User talk:Parc wiki researcher
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive User talk:Parc wiki researcher/survey1
Contents |
[edit] Wikipedia Research Survey Request
Thank you very much for your request. I would be happy to assist you with your research. Regards, (aeropagitica) (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm slightly concerned at your contributions - you seem to be inviting everyone, not a few select users, to participate in your survey. Perhaps you should re-word your requests, or indeed, pick individual users instead of going through them alphabetically. HawkerTyphoon 01:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- I appreciate your concern. We are currently targeting only administrator users for the survey, in order to get the most expert sample we can for these questions; this is why the wording was selected. Our method of randomly sampling the admin list was to go alphabetically; we are not targeting specific admins over others at this time. Parc wiki researcher 06:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Advertising
I feel like this user is advertising? Am I wrong? I don't like that he's doing this- that's the only thing he's doing advertising. He hasn't done anything else with his contributions. ForestH2 t/c 03:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- The request should be made on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard instead of spamming Admin user pages. - RoyBoy 800 03:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for the suggestion, that does sound like a good approach. We received a positive response on an earlier survey in approaching members of the mediation cabal at a more personal level, but I understand the concern about spamming and will post on the noticeboard for admins. Parc wiki researcher 06:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Survey
Can anyone take the survey? Sounds interesting. Do you plan on publishing your efforts so others (such as wikipedia) can benefit?-Ravedave 04:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your interest. Currently we are targeting only admin users, but if you are interested in being involved in future studies please drop us a note on this page. We do hope that our efforts in understanding and characterizing conflict will be of benefit to the Wikipedia community. We are planning on publishing our research in an academic paper, which we will post a link to on this site when it is available. Furthermore some results from our first survey will be posted here shortly. Parc wiki researcher 06:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I started to review the page history of a single article and realized that to accurately assess degrees of conflict and vandalism would be hours of work for even a couple of articles. Cut this down to a request to review a single article and I might be willing, but your time estimate is ludicrous. alteripse 11:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- While a perfectly accurate assessment of conflict and vandalism would indeed take hours, we hope that a shorter assessment by experts like yourselves will still give us mostly the same results with a little bit of noise. FYI, those who have finished the survey have taken between 30 minutes - 1 1/2 hours. If this is reasonable enough to you we would definitely appreciate your participation. Thanks! Parc wiki researcher 01:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stop
Please desist from dropping note on people's talk pages. However good your intention are, it is considered spam, and may get you blocked. Using wikipedia resources for your personal research is a misuse. You will either have to e-mail users and correspond off wiki, or get authorisation from the wikmedia foundation. Sorry about this - but please stop. --Doc 14:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- We stopped putting notes on user's talk pages when we initially received concerns about it (see above). We plan to use the admin noticeboard and to work with the wikimedia foundation on this going forward. If you have other suggestions they are most welcome. Thank you, Parc wiki researcher 16:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Identity
Since you're gathering info for Research it would be normal to name yourself and the members of your group. This way, we can go read your articles before comitting to doing a survey --AlainV 18:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Different reactions.
Interesting how the mediators were kind, were very interested and immediately filled out your survey, and the administrators are popping a vein about procedures, spamming and identification (and saying nothing about the survey itself). Says something about the differences between us, doesn't it? Dev920 18:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not all of the admins who were asked to complete the survey are complaining! (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Preliminary results
Preliminary results from the first survey have been posted. Thanks to everyone who participated! The admin survey will be posted soon on the Admin noticeboard, with additional information on our research group and the type of research we typically conduct. Thanks again to everyone who has or is thinking about participating; we hope the results will be of use not only to the academic community but to Wikipedians as well.
