Re: [Wikimedia-l] draft revised volunteer community survey

[James Salsman]

>... it's probably more effective to make your point directly

Any volunteer organization with a several year history of declining
volunteer participation should refocus its external advocacy efforts
from actions which can benefit no more than a small percentage of
volunteers to those that will likely benefit vastly larger numbers of
volunteers who might otherwise not have the time or inclination to
contribute.

> Nobody seems to support it.

Those who have expressed preferences at http://www.allourideas.org/wmfcsdraft
so far have not produced particularly radical priorities, which are
currently as follows, from
http://www.allourideas.org/wmfcsdraft/results

Open educational resources
Open access scientific research
Broadband internet access
Copyright on government works
Infrastructure construction and maintenance
College subsidy with income-based repayment terms
Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its
protocols without reservation
Increased data center hardware power efficiency
Telecommuting
Increase education spending,

>The Convention on the Rights of the Child is a good and important
> thing, and ... the two nations which have somehow neglected to
> ratify it should certainly be strongly encouraged to do so...

Most of its central portions regarding education and livelihood remain
unratified for the majority of the population because of treaty
reservations nullifying vast swaths of the text.

> but I would strongly oppose WMF being the vehicle for such
> domestic political campaigning

Should volunteers decide this question collectively, or is the
unsustainable status quo more important to preserve than
representation of volunteer preferences?

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] draft revised volunteer community survey

[Philippe Beaudette]

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:

> Ah. Yeah. The job of the "Community Advocacy" bit of "Legal and Community
> Advocacy" is, as I understand it, to advocate for the community's need
> within the Foundation, and act as a conduit to the community for legal
> stuff. Their job is not to advocate for "reduction in public school class
> sizes" or "more steeply progressive taxation". Indeed, these things are not
> the job of anyone at the Foundation, and never should be. I'm kind of
> bemused as to why these are even being brought up.
>

That.  :)

pb



*Philippe Beaudette * \\  Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc.
 T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 |  phili...@wikimedia.org  |  :
@Philippewiki
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] draft revised volunteer community survey

[Andrew Gray]

On 13 March 2014 11:32, Risker  wrote:

> Mostly, thoughthis just really feels like it is trying to take the
> Wikimedia community down a path that has nothing to do with our core
> objectives, and to turn us into just another advocacy group.  I'm not
> interested in that.

+1

The Convention on the Rights of the Child is a good and important
thing, and I would certainly agree that the two nations which have
somehow neglected to ratify it should certainly be strongly encouraged
to do so...

...but I would strongly oppose WMF being the vehicle for such domestic
political campaigning. It's simply not what it's for. Likewise the
appearance of tax policy or education funding.

On much the same basis, I would be uncomfortable with Greenpeace being
persuaded to act as a spokesman for net neutrality, or for UNICEF to
suddenly start aggressively campaigning against whaling. All good
topics, but they should have other priorities.

The underlying argument here seems to be "these things are important
and indirectly affect the work we do or might do". However, were we to
follow this to its logical end, we should campaign to shut down about
half the world's charities and redirect all their funds to researching
asteroid deflection...

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] draft revised volunteer community survey

[Martijn Hoekstra]

On Mar 15, 2014 7:47 AM, "James Salsman"  wrote:
>
> Oliver Keyes, okeyes at wikimedia.org, wrote:
> >
> >... I don't see a lot of things that are likely enough to succeed
> > and provide a meaningful impact
>
> That's how I feel about copyright term extension efforts, but we have
> been standing firm on them as a defense against the very real
> possibility of losses to the public domain. The sources which speak on
> the topics affecting volunteer lives can only go so far. At some point
> volunteers need to help say which efforts we think are most likely to
> help achieve our goals, including the existential threat of volunteer
> attrition.
>
> Here is an alternative survey method, also appropriate for statistical
> sampling and independent validation, which includes a way for everyone
> to add their own suggestions in-line in real time:
>
> http://www.allourideas.org/wmfcsdraft
>
> >... lawyers would likely consider this absolutely anathema
> > to our legal restrictions around lobbying
>
> The legal department has had plenty of time to raise objections to any
> of the specific proposals. I would personally love for the Foundation
> to support a slate of candidates if volunteers could manage meaningful
> endorsements tied to the mission, but in the US at least, that line is
> drawn between issues and candidates, with parties being on the
> candidate side of that line. I wonder if it would be legal to formally
> endorse a green donkey in the US.
>
> Best regards,
> James

