Research talk:Wikipedia Editors Survey 2011 November

(Redirected from Research talk:Wikipedia Editors Survey November 2011)
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Tbayer (WMF) in topic Subsequent survey

Please provide feedback in this space. Thank you.


How were languages for the survey chosen? The list provided on Research:Wikipedia Editors Survey November 2011/Translation doesn't follow the criterion stated here («we will accept surveys in all languages where we had at minimum 10 respondents who took the survey»). Italian and (a bit behind) Polish are major examples. Thank you, Nemo 23:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand your question clearly, the list is the break-up of languages from the last survey. It is not a list of languages in which we will only accept surveys, if that is what you are thinking. Manipande 23:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those were the languages that we used for the Mobile Readers Survey 2011. The list has now been updated. I apologize for the confusion.Akhanna 00:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unanswered questions about previous surveyEdit

Please answer.

and perhaps something else. Nemo 23:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At present, I am not working on a survey for any of the sister sites, but I can't speak on behalf of others. As part of my work, I am working on Wikipedia editor and readers survey, but that is only me. Manipande 00:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are quite a few more unanswered questions (on that page) - or issues that don't have any response from someone who appears to be associated with the survey writing

the main ones from me are

On a seperate note, I've not seen a link for any more recent survey yet - is the cookie using the same data and thus blocking people who filled out the previous survey ? EdwardLane 12:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We are in the process of programming the survey. The translations took longer than we anticipated, and we have pushed our launch date back a little. Akhanna 19:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Warning messages on my talk page from botsEdit

I don't understand the meaning of this question: what should be evaluated, the fact that they're warning messages or that they're from bots? What if the user doesn't even understand that they're from bots? Nemo 23:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good point, the question is aimed at figuring out whether people understand they are from bots. Manipande 00:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rewrite the welcome templatesEdit

Partly related: I don't understand how options were chosen, but I suppose there's some rationale. "The welcome message should come from a fellow editor, and not a bot" is unclear: the welcome can be automated but still be signed by a user. Users usually want someone they can reply to and ask questions, and they often don't even notice the welcome is from a bot. I suggest to replace it with "The welcome message should be signed by a fellow editor I can contact" and perhaps rephrase the question about warnings to include welcomes and other messages. Nemo 23:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great suggestion. Manipande 00:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Q about question D3bEdit

I was looking at question D3b What prompted you to set up a user i.e. a login account for editing? and I was wondering if another answer could be added. Namely I created an account to be able to create articles. That was the reason I created an account. I'm not sure if adding this would mess up the results (i.e. it wasn't an option before, so it shouldn't be an option this time) as I haven't seen the previous survey. Just thought I'd ask about it. I also wanted to thank everybody for working on the survey as I'm hopeful the results will show us how to make the community grow. Thanks everybody. I appreciate your hard work and dedication to the project. - Hydroxonium (TCV) 02:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, great suggestion. We (me and my colleague Ayush) really enjoy working on this project since we believe this is a critical piece to make the community grow too. Manipande 15:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


- Have you ever run, or would you like to run, for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees? - No, I was not eligible to vote in the elections. - that makes no sense, maybe not eligible to be elected? --Tgr 23:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the catch. Fixed. Akhanna 18:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Enwiki-specific answersEdit

A few answers are specific to en.wp (or large wikis anyway), and will be confusing to people not familiar with them:

  • D3b. What prompted you to set up a user i.e. a login account for editing? Please choose all those that apply. - I wanted to create a new articles - that makes sense on wikis which require login for starting new articles, but make no sense for people coming from other wikis.
  • Q21.Did you know that some warning messages on your talk page are from 'bots'? - actually in many smaller wikis there aren't. (On the other hand, there might be welcoming bots; if the user knows about this, he will probably misinterpret the question.) Could this be rephrased not to suggest potentially false information? Maybe Have you met with warning messages on your talk page which are from bots?

