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive -
Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto -

Wikimedia-l mailing list