James, you are definitely going off the rails here, and I think you know
it. If you're trying to make a point by making ridiculous proposals, it's
probably more effective to make your point directly - I for me am rather
lost at what point you are trying to make. Maybe something with that you
think the WMF is spending too much money and effort in copyright lobbying?

If this is actually a serious proposal of something you would like to see
happen, it's probably a good idea to drop it. Nobody seems to support it.

--Martijn Hoekstra

>
> ___
> 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] draft revised volunteer community survey

[James Salsman]

Oliver Keyes, okeyes at wikimedia.org, wrote:
>
>... I don't see a lot of things that are likely enough to succeed
> and provide a meaningful impact

That's how I feel about copyright term extension efforts, but we have
been standing firm on them as a defense against the very real
possibility of losses to the public domain. The sources which speak on
the topics affecting volunteer lives can only go so far. At some point
volunteers need to help say which efforts we think are most likely to
help achieve our goals, including the existential threat of volunteer
attrition.

Here is an alternative survey method, also appropriate for statistical
sampling and independent validation, which includes a way for everyone
to add their own suggestions in-line in real time:

http://www.allourideas.org/wmfcsdraft

>... lawyers would likely consider this absolutely anathema
> to our legal restrictions around lobbying

The legal department has had plenty of time to raise objections to any
of the specific proposals. I would personally love for the Foundation
to support a slate of candidates if volunteers could manage meaningful
endorsements tied to the mission, but in the US at least, that line is
drawn between issues and candidates, with parties being on the
candidate side of that line. I wonder if it would be legal to formally
endorse a green donkey in the US.

Best regards,
James

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] draft revised volunteer community survey

[Oliver Keyes]

On 14 March 2014 00:54, James Salsman  wrote:

> > The job of the "Community Advocacy" bit of "Legal and Community
> > Advocacy" is, as I understand it, to advocate for the community's
> > need within the Foundation, and act as a conduit to the community
> > for legal stuff.
>
> That department and its predecessors have hired professional attorneys
> to lobby on copyright and patent issues for several years on multiple
> continents. Recently they have been active in many other legal
> advocacy areas including international trade, for example. The process
> by which those issues was selected has in the past had more to do than
> what the Board of Trustees could agree on, resulting in a common
> denominator fare less inclusive than typical volunteer opinions on
> what is an is not important to them, their families, their local
> communities, and the factors which determine the time and effort they
> are able to contribute. Willful ignorance of such factors is not good
> volunteer recruiting practice.
>
> Can you give an example of international trade lobbying?

The department lobbying on copyright and patent issues doesn't shock me.
It's the /legal/ department. Copyright is kind of important to us ;).


> > Their job is not to advocate for "reduction in public school
> > class sizes"
>
> Is there any reason to think that reduction of public school class
> sizes is not likely to result in more productive editors, with more
> time to contribute, or that it would not attract quality volunteers
> relative to taking no position on the question?
>

Not in the slightest, but that's not the test for whether we should plow
movement/foundation money and time into it. Pretty much *everything* that
is a Good Idea could, by your standards, fall into 'things we should
consider lobbying on'. To take this to its logical extreme; let's campaign
on the issues necessary for a zero cost economy! If everything is
incredibly cheap and/or free, everyone can be an artist or a philosopher or
an editor instead of having to do pesky things like 'working', and that way
we'll have all the editors we could possibly need.

