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

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