User talk:75.108.94.227/exit poll possible questions
usertalk message , rough draft
[edit]![](http://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/Exit_logo.png/42px-Exit_logo.png)
![](http://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/91/Horniman_totem_pole.jpg/42px-Horniman_totem_pole.jpg)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedian, you recently voted in the ArbCom election. Your username, along with around 140 other usernames of your fellow wikipedians, was randomly selected from the 2000+ Wikipedians who voted this year, with the help of one of the election-commissioners. If you are willing, could you please participate (at your option either on-wiki via userspace or off-wiki via email) in an exit poll, and answer some questions about how you decided amongst the ArbCom candidates?
If you decide to participate in this exit poll, the statistical results will be published in the Signpost, an online newspaper with over 1000 wikipedians among the readership. There are about twelve questions, which have alphanumerical answers; it should take you a few minutes to complete the exit poll questionnaire, and will help improve Wikipedia by giving future candidates information about what you think is important. This is only an unofficial survey, and will have no impact on your actual vote during this election, nor in any future election.
All questions are individually optional, and this entire exit poll itself is also entirely optional, though if you choose not to participate, I would appreciate a brief reply indicating why you decided not to take part (see Question Zero). Thanks for being a Wikipedian, ~~~~
questionnaire , very rough draft
[edit]Dear Wikipedian, please fill out these questions -- at your option via usertalk, via userspace subpage, or via email, see Detailed Instructions at the end of the twelve questions -- by putting the appropriate answer in the blanks provided. If you decide to not answer a question (all questions are optional), please put the reason down: "undecided" / "private information" / "prefer not to answer" / "question is not well-posed" / "other: please specify". Although the Signpost cannot guarantee that complex answers can be processed for publication, it will help us improve future exit polls, if you give us comments about why you could not answer specific questions.
quick and easy exit poll , estimated time required: 4 minutes
|
---|
|
|
Detailed Instructions: you are welcome to answer these questions via usertalk (easiest), via userspace subpage (to preserve your answers for future wikilinking), or via email (for a modicum of privacy).
how to submit your answers , estimated time required: 2 minutes
|
---|
Processing of responses will be performed in batches of ten, prior to publication in the Signpost. GamerPro64 will be processing the email-based answers, and will strive to maintain the privacy of your answers (as well as your email address and the associated IP address typically found in the email-headers), though of course as a volunteer effort, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will have a system free from computer virii, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will resist hypothetical bribes offered by the KGB/NSA/MI6 to reveal your secrets, and we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will make no mistakes. If you choose to answer on-wiki, your answers will be visible to other Wikipedians. If you choose to answer via email, your answers will be sent unencrypted over the internet, and we will do our best to protect your privacy, but unencrypted email is inherently not a proper mechanism for doing so. Sorry. |
We do promise to try hard, not to make any mistakes, in the processing and presentation of your answers. If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact column-editor User:GamerPro64, copy-editor User:75.108.94.227, or copy-editor User:Ryk72 via their talkpages. Thanks for reading, and thanks for helping Wikipedia.