That doesn't mean it's a thing we should spend time on, though. When I look
at the list of things I see a lot of stuff, such as reduction in public
school class sizes, that would help the community indirectly. I don't see a
lot of things that are likely enough to (a) succeed and (b) provide a
meaningful impact that we should spend limited movement resources and time
on them. Even assuming that people did say "yes, we want the Wikimedia
Foundation, which runs a website, to campaign on child working hours and
rights!", you note yourself that the lawyers would likely consider this
absolutely anathema to our legal restrictions around lobbying - so even
were this unlikely outcome to occur, it wouldn't go anywhere. Since it
won't go anywhere, and it's unlikely to occur in the first place, it's a
waste of volunteer time to find out how much they think we should do
something we absolutely cannot do.

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



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Product Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] draft revised volunteer community survey

[James Salsman]

> The job of the "Community Advocacy" bit of "Legal and Community
> Advocacy" is, as I understand it, to advocate for the community's
> need within the Foundation, and act as a conduit to the community
> for legal stuff.

That department and its predecessors have hired professional attorneys
to lobby on copyright and patent issues for several years on multiple
continents. Recently they have been active in many other legal
advocacy areas including international trade, for example. The process
by which those issues was selected has in the past had more to do than
what the Board of Trustees could agree on, resulting in a common
denominator fare less inclusive than typical volunteer opinions on
what is an is not important to them, their families, their local
communities, and the factors which determine the time and effort they
are able to contribute. Willful ignorance of such factors is not good
volunteer recruiting practice.

> Their job is not to advocate for "reduction in public school
> class sizes"

Is there any reason to think that reduction of public school class
sizes is not likely to result in more productive editors, with more
time to contribute, or that it would not attract quality volunteers
relative to taking no position on the question?

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] draft revised volunteer community survey

[Oliver Keyes]

Ah. Yeah. The job of the "Community Advocacy" bit of "Legal and Community
Advocacy" is, as I understand it, to advocate for the community's need
within the Foundation, and act as a conduit to the community for legal
stuff. Their job is not to advocate for "reduction in public school class
sizes" or "more steeply progressive taxation". Indeed, these things are not
the job of anyone at the Foundation, and never should be. I'm kind of
bemused as to why these are even being brought up.


On 13 March 2014 21:04, Risker  wrote:

> On 13 March 2014 23:56, James Salsman  wrote:
>
> > > Link to the board of decision to pay advocates please.
> >
> > The most recent seems to be the approval f the Annual Plan as per
> >
> >
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2013-2014_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Answers#What_is_included_in_the_.E2.80.9CLegal.2C_Community_Advocacy.2C_Communications.2C_Human_Resources.2C_Finance_and_Administration.E2.80.9D_spending_in_the_Annual_Plan.3F
> >
> >
> It's the name of a department "Legal and Community Advocacy" or LCA for
> short.  That's not really the same thing.
>
> Risker/Anne
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Product Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] draft revised volunteer community survey

[Risker]

On 13 March 2014 23:56, James Salsman  wrote:

> > Link to the board of decision to pay advocates please.
>
> The most recent seems to be the approval f the Annual Plan as per
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2013-2014_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Answers#What_is_included_in_the_.E2.80.9CLegal.2C_Community_Advocacy.2C_Communications.2C_Human_Resources.2C_Finance_and_Administration.E2.80.9D_spending_in_the_Annual_Plan.3F
>
>
It's the name of a department "Legal and Community Advocacy" or LCA for
short.  That's not really the same thing.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] draft revised volunteer community survey

[James Salsman]

> Link to the board of decision to pay advocates please.

The most recent seems to be the approval f the Annual Plan as per
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2013-2014_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Answers#What_is_included_in_the_.E2.80.9CLegal.2C_Community_Advocacy.2C_Communications.2C_Human_Resources.2C_Finance_and_Administration.E2.80.9D_spending_in_the_Annual_Plan.3F
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] draft revised volunteer community survey

[Risker]

On 13 March 2014 22:38, James Salsman  wrote:

> 
>
> If the Trustees have decided that we should pay advocates,
>



Link to the board of decision to pay advocates please.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] draft revised volunteer community survey

[James Salsman]

>... list of causes - many of which have little or no correlation with
> anything even vaguely related to the operation of the WMF, its core
> philosophies, or its purpose

