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

2012-09-14 Thread charles andrès
Dear Jan-Bart,
Unfortunately the exact wordings was I'll point out also that there are zero 
real-world implications for the survey results.

Because we all agree that there is now such thing like a zero real-world impact 
survey, we really hope that the raw results of this survey will be made as 
public as possible (privacy issue), and that in the future , survey including 
question about WMF partners (chapters are not the only ones) will be done since 
the very beginning in collaboration with all the partners involved.

sincerely

Charles


___
Charles ANDRES, Chairman
Wikimedia CH – Association for the advancement of free knowledge –
www.wikimedia.ch
Skype: charles.andres.wmch
IRC://irc.freenode.net/wikimedia-ch



Le 12 sept. 2012 à 16:14, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org a écrit :

 Hey
 
 So I might have missed some mails on this thread (perhaps because they were 
 not posted on this public list) but I highly doubt that Sue perform surveys 
 that do not have a real-world impact on our operations. I know that the 
 results of the previous surveys were used in several discussions (including 
 at a board level) in order to provide more insight….
 
 On the other hand, using these surveys to gain more insight is not the same 
 as using them to hold each other accountable which is sometimes easy to do. 
 Every survey (and questions) has a lots of interpretation magic which can 
 easily lead you astray, but I don't have to tell you (the community) this :)
 
 Jan-Bart
 
 
 On 10 Sep 2012, at 23:01, Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 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.
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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

2012-09-14 Thread Florence Devouard



On 9/12/12 4:14 PM, Jan-Bart de Vreede wrote:

Hey

So I might have missed some mails on this thread (perhaps because they were not 
posted on this public list) but I highly doubt that Sue perform surveys that do 
not have a real-world impact on our operations. I know that the results of the 
previous surveys were used in several discussions (including at a board level) 
in order to provide more insight….



Indeed. I agree. These surveys do have real-world impact, which is why 
we objected to a survey asking people from all over the world how they 
would rate Wikimedia Chapters activities when

1) there is likely no chapter in their country
2) they may have no idea that a wikimedia chapter is for example 
Wikimedia Washington DC or Wikimedia Israel
3) all chapters are collectively considered regardless of individual 
differences


And since you comment on that specific sentence

I'll point out also that there are zero real-world implications for the 
survey results.


I'd like to clarify that these exact words come from Sue herself in an 
email sent on the 10th of September on internal-l.


I am glad to read that you disagree with that statement and recognize 
that there is real-world impact.



(did not want to comment any further on that problematic survey, but 
wanted to attribute statement properly)



Flo



On the other hand, using these surveys to gain more insight is not the same as using them 
to hold each other accountable which is sometimes easy to do. Every survey 
(and questions) has a lots of interpretation magic which can easily lead you astray, but 
I don't have to tell you (the community) this :)




Jan-Bart


On 10 Sep 2012, at 23:01, Delphine Ménard 
notafishz-re5jqeeqqe8avxtiumw...@public.gmane.org wrote:


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.


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
wikimedia-l-rusutvdil2icgmh+5r0dm0b+6bgkl...@public.gmane.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l





___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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

2012-09-14 Thread Jan-bart de Vreede
Hey

So someone sent me the internal-l mail and I do think that the zero 
real-world thing is taken out of context here. But a few points

1) Lets not have these discussions on internal-l, there is no reason to not 
have those in public
2) See 1)
3) I am sure that the data set allows us to see chapter's individual responses, 
depending on whether or not we know the country (I would figure we do?)
4) Doesn't every survey contain questions that don't apply to the whole 
responding audience?

Jan-Bart




On 14 sep. 2012, at 17:05, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote:

 
 
 On 9/12/12 4:14 PM, Jan-Bart de Vreede wrote:
 Hey
 
 So I might have missed some mails on this thread (perhaps because they were 
 not posted on this public list) but I highly doubt that Sue perform surveys 
 that do not have a real-world impact on our operations. I know that the 
 results of the previous surveys were used in several discussions (including 
 at a board level) in order to provide more insight….
 
 
 Indeed. I agree. These surveys do have real-world impact, which is why we 
 objected to a survey asking people from all over the world how they would 
 rate Wikimedia Chapters activities when
 1) there is likely no chapter in their country
 2) they may have no idea that a wikimedia chapter is for example Wikimedia 
 Washington DC or Wikimedia Israel
 3) all chapters are collectively considered regardless of individual 
 differences
 
 And since you comment on that specific sentence
 
 I'll point out also that there are zero real-world implications for the 
 survey results.
 