--Tgr 23:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Since D3b is a multiple choice, I think it would be ok. Actually, that option came from someone in the editing community.
  • I think what we are trying to get at with that question is editor awareness about the presence of bots, more than anything else.Akhanna 18:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had the same initial reaction about D3b, but the results kind of vindicated it: "Interestingly, while the English Wikipedia makes it mandatory to obtain an account before one can start a new article, respondents there cited this reason less often (39 percent). Among Spanish (67 percent) and Portuguese (68 percent) language editors this percentage was much higher, even though these Wikipedias allow creation of new articles without being logged in." Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Next time round this could become 'are you aware that some posts on wiki are made by wikipedia's bots?' 14:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


It seems to be inconsistent with the logic of the rest of the questions to uppercase "not at all good" and "extremely good" (which are the same in all the four questions, and obvious anyway) but not uppercase "own"/"volunteers"/etc. which is only bit of new information after having read one version of the question. --Tgr 23:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is to indicate the range of the scale, not for any other reason. Akhanna 19:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Similarly, in Q30, b-d have the only differing word uppercased, but e-g not. --Tgr 00:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, this is to highlight that we are talking about different editor "types". Akhanna 19:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Answer C is phrased with "I", all the other with "the new editor". --Tgr 00:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is because that particular sub-question is about communication. Akhanna 22:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Privacy policyEdit

Is the part about phones and addresses really necessary in the privacy policy? (You won't acutally collect such data, will you?) I'm not sure I would consider answering a survey if the disclaimer would gave the impression that they want my IRL data with it. --Tgr 01:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The survey will not collect any such data. The policy includes that part in case a respondent voluntarily includes contact information elsewhere (for instance, in an open-ended response). Akhanna 22:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translation StatusEdit

Where can I report that the page is translated and proofread in my language? Ofrahod 09:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can change the status for your language to "ready" here:Template:Translation/Research:Wikipedia Editors Survey November 2011 Akhanna 05:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translation Issue: Formal/Informal SpeechEdit

I'm sure you're aware of the existence of formal and informal speech in many languages. So far I've noticed that this survey has been translated into different languages using the following pattern:

  • German, Italian and Spanish use informal speech (du, tu, tù)
  • Dutch and French use formal speech (u, vous)

It is important to know that also the everyday-use of formal and informal speech differs from language to language yet even from region to region. My question though: Is it completely up to the translators to choose the appropriate form in this case or are there any guidelines?

Regarding this survey I recommend a tendency towards the informal "you", as it appeals directly to EDITORS who are part of the community and would be called by their first name if not nickname. However, formal speech should be used if it is more common and appropriate in a language in this case.--Joschi 20:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Joschi, we will keep it in mind for next time. Manipande 19:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

problems and bugsEdit

general: en-centric survey.

"D3a. Did you make any anonymous edits in Wikipedia before you registered as a user or set up an account?

1. Yes 0. No "

+ I don't remember

"D6. Is there a Wikimedia chapter in that country?"

if exist: Do you know [the name of chapter]? All exist chapters are known by WMF and its no problem to use their name in the survey if they exis and choose questions about chapter by country of user.

"Q3. What is your user access level? Please choose all that apply."

  1. Unregistered user (no account)
  2. Registered user (basic account, with or without rollbacker, reviewer status, etc.)

all - i can choose both

"Q20a. If you had to choose, which of these would you agree with: [QT=SS]"

nothing for me or both, because:

1. The feedback from other editors through reverts, discussions, etc. has helped me become a better editor. 2. The feedback from other editors through reverts, discussions, etc. has been a bad experience for me.

"Q21. Did you know that some warning messages on your talk page are from 'bots'? (Bots are automated or semi-automated tools that carry out repetitive and mundane tasks to maintain Wikipedia)"

not in my language Wikipedia

"Q21a. If you had to choose, which of these would you agree with:"

what about "helped me become a better editor"?? (warning + welcome template?)

"Q22a. Have you asked fellow editors for help on any of the following topics?"

i don't remember

"Q22b. Thinking about the last time you asked a fellow editor for help, how happy were you with the help you received?"

Yeah. Extremely or Very. Happy/Unhappy but not extremely or very.

"Q23. Below, we list some problems that have been identified with Wikimedia culture. Please pick the THREE most important problems that have affected you personally, making it harder for you to edit."

I know other problems more important...

"Q24. Below are some changes that might make it easier for you to contribute. Please pick THREE that would help you the most."

I know other changes

"Q28. As a new editor, we are interested in your opinion about how the community should phrase the welcome templates i.e. messages for greeting new users. On a scale of 1-10, please rate the following suggestions to rewrite the welcome templates."

what about other opinions?

"Q29. Are you aware that the number of active Wikipedia editors (i.e. those who edit frequently) has fallen in the recent years?"

Not in my language Wikipedia

"Q29a. We are interested in your opinion about what can be done to increase number of contributors to Wikipedia. Please select all of the statements that you agree with."

what about other opinions?