discussion
[edit]That is ten twelve questions, although not numbered sequentially, but ordered purposefully since some of the questions are related. Should some questions be cut? Should other questions be added? How to best format the long set of choices? Suggestions and improvements welcome. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Reworked into closer-to-viable form. Ping User:Ryk72 and User:GamerPro64, also ping User:Drmies who made some fixes, are there any complaints before we start sending out the blurbs to the ~~137ish people? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 08:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Have bolded & italicised the "optional" in Q9 & Q10. Have a small concern that there is a lot of work in answering Q5-7, which may result in fewer than desired responses to the survey as a whole; thoughts on simplifying by not requiring ordering of the answers? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 08:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, or cutting out some of the question-options. WP:BEBOLD and make some changes, please, to get it closer to what you think will best Improve The 'Pedia. :-) The ordering is supposed to be optional, just like giving any answers whatsoever is supposed to be optional. We may have a pure tl;dr response , to a dozen questions, so I've also considered splitting the exit-poll into a short-form and an extended-form. How about we put these questions into the short-easy-fast-exit-poll box:
- Q#0. Will you be responding to the questions in this exit poll? Why or why not? Your Answer:
- Q#1. Arbs must have at least 0k / 2k / 4k / 8k / 16k / 32k+ edits to Wikipedia. Your Numeric Answer:
- Q#2. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years editing Wikipedia. Your Numeric Answer:
- Q#3. Arbs should WP:2B!2B an admin (six options). Your Single-Letter Answer:
- Q#4. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years of experience as an admin. Your Numeric Answer:
Q#9.new_q#5 Your List-Of-Usernames You Supported:- The Quick End. Your Wikipedia Username:
- We can put these 'hard' questions into the extended-exit-poll box:
Q#10.new_q#6 Your List-Of-Usernames You Opposed (and why):Q#11.new_q#7 Your List-Of-Usernames As Potential Future Candidates:Q#8.new_q#8 Why did you vote? how did you learn about the election, what motivated you to participate?Q#7.new_q#9 ...good indicators of the right kind of contributions outside noticeboards... (list of ~15 options)... Your Ordered-List-Of-Letters Answer:Q#5.new_q#10 ...many well-informed comments at these noticeboards... right kind of background, or experience ...(list of ~35 options)... Your Ordered-List-Of-Letters Answer:Q#6.new_q#11 ...at these noticeboards... wrong kind of temperment, or personality, for ArbCom. ...(list of ~35 options)... Your Ordered-List-Of-Letters Answer:- The Real End. Your General Comments
- It will still help if we can narrow down the "extended" questions so that people are more likely to answer them, so feel free to make tweaks or even Big Changes. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 10:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, implemented. We can add some tweaks, to make perfectly clear that the ordering-bit is optional, and that taking the extended-form is optional, but I don't want to be so verbose explaining that stuff is optional, people's eyes glaze over. :-) Tough balance to strike. Please make any changes you see fit to make. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 10:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- If I put my statistician hat on for a second, how do we intend to analyze the "ordered" answers? I'm inclined to just ask "which are important?". - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 10:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- We cannot truly analyze them. :-) But asking for the ordering, will give us qualitative information about who the voters "most supported" for instance. We can do some limited analysis work with that, such as enumerating how many times each candidate was listed as #1 by those polled, but I'm not really planning to do that stuff for the actual Signpost article. Most likely we'll just count up the support-votes, and list a numeric total for each of the 19 still-active candidates, as our "published" statistics.
- Similarly, we won't REALLY be able to analyze the "how did you learn about the vote" question... but if 90% of people say, I knew about it before the mass-message, that is worth noting, whereas if 90% of people say, I only responded to the mass-message and have no idea what ArbCom even does, *that* is also worth noting. I considered asking for "top five" rather than "ordered list of indeterminate length" but went for the latter option in the end. Feel free to make changes, though.
- p.s. Ryk72, and other interested folks, if you have a few minutes can you verify that my time-estimates (4 minutes && 2 minutes) are not ludicrous, and make sure that GamerPro64 can receive email-submissions via the provided instructions, and that the click-to-ping-usertalk trick I used is working properly? Thanks, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Click-to-ping & GP64's email work. Will check times in a wee while. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- If I put my statistician hat on for a second, how do we intend to analyze the "ordered" answers? I'm inclined to just ask "which are important?". - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 10:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, implemented. We can add some tweaks, to make perfectly clear that the ordering-bit is optional, and that taking the extended-form is optional, but I don't want to be so verbose explaining that stuff is optional, people's eyes glaze over. :-) Tough balance to strike. Please make any changes you see fit to make. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 10:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, or cutting out some of the question-options. WP:BEBOLD and make some changes, please, to get it closer to what you think will best Improve The 'Pedia. :-) The ordering is supposed to be optional, just like giving any answers whatsoever is supposed to be optional. We may have a pure tl;dr response , to a dozen questions, so I've also considered splitting the exit-poll into a short-form and an extended-form. How about we put these questions into the short-easy-fast-exit-poll box:
- Have bolded & italicised the "optional" in Q9 & Q10. Have a small concern that there is a lot of work in answering Q5-7, which may result in fewer than desired responses to the survey as a whole; thoughts on simplifying by not requiring ordering of the answers? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 08:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)