If the Trustees have decided that we should pay advocates, why not
advocate on the issues most likely to increase the number,
persistence, and availability of our volunteers? What proportion of
past Wikimedia volunteer surveys asked about any issues which would
tend to attract new editors, retain existing editors, or increase the
time availability of potential editors? I know of three, and only one
was produced by Foundation staff. Just because Foundation staff avoid
advocacy questions out of an abundance of caution concerning their
nonprofit organization restrictions, there is no reason to censor the
assessment of volunteer opinion on those topics. On the contrary, the
restrictions cause a clear systemic bias in the formal statistical
sense, and I would be professionally negligent if I did not recommend
countering that bias. If there are actual reasons to believe that the
additions I have chosen "have little or no correlation" with such
factors then I would like to read them, because they can be expected
to improve the ability to attract, retain, and ease the contributions
of volunteers for concrete reasons in the most reliable sources.

> very americo-centric

If there is some reason to say more than 4 out of 32 of the items are
US-specific, I would be surprised. Some of the items can easily be
internationalized further, and I will endeavor to do so. For better or
worse, the Foundation is in the US, and Foundation employees have to
live with, e.g., the US healthcare system, US tax incidence, US
working hours, US public education, US infrastructure, US national
security eavesdropping, etc. Therefore all of those issues affect all
of our volunteers.

> Just as importantly, it says that 12 topics will be "elected".  Elected for
> what?  Why 12 of them?

The cut-off is arbitrary and was intended to be roughly proportional
to the number of issues listed in the abstract of the most recent EU
survey.

> What about if lots of people think one of these topics is really important,
> but for different reasons?

Advocacy staff should have access to volunteer opinion data in ways
which would allow them to tailor advocacy opportunities to those which
are considered most important by the largest number of volunteers, and
also in ways where the subset of volunteers who consider less popular
issues important can still help to act on them when the evidence
suggests the outcomes would justify the effort.

Best regards,
James

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] draft revised volunteer community survey

[Tilman Bayer]

Hi Craig,

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:42 AM, Craig Franklin
 wrote:
>
> In addition to Risker's comments, which I agree with 100%, I would further
> request that any future survey of users be designed and supervised only by
> someone with extensive expertise and experience in the field of survey
> methodology.  Many previous surveys that have been done by the Foundation
> have, despite a lot of hard work and effort put into them, suffered from
> methodological flaws, either in the form of the questions asked or the way
> that the user sample was selected.  The results have therefore not only
> been useless in some cases, but in some cases actually misleading and thus
> potentially damaging to the movement.

Agree about the importance of careful survey design. But, without
revisiting the dispute about the question in previous editor surveys
that asked Wikimedians to rate the performance of Wikimedia chapters,
which I know well you had concerns about, let me point out that the
Foundation's 2011 reader survey and the two 2011 editor surveys (whose
questionnaires and methodology were largely reused in the 2012 editor
survey) were designed and supervised by a PhD with extensive
experience in quantitative and qualitative research, who had been
conducting surveys in several countries even before she joined WMF. Of
course that doesn't mean that the questionnaire and methodology can't
be criticized or improved in each case - I recall that community
feedback about specific issues led to various improvements - , just
wanted to set the record straight.

>
>
> This is something that the Foundation has gotten better at over the years,
> and since we're on the topic it's something I'd like them to stick to!
>
Thanks, and please do continue to hold WMF to high standards ;)