"Q34. Have you ever run, or would you like to run, for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees?"

"0. No, I’m not interested 9. No, I wasn't eligible"

Huh, I have no time, but i'm interested, My English is not too good yet,...

Translations are worse :/ In pl missing, but it runs. Heh. Przykuta 09:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for all your responses. Manipande 20
00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Back buttonEdit

A back button to fix previous answers would be useful. I resulted active only on since I misunderstood the question and had just in my dropdown menu..

Frieda 11:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, we are going to look into whether we can implement the back button. 19:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have included the back button. Thanks for the feedback. Akhanna 00:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


What is the link to actually do the survey. I got lucky last year and saw it in the banner. This year I saw it just before hitting the back button to have it no there anymore. I assumed the Foundation recalled the complaints over lack of access to the survey. You guys weren't paying attention it looks like. If I was having a hard time finding it drunk then other editors who use Wikipedia casually are not finding it at all. Cptnono 07:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there! In order to minimize annoyance to editors, we decided to show the banner only once. You may send us an email at, and we can send you a custom link to the survey. Thanks. Akhanna 09:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello! I appreciate the address. Just to give some feedback: Why does the Foundation think it is OK to keep things like arbcom elections and other points of interest not hidden unless requested but limits links to the survey? Why isn't the link available on this page? I figure if someone has gone through the effor tto look it up they actually want it. It appears that the Foundation is again intentionally limiting access to the survey. I would assume it was me just being some sort of conspiracy theorist nut but I recall other editors complaining about the lack of access to the survey last time. I assumed they were stupid since I got lucky and saw it the one and only time it displayed in the banner. Why the silly amount of effort? Cptnono 06:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand your situation. The survey is an important way of hearing the community's voice, and we want to hear from as many people as we can. At the same time, we want to minimize the distraction created by a banner. If we kept the banner live for too long, it would disrupt a contributor's day-to-day work. There are some possible alternatives:
  • We let the banner show for everyone as long as the survey is live
This would be disruptive, and although we might meet our target response numbers soon, it will not be a very representative sample of the community.
  • We make the link public, so people can just click it to take the survey
There would be no disruption, but it creates several problems - a lot of junk responses, and high response bias (i.e. differences between those who chose to participate and those who didn't).
Hence, the current system seems like the best compromise. If you have any ideas about how we could make this better, I'd love to hear them. Akhanna 23:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bug in Q19Edit


Taking the survey, I encountered a bug in question 19 (section IV). This question is supposed to ask more informations about the answers given in Q. 18a and 18b. Bug I did not see the answers I had given, but other ones.The answer I had given for Q.18a was correct, but the the ones for 18b were not the ones I had given.

--Rinaku (t · c) 13:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I just verified the logic, it seems to be working fine. Alternatives will not show up in the order they were chosen, though. That might be causing the confusion.
No, I can assure you that the answers I was shown in Q19 were not the ones I had chosen in Q18b (b. and e.). I don't remember which were the wrong ones, sorry; I wouldn't even be able to tell if they were really from Q18b. --Rinaku (t · c) 18:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, good to know. I'll watch out for this issue when I'm analyzing the data. Akhanna 19:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Were you able to complete the survey? If not, please send an email to, and I'll generate a custom link so that you can take the survey again. Thanks! Akhanna 19:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I completed the survey, although I had to tick answers I didn't agree with in Q23 and Q24 as pointed out by Nageh below. If many of us did that then you cannot use the result for these questions, it's garbage. --Rinaku (t · c) 18:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Duly noted. Thanks! Akhanna 19:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Same issue here. I have the survey currently open in other tab and could make a simple test: If you change the language from English to Spanish -staying all the time in page Q19- the answers shown are surprisingly changed. In English it's OK, they are all those what I'd marked in Q18, but in Spanish other answers are shown, both from Q18a and Q18b. Gustronico 00:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Investigating this issue right now. This might be a problem for other languages too, so I'll go ahead and verify all of them. Akhanna 01:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just made a new test: marked only first options in both Q18a and Q18b, then in Q19 (Spanish) the two answers shown are Q18b-3 and Q18b-4 (none of Q18a). Again, changing to English the correct answers Q18a-1 and Q18b-1 are shown. Gustronico 01:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Spanish was corrected, and I didn't find this issue anywhere else. Thanks for reporting this. Akhanna 22:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gender questionEdit

While I realise that the gender question being closed-ended makes for cleaner statistical data, I was disappointed that it's four radio buttons in this way:

  • Male
  • Female
  • Transsexual
  • Transgender

Thank you for including trans* identities in this, but they're not mutually exclusive to male or female identities. A better solution would have been to have [male, female, neither] as radio buttons, and [transsexual, transgender] as check boxes. (Full disclosure: I say this as a transgender female person) Crazytales (on en.wp) 15:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is very useful to know. I will incorporate this change into the next iteration of the survey. Thanks! Akhanna 18:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pick THREEEdit

Who is always coming up with this sort of idiotic limitations in the answers you may give such that you are forced to either skip the question or tick something you do not agree with? It may very well be that I absolutely agree with two bullets on the list but cannot agree with any of the others, yet I HAVE to pick THREE!!! This reminds me of a national survey on security matters I participated once where they had ten different incidents listed and one had to select on a scale from 1 to 10 whether one was very afraid of this happening or not at all. The curious thing was that you had to pick each number only exactly ONCE! Nageh 18:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. Several other people have pointed this out, so we will do away with the restriction for the next iteration. Sorry about the inconvenience. Akhanna 19:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some comments/complaintsEdit

Some comments I posted already in the German Wikipedia at de:Wikipedia:C#Neue_Autoren-Umfrage as I hadn't found this feedback page (Nimish Gautam kindly pointed me here) and the survey itself doesn't offer an option for comments. Loose translation/adaptation of my originally German-language post...

  • The option "I wanted to create new articles" for the question "What prompted you to set up a user?" seems to assume that unregistered users can't create new articles. Whilst this is true for the English Wikipedia, the German Wikipedia allows unregistered users to create new articles.
  • As in the previous survey, it's a bit hard to find Switzerland in the drop-down-menu of "In which country do you live?". The countries are sorted by TLD - Switzerland's is .ch and so the country is sorted between Canada (.ca) and Chile (.cl). As the name of Switzerland, however, begins with an "S" in all our national languages (Schweiz/Suisse/Svizzera/Svizra) as well as in English, people not expecting an order by TLD will first look under S. (By the way, the "ch" comes from Latin "Confoederatio Helvetica" as a neutral solution, because we have four national languages). - It is even harder to find Alemannic in "What is/are your primary language(s)?" because the languages are ordered by ISO 639 codes, where Alemannic has "gsw". Whilst Switzerland's "ch" is at least quite well-known, I think that very few Alemannic speakers are aware of the ISO 639 code of their language and will not look under "G" to find Alemannic. So I chose first "other" because I couldn't find Alemannic, only noticed the "gsw" by chance.
  • "We are interested in finding out more about your recent participation in Wikipedia and the Wikipedia community. For each activity, please indicate how often you have participated in the following activities in the last 30 days." - For some of the options, the restriction to "the last 30 days" will make truthful answering hard for several survey participants. What if, for example, "I organize or help events, workshops, meet-ups, or annual Wikimania conferences" is true - but just not in the last 30 days? Myself, I organized indeed some meet-ups, but not in the last 30 days, so I choose the truthful answer "Not at all" - not at all in the last 30 days. But I have the feeling that people who organized meet-ups etc. in the past will have a hard time to choose "Not at all" just because this didn't happen in the last 30 days, so I suspect the resulting data will be somewhat distorted, a mix of answers strictly adhering to definition "in the last 30 days" and others who don't.
  • "We are interested in finding out how you would describe fellow editors. Below is a list of words to describe editors within the Wikipedia community. Please choose the TOP TWO words that describe Wikipedia editors. Please select two." - I feel not really able to select just two, as there are indeed all sorts of Wikipedia editors - helpful ones, friendly ones, dumb or arrogant ones etc. - there is, in my opinion, no "typical fellow editor" who could be described with two of the words offered. So I chose to opt for the positive side and ticked two of the positive options, although I could have chosen negative ones just as well.
  • "Below, we list some problems that have been identified with Wikimedia culture. Please pick the THREE most important problems that have affected you personally, making it harder for you to edit." - As I see above, I was not the first to complain about this. Really only two of these problems have ever affected me. The survey forced me to pick three, so I picked a third completely at random to continue. In my opinion, data from this survey item shouldn't be used for any conclusions.