 I'd like to clarify that these exact words come from Sue herself in an email 
 sent on the 10th of September on internal-l.
 
 I am glad to read that you disagree with that statement and recognize that 
 there is real-world impact.
 
 
 (did not want to comment any further on that problematic survey, but wanted 
 to attribute statement properly)
 
 
 Flo
 
 
 On the other hand, using these surveys to gain more insight is not the same 
 as using them to hold each other accountable which is sometimes easy to 
 do. Every survey (and questions) has a lots of interpretation magic which 
 can easily lead you astray, but I don't have to tell you (the community) 
 this :)
 
 
 Jan-Bart
 
 
 On 10 Sep 2012, at 23:01, Delphine Ménard 
 notafishz-re5jqeeqqe8avxtiumw...@public.gmane.org wrote:
 
 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.
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 wikimedia-l-rusutvdil2icgmh+5r0dm0b+6bgkl...@public.gmane.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 
 
 
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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

2012-09-14 Thread Frédéric Schütz

On 14/09/12 18:08, Jan-bart de Vreede wrote:


4) Doesn't every survey contain questions that don't apply to the whole 
responding audience?


No, because the answer would not be terribly useful. In all surveys I 
have seen in my work life [statistics work -- I don't design much 
surveys myself, but reply to a lot of them from different horizons :-], 
this does never happen.


Typically, the filtering for a question about chapters would be 
something like this (simplified and written quickly):


1) Do you know any organization active within the Wikimedia movement ?
(free text fields allow people to enter names)

2) This page contain a list of organizations active within the Wikimedia 
movement; please tick all the ones you know (even if you have only heard 
the name)


(a list follows, with maybe WMF, Local chapters in general, and a 
list of individual chapters)


3) People are then asked to rate and/or comment each entity that was 
mentioned under (1) or (2).


This way, not only do we avoid having people give their opinion on a 
topic they've never heard about, but we also get two different levels of 
knowledge on the topic (either the user knew it well enough to list the 
name, or he had to be reminded).


Frédéric

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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 tba...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi Delphine,

 On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 6:57 AM, Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Tilman Bayer tba...@wikimedia.org 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.

Best,

Delphine
-- 
@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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

2012-08-22 Thread Cristian Consonni
2012/8/21 Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com:
 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.

+1.

Cristian

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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

2012-08-21 Thread Delphine Ménard
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. 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). 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 so 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.

Best,

Delphine



[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use

On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Christine Moellenberndt
christine...@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 

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

2012-08-21 Thread Tilman Bayer
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:04 AM, Delphine Ménard notafi...@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_Editor_Survey_topline.pdfpage=5
).

 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 

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

2012-08-21 Thread Delphine Ménard
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Tilman Bayer tba...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 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_Editor_Survey_topline.pdfpage=5
 ).

My bad, glad it was there. And yes she did. Maybe not in those exact
words, but she did put the results into context.

 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 ).

So if a question is poorly phrased, we'll continue having it till the
end of time to preserve consistency? Mind you, I do want that question
in, I just want it within the same context frame that is given to the
same question about the Foundation. And I'm also missing a question
about other entities that might actually help Wikimedians that we're
or we're not aware of.


 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.


 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.

That's great. Thanks. For the record, I'm not expecting the results to
be so extremely different, but I think the fact that they might be or
might not be is extremely important to know.



 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.


That's good news and I hope the collaborative process can be
reinforced and more time is allowed for comments, reviews, changes and
finetuning.

Best,

Delphine

-- 
@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: 

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

2012-07-31 Thread Tilman Bayer
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Christine Moellenberndt 
christine...@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_2012/**Questionshttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_Editor_Survey_August_2012/Questions
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/**index.php?title=Research:**
 Wikipedia_Editor_Survey_**August_2012/Questionshttps://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_2012https://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_hoursforhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hoursforgeneral
  information about IRC Office hours)

Just a quick reminder that this is happening two hours from now.


 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@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: 
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l




-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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

2012-07-27 Thread Christine Moellenberndt

*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_2012/Questions
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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l