> Cheers,
> Craig
>
>
> On 13 March 2014 21:32, Risker  wrote:
>
> > On 13 March 2014 05:13, James Salsman  wrote:
> >
> > > > Is there ... an explanation which explains what it all means?
> > >
> > > It's an attempted improvement on the policy survey at
> > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Survey
> > >
> > > "A survey about the importance of various policy issues ... given the
> > > highest priority by our community."
> > >
> > > If you are having trouble working the preference ballot at
> > > http://demochoice.org/dcballot.php?poll=wmfcsdraft
> > > then please try the demonstration, instructions, and background
> > > material at http://demochoice.org/
> > >
> > > The ranked-preference ballot makes respondents consider choices
> > > pairwise, which has an accuracy advantage over approval (yes or no to
> > > each) or Likert scale (e.g. 1 "strongly agree" to 5 "strongly
> > > disagree") responses when respondents are not familiar with all the
> > > options. Approval on an issues survey can have problems with
> > > relatively disproportionate numbers of responses with only a few
> > > options or all or almost all options selected, and the Likert scale
> > > gets fewer responses on issues less familiar to respondents than
> > > ranking.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > James
> > >
> > > ___
> > >
> >
> >
> > I don't think this would be a very useful survey, and I would not
> > participate in it.  The shopping list of causes - many of which have little
> > or no correlation with anything even vaguely related to the operation of
> > the WMF, its core philosophies, or its purpose - is very americo-centric.
> > Just as importantly, it says that 12 topics will be "elected".  Elected for
> > what?  Why 12 of them?  What about if lots of people think one of these
> > topics is really important, but for different reasons?
> >
> > Mostly, thoughthis just really feels like it is trying to take the
> > Wikimedia community down a path that has nothing to do with our core
> > objectives, and to turn us into just another advocacy group.  I'm not
> > interested in that.
> >
> > Risker/Anne
> > ___
> > 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, 
> 




-- 
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] draft revised volunteer community survey

[Craig Franklin]

In addition to Risker's comments, which I agree with 100%, I would further
request that any future survey of users be designed and supervised only by
someone with extensive expertise and experience in the field of survey
methodology.  Many previous surveys that have been done by the Foundation
have, despite a lot of hard work and effort put into them, suffered from
methodological flaws, either in the form of the questions asked or the way
that the user sample was selected.  The results have therefore not only
been useless in some cases, but in some cases actually misleading and thus
potentially damaging to the movement.

This is something that the Foundation has gotten better at over the years,
and since we're on the topic it's something I'd like them to stick to!

Cheers,
Craig


On 13 March 2014 21:32, Risker  wrote:

> On 13 March 2014 05:13, James Salsman  wrote:
>
> > > Is there ... an explanation which explains what it all means?
> >
> > It's an attempted improvement on the policy survey at
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Survey
> >
> > "A survey about the importance of various policy issues ... given the
> > highest priority by our community."
> >
> > If you are having trouble working the preference ballot at
> > http://demochoice.org/dcballot.php?poll=wmfcsdraft
> > then please try the demonstration, instructions, and background
> > material at http://demochoice.org/
> >
> > The ranked-preference ballot makes respondents consider choices
> > pairwise, which has an accuracy advantage over approval (yes or no to
> > each) or Likert scale (e.g. 1 "strongly agree" to 5 "strongly
> > disagree") responses when respondents are not familiar with all the
> > options. Approval on an issues survey can have problems with
> > relatively disproportionate numbers of responses with only a few
> > options or all or almost all options selected, and the Likert scale
> > gets fewer responses on issues less familiar to respondents than
> > ranking.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > James
> >
> > ___
> >
>
>
> I don't think this would be a very useful survey, and I would not
> participate in it.  The shopping list of causes - many of which have little
> or no correlation with anything even vaguely related to the operation of
> the WMF, its core philosophies, or its purpose - is very americo-centric.
> Just as importantly, it says that 12 topics will be "elected".  Elected for
> what?  Why 12 of them?  What about if lots of people think one of these
> topics is really important, but for different reasons?
>
> Mostly, thoughthis just really feels like it is trying to take the
> Wikimedia community down a path that has nothing to do with our core
> objectives, and to turn us into just another advocacy group.  I'm not
> interested in that.
>
> Risker/Anne
> ___
> 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] draft revised volunteer community survey

[Risker]

On 13 March 2014 05:13, James Salsman  wrote:

> > Is there ... an explanation which explains what it all means?
>
> It's an attempted improvement on the policy survey at
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Survey
>
> "A survey about the importance of various policy issues ... given the
> highest priority by our community."
>
> If you are having trouble working the preference ballot at
> http://demochoice.org/dcballot.php?poll=wmfcsdraft
> then please try the demonstration, instructions, and background
> material at http://demochoice.org/
>
> The ranked-preference ballot makes respondents consider choices
> pairwise, which has an accuracy advantage over approval (yes or no to
> each) or Likert scale (e.g. 1 "strongly agree" to 5 "strongly
> disagree") responses when respondents are not familiar with all the
> options. Approval on an issues survey can have problems with
> relatively disproportionate numbers of responses with only a few
> options or all or almost all options selected, and the Likert scale
> gets fewer responses on issues less familiar to respondents than
> ranking.
>
> Best regards,
> James
>
> ___
>


I don't think this would be a very useful survey, and I would not
participate in it.  The shopping list of causes - many of which have little
or no correlation with anything even vaguely related to the operation of
the WMF, its core philosophies, or its purpose - is very americo-centric.
Just as importantly, it says that 12 topics will be "elected".  Elected for
what?  Why 12 of them?  What about if lots of people think one of these
topics is really important, but for different reasons?

Mostly, thoughthis just really feels like it is trying to take the
Wikimedia community down a path that has nothing to do with our core
objectives, and to turn us into just another advocacy group.  I'm not
interested in that.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] draft revised volunteer community survey

[James Salsman]

> Is there ... an explanation which explains what it all means?

It's an attempted improvement on the policy survey at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Survey

"A survey about the importance of various policy issues ... given the
highest priority by our community."

If you are having trouble working the preference ballot at
http://demochoice.org/dcballot.php?poll=wmfcsdraft
then please try the demonstration, instructions, and background
material at http://demochoice.org/

The ranked-preference ballot makes respondents consider choices
pairwise, which has an accuracy advantage over approval (yes or no to
each) or Likert scale (e.g. 1 "strongly agree" to 5 "strongly
disagree") responses when respondents are not familiar with all the
options. Approval on an issues survey can have problems with
relatively disproportionate numbers of responses with only a few
options or all or almost all options selected, and the Likert scale
gets fewer responses on issues less familiar to respondents than
ranking.

Best regards,
James

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] draft revised volunteer community survey

[Peter Southwood]

I took a look at the survey and it is seriously unclear. Is there supposed 
to be an explanation which explains what it all means before filling in?

Cheers,
Peter
- Original Message - 
From: "James Salsman" 

To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 12:50 AM
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] draft revised volunteer community survey



In order to address issues with previous volunteer community surveys
which may not have included options able to maximize volunteer
attraction and retention, I have drafted a revised volunteer community
survey which includes new items and top-scoring components of the
previous community survey:

http://demochoice.org/dcballot.php?poll=wmfcsdraft

It is in English only at present. Translations and other
internationalization of the responses are most welcome, because at
least a few are overly US-specific at present. The draft version will
accept responses from anyone for two weeks. The Foundation can select
a random sample of long-term volunteers from email registrations.
Alternatively, recent changes can be used in conjunction with editor
histories for random samples which volunteers could use to confirm
official results as a matter of best practices, or if the Foundation
fails to act.

A detailed rationale for this revision is at:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2014-March/000420.html

Best regards,
James Salsman

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> 



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

[Wikimedia-l] draft revised volunteer community survey

[James Salsman]

In order to address issues with previous volunteer community surveys
which may not have included options able to maximize volunteer
attraction and retention, I have drafted a revised volunteer community
survey which includes new items and top-scoring components of the
previous community survey:

http://demochoice.org/dcballot.php?poll=wmfcsdraft

It is in English only at present. Translations and other
internationalization of the responses are most welcome, because at
least a few are overly US-specific at present. The draft version will
accept responses from anyone for two weeks. The Foundation can select
a random sample of long-term volunteers from email registrations.
Alternatively, recent changes can be used in conjunction with editor
histories for random samples which volunteers could use to confirm
official results as a matter of best practices, or if the Foundation
fails to act.

A detailed rationale for this revision is at:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2014-March/000420.html

Best regards,
James Salsman

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