Gestumblindi 18:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks a lot for your feedback. We will take these into consideration for the next Survey. Akhanna 22:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, as far as I can remember, all these points have already been raised before. Nemo 19:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When will the translations of the Central Notice be publishedEdit

When will the translations of the Central Notice from Research:Wikipedia Editors Survey November 2011/CentralNotice be published? MrBlueSky 00:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have only published CentralNotice translations for the languages where we had a complete translation for the survey. Akhanna 04:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That makes sense. Altough it might also be nice to put up the notice in the local language with an extra statement informing the user that the actual survey is in English. MrBlueSky 20:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trouble completing the surveyEdit

A number of editors at enwp have reported trouble completing the survey. The related discussion is at w:Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Second 2011 editors survey. I'm not sure if anything can be done at this point, but I thought I should mention it. Best regards. - Hydroxonium (TCV) 04:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for sharing the discussion with me. Several other editors have also pointed out the issue with those two questions. I'm going to leave that question in for now, since we are too far along. This question will be redesigned for the next survey. Also, we will take this issue into consideration when we analyze the responses. Akhanna 04:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the update (both here and at enwp), Ayush. I expect you've heard mostly complaints about the survey, so I want to take a minute to thank both you and Mani. The english Wikipedia has had falling numbers of contributors for a while, which is a concern to the WMF and many of us volunteers. I want to say thank you to the WMF for looking in to the situation and getting data to try and help fix it. I think the work that you and Mani are doing is some of the most important work undertaken by the WMF and I'd like to thank both of you for your many dedcated hours working on the survey as well as answering all the questions people have. It shows real dedication to the project and you two should know there are many people that appreciate the work you are doing. Thanks you very much for everything. All the best. - Hydroxonium (TCV) 04:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your words mean a lot. Thank you! Akhanna 20:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your response at enWPvp Akhanna. It it could be that keeping this issue in mind when analyzing responses from this question is insufficient remedy because (1) this question was the biggest rather than the sole problem and (2) the results may be skewed by would-be respondents abandoning the survey. --Catslash 13:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a good point. However, I think that since a. the issue effects all editors equally b. We have a rather high completion rate (>80%) we should be OK. In any case, I will do my best to get more community input and review for the future, so we can avoid these problems. Thanks! Akhanna 20:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just out of curiosity: What was the original reason for having survey participants pick three of the "problem choices" and not allowing them to pick just one or two? Gestumblindi 20:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't design this question, but I will ask and get back to you about this. Akhanna 04:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One other suggestion for the future: a link to follow if the respondent has a problem (a technical problem perhaps) with the survey, or wants to offer some other feedback (or if there was such a link, then make it more prominent for unobservant folk like me). I only found my way to this page by following Hydroxonium's link. --Catslash 23:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was an email address, but perhaps adding a link to this page might also be useful. Akhanna 04:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'Other response' optionEdit

A basic golden rule of surveys is to always include an 'other response' option for questions.

Why? Lets suppose the question is something like 'Is A or B a bigger issue?' And lets say 90% of respondents don't think either is very significant compared to the real issue at hand.

  • Without the 'other response' option, the data might be 75% A, 25% B, and the conclusion drawn is then that A is a big problem in need of addressing.
  • With the 'other respose' option, the data might be 90% 'other,' 7.5% A, 2.5% B, and the conclusion is then correct, namely that A and B arent the main issue at all.

Tabby 14:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(EDIT) Could you be a little more specific? Which question are you referring to? Thanks. Akhanna 18:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All questions need an 'other response' option, otherwie the results are often not valid. Tabby 13:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No PayPal payment?Edit

I'm curious about whether the PayPal payment promised to survey participants really works? I completed the survey in the beginning of December 2011 and earned $15 USD, out of which $5 was to be donated to Wikipedia, and $10 was to be transferred to my PayPal account. It's been over a month since the survey was completed, but I received neither the PayPal transfer (which was promised to arrive within 10 days), nor any other confirmations or notifications to provided email. Can anyone provide some update on this please? Thanks. -- Nazar 12:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I think you are confusing the Editor Survey with the Harvard study. You may connect with the researchers here: Research_talk:Dynamics_of_Online_Interactions_and_Behavior -- Akhanna 02:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Akhanna, for directing me :) -- Nazar 20:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Subsequent surveyEdit

Noticed that the hatnote at the top says "for the subsequent April 2011 Editor Survey click here" which makes no sense as April 2011 clearly comes before November 2011. I would correct it but I am unaware of which survey is actually subsequent... - Vanstrat (talk) 04:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fixed it. There is a general overview at Editor Survey. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Return to "Wikipedia Editors Survey 2011 November" page.