[edit] Responses and admin noticeboard
For those either interested or concerned, we have posted additional information about our research and requests about the survey on the admin noticeboard as suggested above. Parc wiki researcher 01:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
And I have removed it. Please stop spamming us. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- I would GREATLY appreciate some help on how to go about requesting assistance on this survey with the admins. I was told to stop posting to specific user pages and to post to the noticeboard instead, which I did. Now that post has been deleted, in which I clearly describe why this survey is important, establish who we are as legitimate, verifiable researchers, and even show our contributions back to the community in the prelimary results of our first survey. There are a number of Wikipedia users (both admins and non) who have taken the survey and feel that it is important and worth doing. Below is a copy of the post that I made on the admin noticeboard. Parc wiki researcher 05:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't belive he fully understood your situation before removing your post. For now I would leave a message for him on his talkpage since he seems like a busy person and will probably not check back here. You may want to clarify why you are posting the the admin board in your post. I belive your project is a good idea. I am not an admin but I will do what I can to help you out. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 05:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion and the support, Ravedave; I left a note on Zoe's page with additional context about the situation.
- I don't belive he fully understood your situation before removing your post. For now I would leave a message for him on his talkpage since he seems like a busy person and will probably not check back here. You may want to clarify why you are posting the the admin board in your post. I belive your project is a good idea. I am not an admin but I will do what I can to help you out. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 05:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- I would GREATLY appreciate some help on how to go about requesting assistance on this survey with the admins. I was told to stop posting to specific user pages and to post to the noticeboard instead, which I did. Now that post has been deleted, in which I clearly describe why this survey is important, establish who we are as legitimate, verifiable researchers, and even show our contributions back to the community in the prelimary results of our first survey. There are a number of Wikipedia users (both admins and non) who have taken the survey and feel that it is important and worth doing. Below is a copy of the post that I made on the admin noticeboard. Parc wiki researcher 05:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello I'm a member of the research team at Palo Alto Research Center (formerly known as Xerox PARC) interested in understanding and characterizing conflict in Wikipedia. We are currently running a survey to better understand how expert Wikipedians characterize conflict and to get a "ground truth" on a representative set of articles. You can look at the preliminary results of our first survey in which we targeted members of the Mediation Cabal to get an idea of the kinds of questions we are interested in, and we are actively seeking feedback as to the kinds of research and tools that Wikipedians could find most useful in identifying and managing conflict.
We are now requesting the help of administrators to help characterize conflict in Wikipedia. Initially we targeted a randomly-selected (based on username) group of administrators and specifically asked them for help, but were informed that posting this request here would be a better solution. We have two surveys with different sets of articles; please choose one to complete (or both if you are feeling motivated). We will remove the link to a survey once we have enough completed responses to it.
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=272072498578
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=201962477432
The results of the survey will be incorporated into an academic paper that will be submitted to a peer-reviewed conference this fall (likely the CHI conference), and whose results will be freely available to any interested parties. A link to this publication will be posted on my user page.
Please note that we are not journalists or spammers but an established research institution with a strong track record of high-quality publications. Here are links to find out more about our team (the User Interface Research group) and our past research, including studies on characterizing the web.
Thank you for your time and consideration, and we look forward to hearing any comments or suggestions you might have.
Please see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Role_account. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WP:AN
Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. ForestH2 t/h/c 17:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hello. As Zoe said above, you don't have your name listed under a roll account. If you can link me to where another person approved of you posted to the noticeboard let me know if I can see it. I need proof and then I'll let you post again to the noticeboard. Also, you need to have your name under roll account or proof. If that doesn't work out, your name should be listed at the roll acount page Zoe listed above. Besides, why do you want to find out how to deal with conflicts? Our you building some Wikipedia of your own? You'll need to ask Brad Patrick and the foundation if you want, to do this and you can't get proof or your name's not on role account page. Reply on my talkpage. Thanks. ForestH2 t/h/c 18:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Toolserveraccount
Hello Parc wiki researcher,
please send your real-name, your wikiname, your prefered login-name and the public part of your ssh-key to 
. We plan to create your account soon then. --DaB. 21:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Understanding the conflict on Wikipedia
I see you're beginning to understand Wikipedia conflict first-hand. ;)
Unfortunately, Wikipedia has a lot of people with neither common sense nor courtesy. And they've all got their own perspective to push. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 19:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
