Research talk:Wikipedia Readership Survey 2011

Active discussions

Language namesEdit

I corrected a few language names in the list. There may be a few more mistakes - please make sure they're right. --Amir E. Aharoni 20:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Amir, very helpful!!Manipande 00:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome.
I checked the rest and most are probably correct, but i'm not sure about Bengali, which may be correct, but may have to be corrected to বাংলা. --Amir E. Aharoni 07:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Changed বেঙ্গলি (Bengali) to বাংলা, which is accurate. Bishdatta 15:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)



Retitle as "Reader survey": "readership survey" is unnecessarily wordy and may confuse some people.
S3A - add "less than once a month"
S3B - doesn't allow for innocuous reasons: "I don't find it interesting", "I have limited bandwidth", "I don't look up stuff very often" (why not?), "I don't know enough about it"
S4 - "Needs at a minimum "yes/no/some" not just yes/no.
Under-14s - Do we really want to filter out under 14's? They may well be a major (or up and coming) segment of our userbase to understand. Can we not have a separate section of survey questions suitable for younger people 10 - 13, which asks for confirmation they are legally allowed to continue (if needed) and does not collect inappropriate personal data for that age group? I think a cut-off at 14 omits a major part of our actual userbase: - young people branching out on their own, approaching adulthood in many countries, needing knowledge, and forming our future core users.


C3 - format fixed per C8b
C4b - missing other likely answers: "I know I can find the information I need" (ie breadth/coverage/scope/can quickly find what I'm looking for), and "other"
C5 - "Researched"? Means different things to different people. Replace by "looked up" or "read articles from".
C7 - can we distinguish two options, "ever" and "last 6 months"? Useful to know if they have used it recently, not just once 8 years ago.
C10a - remove "on a scale" (redundant)
C10b - out of sequence, we haven't asked if they know they can edit, if they do edit, or anything about editing. Move this question to a more appropriate point.
C11a - split "Yes - often" and "Yes - sometimes" to get better idea of usage.
C12 (1) - What does "Brief sentence or paragraph on a topic" mean? Possibly reword as "Article is just one sentence or one paragraph long".
C12 (2) - split "No or few sources cited in the article" into two items: "Major facts or claims do not have sources" and "The article as a whole has no or few sources". (Non-sourcing of minor non-contentious facts may be seen as unimportant while even a single unsourced significant fact could be a concern. Do people mind lack of sourcing provided major points are sourced? Does lack of one major source make a whole page seem dubious?)
C12 (3) - We ought to capture some information on introductions. They are the "snapshot" if skimming a topic and are disproportionately important for long articles or puzzled readers. Add item: The article has an introduction which summarizes the rest of the page to a high standard?
C13 - "other" (we want to capture other ideas here)

Participation and barriers:

D2 - "The benefits for signing up are unclear" and "There is no added value to registering for Wikipedia" are almost identical. Merge? If not what's the difference?
D7 - add a few: "I just started and plan to do more", "The formatting of content is difficult" (as distinct from the appearance/interface), "I couldn't get help quickly when I wanted to do something" and "other"
D12 - D13 - multiple issues (see separate section below).


A6 - this isn't single select. People often use multiple of these in my experience. Also "I use Wikipedia's internal search" is missing.
A7 - clumsily handled. Better approach to same question is to ask first if they have a phone with internet access:
Do you own a mobile or cell phone, or other mobile device, which can display web pages?
  • No, I don't have a mobile or cell phone
  • No, I have a mobile or cell phone but it doesn't display web pages (useful discrimination - is the barrier "having a phone", or "having an internet phone"?)
  • Yes
If "yes" then continue as before. If "no" then ask if they are likely to get one in the next year and if so which kind (No / Yes - a basic phone / Yes - a phone with internet access)
B2 - Asks about "Encyclopedia Britannica" but not other online encyclopedias. Also the list should be specific - "online academic and professional publications" and "other online publications" (Wall Street Journal, NewsWeek etc that cover the news in depth)
B3 - doesn't make sense. Reword.
B5 - Get some kind of rating here. This is key info, we need to know which are the big ones, or get a simple rating for each, such as "very much/somewhat/slightly".
M12 - out of place (not mobile specific), should really be somewhere like after D11, along with all other "how easy is it to read, edit, find what you need" type of questions.
M15 - add "My phone provider or phone is slow, and "my phone doesn't display Wikipedia pages correctly": slowness or issues could be due to WMF networking, phone company or handset/browser, eg if the user hasn't got a modern phone.
M16 - maybe add M16a "How much more would you access Wikipedia if it was easier or quicker?" (similar responses as M16)
G4 - add "other" (some will identify as "other" and find this one difficult, including "other" is seen as very welcoming)

