UNU MERIT Wikipedia Survey
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

UNU MERIT Wikipedia Survey

on

  • 5,751 views

Overview of the Wikipedia Survey data analysis. The survey is a collaboration between UNU MERIT and the Wikimedia Foundation.

Overview of the Wikipedia Survey data analysis. The survey is a collaboration between UNU MERIT and the Wikimedia Foundation.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
5,751
Views on SlideShare
5,734
Embed Views
17

Actions

Likes
4
Downloads
26
Comments
0

3 Embeds 17

http://www.fcvg.it 8
http://www.slideshare.net 6
http://yukichi.tumblr.com 3

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

UNU MERIT Wikipedia Survey Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Wikipedia Survey Wikimania Buenos Aires 26 August 2009 Collaborative Creativity Group United Nations University MERIT Rishab Ghosh, Ruediger Glott, Philipp Schmidt http://ccg.merit.unu.edu schmidt@merit.unu.edu
  • 2. BACKGROUND • Wikimedia Foundation & United Nations University MERIT • First official Wikipedia survey (for readers and contributors) • Questionnaire developed with community input and building on existing research • Translated into 22 languages by Wikipedia community
  • 3. BACKGROUND • Online survey hosted at MERIT. Code reviewed by WP technical community • Survey went live November 2008 • Link to survey was posted in page headers of WP sites • Staggered across different language editions to deal with traffic loads
  • 4. RESEARCH QUESTIONS / OBJECTIVES • Who is contributing to Wikipedia and how? • Who is using Wikipedia? • What are users' and contributors' perceptions of quality? • Pragmatic findings that help the WMF improve use and benefits. • Establish baseline for possible monitoring system (panel studies)
  • 5. SCOPE • Questionnaire contains 50+ questions (with sub-questions) on a broad variety of topics and is broken down into sections: – General, Contributing, Reading, Non-contributors, Ex-contributors • 310,000 users/contributors accessed the survey • 175,000 valid responses
  • 6. ANALYSIS • Extensive data cleaning (removed more than 3500 cases) • First sub-reports shared with WMF – Survey Overview (available via blog) – Non-contributors (for WMF presentation) – Quality
  • 7. ANALYSIS - NEXT STEPS • August 2009 – Share moderately anonymized data with WMF and make available additional sub-reports • November 2009 – Publish comprehensive survey report (including all sub-reports) • Post publication – Open access to all fully anonymized data
  • 8. LANGUAGE EDITION SURVEYS • 22 languages (incl. 2 surveys for chinese) • Started with largest language editions • Added further editions based on interest by WMF, availability of volunteer translators, and diversity of sample • Top 5 language editions ~ 80% respondents • Russian largest group (tested against manipulation)
  • 9. LANGUAGE EDITION SURVEYS
  • 10. LOCATION • Responses from 231 countries
  • 11. USER/ACTIVITY TYPES • Readers 66% Contributors 31% • Contributors: 4 hrs / week • Additional categorization based on focus areas
  • 12. AGE • Quartile: 18 yrs - 22 yrs - 30 yrs - 85 yrs Type Avg Age All respondents 25.22 Readers 24.79 Contributors 26.14 Female 23.79 Male 25.69
  • 13. GENDER • Gender by user type • Female: 30% readers, 12.5% contributors
  • 14. EDUCATION • High levels of education (esp. given avg ages) • Contributors slightly higher than readers (~ 50% with tertiary education)
  • 15. MOTIVATIONS TO CONTRIBUTE • Ranked motivations (1st - 4th)
  • 16. REASONS FOR NOT CONTRIBUTING
  • 17. HOW TO INCREASE CONTRIBUTION • I would be much likelier to contribute, if …
  • 18. FOCUS AREAS AND EXPERTISE • Culture & Arts most popular, Technology & Applied Sciences (then History, Geography) • 70-90% of contributors self-identify as “experts” • Highest shares of experts in technical and scientific fields • Focus areas do not correspond perfectly with expertise levels. “Geography & Places” attracts high levels of contributors, but comparatively low levels of expertise.
  • 19. FOCUS AREAS AND EXPERTISE
  • 20. PERCEPTIONS OF QUALITY • Quality compared to “traditional” encyclopedia – Reliability (only category where “traditional” received higher scores) – Broadness – Variety – Depth – Understandability – Timeliness • Compare reader and contributor responses
  • 21. QUALITY - RELIABILITY • The information provided is correct
  • 22. QUALITY - DEPTH • The information provides deep understanding of a topic
  • 23. QUALITY - VARIETY • A wide range of topics is dealt with
  • 24. PERCEPTIONS OF QUALITY • Contributors are both more critical (reliability, understandability) and more supportive (all other dimensions) than readers. • Relationship between transparency, understanding of the processes and mechanisms, and perception of quality.
  • 25. ANNEX – ADDITIONAL TABLES
  • 26. MOTIVATIONS TO CONTRIBUTE
  • 27. REASONS FOR NOT CONTRIBUTING