FT2 (Talk | email) 07:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, great suggestions Manipande 15:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
S3B - latter part is superfluous. "It is updated too frequently" or "It changes without warning"?
C4a - may not be mutually exclusive, it asks "main reasons" (plural)
C10b - logically follows somewhere after D11 ("what would make editing easier) - it's asking about helpful editing features not reading features.
C10b - Can we add this one: "A feature that lets you look up Wikipedia's policy and helpful information, or displays useful information pages if you have a question about what to do, without leaving the editing screen? (ie, a popup knowledgebase driven help system accessible to users on demand and summarizing key policy points.)
Add - "Some articles have colored banners at the top, giving useful or important information to readers" and ask if they have noticed them, understand them, find them useful and clear.

FT2 (Talk | email) 12:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

D12 - D13 issuesEdit

There are serious issues here. In brief the problems are ordering and wording of some questions, and the questions D12b and D12f which both cover principles of Wikipedia.

Ordering and wording of questionsEdit

The transition from D12c - D12e is jarring and feels like a loaded question and a bad attempt to "switch-hit" people into donating. Then immediately afterwards the user hits D12f which should logically follow on from (and largely duplicates) D12b.

A better logical order and improved wording:

D12a, Did you know that Wikipedia is run by a nonprofit organization?
D12b. Are you aware that Wikipedia’s mission is to make free knowledge available worldwide?
D12c. Did you know that Wikipedia never runs any advertisements in order to remain neutral? (Explains reason)
D12d. Were you aware of the following principles by which Wikipedia operates?
D12e. To what extent do you support each of these principles? (possibly redundant now?)
D13a. Have you ever donated money to the Wikimedia Foundation (which runs Wikipedia)?
D13b. Knowing that Wikipedia is run by a charity, does not use adverts, and exists to make free knowledge available worldwide, do you plan to donate to Wikipedia in the future?
D13c. (If not, why not - probe)

FT2 (Talk | email) 11:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


D12b and D12f both ask about principles of Wikipedia, and both have issues.

  1. They are very closely connected questions. We don't need 2 questions, placed several questions apart, on the same area. Move adjacent or merge.
  2. The aim is unclear. Do we want to know "to what extent do you support these", "How important are these", or "to what extent does Wikipedia live up to these?". Probably all 3.
  3. The Five Pillars as worded on English Wikipedia's official page are a very poor description for users who may never have edited, may not know what a "Wikipedian" is, may not know what "doesn't have firm rules" actually means, and so on. If the pillars don't express the idea in everyday language the results will be severe confusion. I've reworded based on many years experience to try and capture the principles more usefully.
  4. A question about "principles" should be guided by our current principles rather than "traditional pillars". Examples of other modern principles potentially worth feedback:
Articles containing biographical material should be subject to extra scrutiny and based only upon the highest quality of sources, to prevent harm.
Wikipedia should not censor itself for the benefit of any group, body or government, other than as required by law.
Wikipedia should be kept as a reference work and not a platform for promotion, advertising, or a soapbox.
Wikipedia has a very strict privacy policy for user accounts so that anyone from any country can contribute knowledge safely.
Wikipedia's content is created and managed by millions of volunteers worldwide.
Wikipedia's administrators are experienced volunteer editors selected for their experience through public discussion.

(These cover BLP, censorship, correct usage, privacy, community, and governance, respectively.)

I think this can be resolved with one overarching question to replace both D12b and D12f:

D99. Below are some of Wikipedia's most important guiding principles.


D99a. Were you already aware of any of these principles? [for each: yes/somewhat/no]
D99b. How important is each of these principles? [for each: rate as 1 to 10]
D99c. How well does Wikipedia lives up to these principles? [for each: rate as 1 to 10 or "don't know"]

This is clean, inclusive, and elegant.

FT2 (Talk | email) 11:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

12. is made up of leading questionsEdit

The initial questions in 12. all seem like they lead the respondent. Perhaps they could be phrased as part of a single question: mark all of the following which apply to Wikipedia ('is for/non profit' 'has/doesnt have ads' &c). you could randomize whether each of these traits is phrased positively or negatively... the survey designers may have better mechanisms here.

I like FT2's improvements above on the five-pillars questions. SJ talk | translate   04:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Edits made to face of surveyEdit

  1. Formatting (bold, indents, etc, to make it easier for others to review)
  2. Readership survey -> Reader survey (simplicity)
  3. " content that anyone can edit use and distribute" (add "use", crucial aspect)
  4. "free knowledge worldwide" (add "worldwide", different perspective when that's stated)
  5. 5 pillars (reworded in "everyday speech" to make them understandable to, and capable of considered response by, non-editors. See notes above on D12f)
  6. M2a reworded one answer ("no impact") so it makes more sense.
  7. Described sister projects rather than just provide labels - some respondents may not recognize the names alone.


FT2 (Talk | email) 07:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

"An MP3 player such as an iPod"Edit

The line "An MP3 player such as an iPod" should be rephrased. It bothered me in the editors survey already.

There are several problems with it:

  • MP3 is not the only music file format there is. There are also WMA, AAC, OGG, FLAC and many others, and a lot of people actually use them, not just Free Software geeks.
  • MP3 is not supported on Wikipedia, for a good reason.
  • iPod is a particular commercial product. It's not just a matter of giving it undeserved advertising; I suppose that this example is supposed to make the question easier to understand by giving a common example. The problem is that in other countries the iPod may not be as popular as it is in California. This brand name must be omitted or at least diversified.

The line should say something like "A digital music player" or "A player of music files (MP3, OGG, FLAC)". --Amir E. Aharoni 07:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

"Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner"Edit

This survey is aimed at readers. "Wikipedian" is a word from the Wikipedian Jargon (pun intended), and most people don't know it. It should say "Wikipedia editors". If the survey wants to educate the responders, it can say "Wikipedians (Wikipedia editors)". --Amir E. Aharoni 07:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I've reworded the 5 pillars into everyday speech - see current wording. That pillar currently reads: People who edit Wikipedia should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner, which is far more understandable. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Access routesEdit

I don't see a question (either before of after A6) asking which are the main methods used to access Wikimedia. For example a number of websites and apps use Wikimedia as a popup rather than navigating to the actual web-page. (The instant messenger Trillian has an option to automatically underline words which have Wikipedia entries in wavey green, and the user can quickly view the first snippet of the introduction to explain the subject if they wish. Other programs and websites also do this). This could easily be a major route in future. Other routes include printed books, stand-alone files (eg PDFs), and DVD.

So "how do you access Wikimedia content" is probably worth checking - and don't assume it's always done by visiting the web page. Sample question:

Which of the following methods do you use to access Wikimedia content:
  • Visiting the website on a desktop computer
  • Visiting the website on a mobile computer or mobile phone
  • Using a website, program or app which can display information from Wikipedia and its sister projects in "popups"
  • Viewing a file (eg PDF, ZIP or document) containing Wikipedia content
  • Obtaining a book or DVD from school
  • Buying or downloading a book containing Wikipedia content (other than from school)
  • Obtaining a DVD containing Wikipedia content (other than from school)

FT2 (Talk | email) 19:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Recommend for what purpose?Edit

"how likely is it that you would recommend Wikipedia to a friend or colleague?

It's good for some things, but not others. Perhaps this could be clarified?

Similarly, when asking "how good do you think WP is [in each of these dimensions]" I wish there were some way to respond by saying "some articles are great [in this dimension] and others are terrible." -- or to otherwise indicate a range of personal experience.

SJ talk | translate   04:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Ask about use for translation?Edit

One of the most common uses of Wikipedia for people who work in more than one language is using the interlanguage links for complex topics, events, or phrases to find their translations. This is something that no translation dictionary offers - not only for newly popular concepts, but also for complex old ones.

For instance, if you want to know how the Investiture_Controversy is translated in Russian, it's not obvious that the Russian term used is Борьба - but following the interlanguage link from the term you know offers a good guess (and a culturally sensitive one, where literal translation fails).

It would be valuable to capture this / ask about it, perhaps keyed by first asking whether people use the projects in more than one language. SJ talk | translate   05:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Try this:
99a. Were you aware that Wikimedia projects and articles are written in many languages?
99b. Below are some reasons someone might look up information in multiple languages.
  • My country or region has multiple languages.
  • My work involves multiple languages.
  • My family, friends or social life involve multiple languages.
  • I want to learn other languages and this helps.
  • It gives me a more global cultural perspective.
  • There is sometimes better information in other languages. (details?)
  • I can find good translations for topic titles and concepts in other languages.
[OPTIONS: This is helpful to me YES/NO] [I have used another language version for this YES/NO]
FT2 (Talk | email) 09:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


I can understand that there may be a legal restriction preventing us from collecting data in certain countries and from the very young. But I'm not convinced that there is such a restriction in Ireland or Portugal, I suspect that the short list of countries where we will accept responses is because we've only checked the legal position in those countries. But regardless of the motive we should focus on the message, and it simply isn't acceptable for the wikimedia foundation to run a global survey that excludes wikimedians from hundreds of small and medium sized countries.

Where we do have to exclude people it is important that we give a civil reason why. "I'm sorry the ???? law only allows us to conduct research on people aged 14 and over." Would be OK; "Survey ended the Wikimedia foundation isn't interested in the views of readers from your country" would not be OK. WereSpielChequers 11:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


"A feature that makes it easier to create new articles" isn't helpful wording. What kind of "easier"? If it isn't clear what such a feature would do and all this is gathering is "I want article creation to be easier", then that should be asked directly. If we're asking about a feature then it needs to give an idea what the potential feature would do. This one unlike the others, doesn't. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah the law of unintended consequences. I think my wording "A feature that makes it easier to create new articles" is better than the previous version if only because people can already create articles, so the previous version was only going to identify confused but enthusiastic potential contributors who didn't know that they already could create articles. Perhaps if we ask this at all we could follow up with a question just served to those who want this feature along the lines of:
What potential changes to the article creation system would you find most helpful?
  1. A draft process that let me save a few edits where only I had access to them before I published the article on the wiki.
  2. Tools to make it easier to include references
  3. Guides that explained how to check whether a subject was sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article before I write it.
  4. Guides that explained which sources Wikipedia accepts as reliable and which sources it doesn't
  5. Tools or guides that explained how to write in Wiki format
  6. An editor that let me edit the article without seeing the computer code behind it
  7. Other changes such as ___________________________________________________
WereSpielChequers 15:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Some points here can be folded into C11a ("Have you done any of the following activities in Wikipedia" - Yes/No/Didn't know I could) or added after D4 ("Have you EVER created a new article on Wikipedia" - Yes/No/Didn't know I could). Or indeed, both this and D4 folded into C11a reducing the total number of questions.
However, if this is still a useful question about features then a simple reword to the plural form will fix it: "Features to help create new articles", at which point it is sensible to ask what kinds of features? FT2 (Talk | email) 16:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
OK I'll reword as you suggest. WereSpielChequers 16:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


Currently this survey excludes all readers under the age of 15. I've suggested screening out younger editors from some of the less relevant questions as I'm pretty sure that you have to be 16 to get divorced or have an income and I doubt if many PhDs are under 20. But is there any reason why we can't remove the question that screens out 14 and younger? We don't set a minimum age for editing Wikipedia so as long as we only collect anomymised information and we exclude children from questions about their marital status and whether they have children, degrees or jobs then why not drop the minimum age? If there are researchers who intend to use this but who are not allowed to use data on legal minors then it is probably better to allow the children to answer the survey but screen them out from datasets used by researchers who are only allowed to work with adults. WereSpielChequers 16:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point. I would really like to know about our younger editors, some of whom are extraordinarily productive. For a while we had a pair of brothers editing Wikispecies who were 8 and 10 and did tremendous work there. SJ talk | translate   17:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Questions from the editor survey feedbackEdit

Avoid required questionsEdit

Can we avoid having 'required' questions, now that all partial surveys are being kept? A number of people complained that they were not allowed to fill out only part of the survey -- some did not want to share certain personal data, even if the researchers claimed it was going to be anonymized. Others didn't know the answer to a question, or didn't like any of the answers to a question without a "None of the Above" option, and wanted to finish quickly what they could without 'having their time stolen'.

An alternative to required questions: noone is blocked from moving forward with the survey. People are reminded about how far they have gotten and how many questions remain unanswered. A little bar shows the N pages of questions, and for each one shows the % of questions still unanswered. The bar can show different colors (green/purple/orange?) based on whether that page is completed / has only optional questions unanswered / has a major question unanswered.

General feedbackEdit

I see no question asking for general feedback / other comments. Can we include one, or otherwise improve how we ask for survey feedback? An always-visible link to feedback that's available on all survey pages would be nice [one of those javascript options that adds a side-tab overlay to the page, for instance], or a prominent question near the end.

It would also be interesting to see the survey 'primed' -- produce a final-draft survey, run that survey for a week with a question for other feedback at the end of each page, and use that input to create a '1.0' version of the survey before starting data collection. That would give you better feedback from the recipients - including those who read/write languages other than english, which may complement our feedback here (which is, sadly, given our current processes and tools for cross-language discussion, going to be almost entirely in English). SJ talk | translate   17:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Very good ideas. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Language and geographic scopeEdit

I don't understand the limitations on country-scope.

Why restrict the focus to a subset of all countries into whose languages the survey has been translated?Edit

For instance, why isn't the survey automatically offered to people in Austria (as well as Germany) give that it is translated into German?

What are the extra costs associated with each new country included -- are they related to the analysis? In which case, the data could be gathered but not analyzed right now, and not counted in the "4000" target sample size; but still available for others to analyze in the future. SJ talk | translate  

Why prevent people outside the core focus countries from answering?Edit

Why is the survey being terminated for people who aren't in the countries currently focused on?

Even if they are from a country which isn't treated equally in this survey - a country with a major language into which the survey ha not been translated for instance - what do we gain by not allowing those people to fill out the survey, if they have been given the choice?

Once someone chooses to take time to start the survey, I should think we would let them finish. SJ talk | translate  

About Canadian French...Edit

Why did we include this dialect but not, say, dialects of English in our language choices? We don't have any Canadian French Wikimedia projects. Are we making an effort to maintain US and British versions of the survey as well? This is just out of curiosity. SJ talk | translate  


Can we add national flags to help choose the language. Everyone understands those. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Time required and number of questionsEdit

Re-check these are accurate before deployment. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

proposed additional question A12/A13Edit

I think it would be useful to find out how much we are limited by people having to pay for Internet access and where in the world do people find they get a slow response when using Wikipedia. So I'm proposing two additional questions to investigate this. This could give us useful information as to where we would get most gain from deploying local copies of Wikipedia. WereSpielChequers 14:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I've moved these here. While I agree with the validity of asking, there is a practical balance of "ask too much and discourage responses". The survey team and experts need to consider this and have asked us not to substantively change the survey, instead to propose significant changes here. ("Please feel free to copy edit the survey as long as it does not change the meaning of the questions. If you believe that we are missing some important questions, please provide feedback via the feedback space")
This is not to say I disagree, just that we ought to discuss and propose them, not manually add them, given their request. The proposed questions were:
How fast is Wikipedia?
  • I rarely notice a delay when opening a Wikipedia page
  • Sometimes pages take a few seconds to load, but most other sites are just as slow
  • I find Wikipedia pages often take longer to load than some other websites that I use
  • I find Wikipedia one of the slowest sites that I visit
How do you pay for Internet access?
  • Somebody else pays and I can use it as much as I want
  • Somebody else pays and I can use it a little less than I'd like
  • Somebody else pays and I can use it a lot less than I'd like
  • I pay a subscription and there are no limits to how much I can use it, or the limit is much more than I'm likely to use
  • I pay for the time I spend on the Internet
  • I pay for the megabytes I send or receive on the Internet
FT2 (Talk | email) 16:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment: The issue is speed relative to other popular sites and user expectations, and we care about usage and usage restrictions rather than the actual payer. Try these variants:

(a) How do you feel about Wikipedia's speed of loading pages compared to other popular information and social websites?
  • Usually good or very good
  • Acceptable
  • Acceptable, but I would like it a bit faster
  • Acceptable, but it would make a big difference to me if faster
  • Poor or annoying
  • Unusable or takes too long to be worth it
(b) How is your Internet access paid?
  • I/We pay a fixed amount or someone else pays
  • I/We pay per minute or hour for the time I spend on the Internet
  • I/We pay per megabyte or gigabyte that I send or receive on the Internet
  • I don't know
(c) Does your method of charging for Internet access restrict your ability to use Wikimedia websites?
  • No, there are no limits to how much I can use it, or the limit is more than I'm likely to use.
  • Yes, a bit
  • Yes, quite a lot
[IF not GOOD TO (a), or YES to (c)]
(d) Which of these tasks if any are restricted due to your Internet speed or charging method:
  • Reading the text of articles
  • Seeing images or other media with articles
  • Downloading or viewing images from Wikimedia Commons

FT2 (Talk | email) 16:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with your version of the questions. The reason why I think they are worth asking is that I have first hand experience as to how slow the Internet can be in some countries, and anecdotal information that some other major sites reduce the problem through keeping local copies in various Internet hubs. Of course we risk the possibility that the very people with this problem won't get that far in the survey, but I think it is a very important area for us to look at. WereSpielChequers 14:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Changed I to I/We since many people's primary internet is paid by parents who set restrictions accordingly. My question is whether this duplicates other speed related questions later on? Possibly also prefix by "Thinking about your main way of accessing the internet, ..." FT2 (Talk | email) 14:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
The other questions are specifically about mobile access, I was thinking more about Internet Cafe users and dialup PCs. But I agree this could be duplication for them, perhaps the questions can be exclusive? The problem as I see it of "your main access to the Internet" is that we may well find we have large numbers of editors whose main Internet access is at work but whose personal use of the Internet is elsewhere. Though of course for Wikipedia readers we could have some users whose work relies on them using Wikipedia! Perhaps "When you read wikipedia?" WereSpielChequers 17:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
"Where you access Wikipedia" works. Or else, "Where you would be most likely to access Wikipedia" to cover non-users. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank You Everyone!!Edit

Thank You everyone for your feedback. All of this is extremely helpful & useful, and we will make most of the changes suggested. Thanks again!!Manipande 01:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


Following on from the board resolutions I think we should add the following question:

Wikipedia is edited but not censored, however we are considering adding features to enable our readers to choose to screen out certain content. If we did this which options would you find useful:

(options, I would use this, good idea but I wouldn't use it, bad idea,)

  1. An option to screen out nudity with settings such as topless, bikini, sportswear etc.
  2. An option to screen out violent imagery
  3. Options to screen out imagery that some religions find offensive, such as the Mohammed cartoons

WereSpielChequers 06:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Since all these are likely to be provided, perhaps this slight rewording: "which of these options would you be likely to use". Also distinguish partial and full nudity (there's a difference). FT2 (Talk | email) 12:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Longitudinal studyEdit

The FAQ says the data will be kept for a minimum of two years, which is approaching quickly. Is there going to be another survey, with longitudinal analysis? If not, will the 2011 data be destroyed? John Vandenberg (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Return to "Wikipedia Readership Survey 2011" page.