User talk:Bugs-Bunny Bunny

Which 35 articles?
You would need to tell me what the 35 articles are, or at least tell me which one you are writing to me about. Thanks.Ferrylodge 17:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

© In this study we selected a sample of 35 discussion pages associated with articles flagged as controversial. At the time of the study (May/June 2007) there were 583 such articles and every 20th entry was selected following a random start. There were several categories that ended up with no representation using this approach. To ensure full representation of the wide range of controversial topics (ranging from historical events and figures, through science topics to contemporary celebrities) one entry was selected at random from categories which had no representation.©

The article I am writing to you about is 'Abortion Discussion'.

Many thanks,

Bugs-Bunny Bunny 19:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info, Bugs. I have responded to the survey.  I thought some of the questions were very good.Ferrylodge 01:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As a fellow sociologist, I was embarrassed to see your survey. For starters, as Ferrylodge pointed out, you didn't tell me which article you had contacted me about. Second, your survey has typos. Third, the questions aren't well thought through. Fourth, there are no demographics to relate anything to. I filled out the survey, but I was shocked and appalled. Bellagio99 20:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to the survey and the useful comments, Ferrylodge and Bellagio99. We had a closer look at the survey and corrected some typos. We will also inform the Wikipedians about the articles' information. Talking about demographics, we thought that the identity issue in Wikipedia is quite sensitive, hence, it's better to keep it anonymous. Bugs-Bunny Bunny 14:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI, the top 20 contributors to the Abortion article are:


 * User	 - 	# edits	 - 	Last edit
 * Severa	 - 	756	 - 	6/3/2007 8:30
 * 214.13.4.151	 - 	438	 - 	10/8/2005 2:32
 * Tznkai	 - 	362	 - 	1/29/2006 2:30
 * RoyBoy	 - 	235	 - 	6/3/2007 23:22
 * KillerChihuahua	 - 	155	 - 	5/3/2007 16:39
 * Pro-Lick	 - 	149	 - 	4/11/2006 17:59
 * Str1977	 - 	137	 - 	10/1/2006 19:47
 * Goodandevil	 - 	137	 - 	5/5/2006 15:45
 * Musical Linguist	 - 	130	 - 	12/11/2006 0:48
 * 136.215.251.179	 - 	104	 - 	6/15/2006 11:07
 * Alienus	 - 	100	 - 	6/30/2006 3:57
 * Ferrylodge	 - 	67	 - 	3/15/2007 19:57
 * Kyd OLD ACCOUNT, this is now Severa	 - 	64	 - 	11/29/2005 0:18
 * Fenice	 - 	56	 - 	6/1/2005 15:06
 * Andrew c	 - 	48	 - 	5/30/2007 0:39
 * GTBacchus	 - 	48	 - 	1/5/2007 21:21
 * AntiVandalBot	 - 	46	 - 	1/11/2007 20:04
 * SqueakBox	 - 	37	 - 	8/12/2005 21:32
 * Doc Tropics	 - 	36	 - 	5/20/2007 17:31
 * Spaully	 - 	35	 - 	5/3/2007 16:07
 * Similar stats can be obtained for any article or talk page.
 * I agree on the demographics. A bare minimum about each respondant should be collected, which can be done without infringing on privacy concerns. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks KillerChihuahua, that's very useful information! Bugs-Bunny Bunny 21:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Bugs. I'm curious why you made this edit.  Did you mean to do that?  Thanks in advance for responding.Ferrylodge 20:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, FerryLodge, I'm quite new as a Wikipedia editor. So if I messed up your talk page, do appologize! I only wanted to change the survey to a typo-free version. I'll talk to my colleagues to see if it's ok to let respondents know the exact article information. Thanks. Bugs-Bunny Bunny 21:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, no problem. Thanks.Ferrylodge 00:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like an edit conflict on Ferrylodge's talk page - this happens from time to time. Be sure you're always editing the most recent version. This will not prevent all mishaps, but will prevent most.
 * Let me know if you want data on any other articles. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Creating user pages
Please do not post your message to other people's user pages like you did at User:Gkaraolides and User:Letus (both have been deleted). It is not proper to leave messages on user pages, instead, use the user talk pages. Thanks, Metros 00:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Metros, I have modified Gkaraolides' talk page. Bugs-Bunny Bunny 00:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In addition, mass spamming usertalk pages is not permitted. If you seriously wish to get Wikipedia editors to take part in your survey, take the time to e-mail them. I'm afraid Wikipedia usertalk pages don't exist for stuff like this. --Deskana (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The research is genuine, we don't see why we cannot put online survey invitation on a user's talk page. It is not listed anywhere in Wikipedia guideline. My editing has been blocked indefinitely by a user called Ryulong. I have looked on the list of Wikipedia administrators, he/she is not on the list. How come he/she has the power to do so? Our survey invitations do not fall in the spam criteria, neither canvassing. The message is about research, not campaigning or votestacking. it is netural, and we only contact limited number of wikipedians (selected about 10 wikipedians in each article within the 35 sample articles). Bugs-Bunny Bunny 00:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ryulong is indeed an administrator. Like I said, if you wish to contact the users, mass talk page spamming isn't the way to go. Please e-mail the users. I bet most of them have e-mail enabled. --Deskana (talk) 01:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen any Wikipedia guideline saying social research survey invitation is spam. I believe Wikipedia administrators follow the guidelines, one of which is backup the action with reference. Also Wikipedia advises that administrators do not misuse their super power. Bugs-Bunny Bunny 02:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encylopedia. User talk pages, and other discussion pages, are a means to that end. They're not there for your research. This I have already said once. --Deskana (talk) 02:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I want to repeat that the survey is so amateurish, that it should not be inflicted on any population. I doubt that you pretested -- surely someone spotted the spelling mistakes. I have 40+ years of doing survey research, and I am embarrassed by what you are doing. Bellagio99 02:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Ryulong's block. Plus if the survey page is completed does it give back a secret code which the user can then add to their Wikipedia usertalk pages thus allowing you to verify the survey input was really from that user rather than some random vandal adding rubbish. Plus how does it benefit Wikipedia ?. Plus I think it feels like spam (WP:SPAM is a guideline anyway). Ttiotsw 03:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC) (violating grammar with too many pluses)

An irrelevant note: It would be nice if Wikipedia had more mechanisms for users to suggest ways for improvement. An organized legit survey would find me agreeable. NikoSilver 09:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Me too, however permission should probably be obtained before spamming talk pages. --Deskana (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

As an academic researcher myself - let me add something else - nowhere is there any indicator of whom (principle investigator or anyone else) is running the research project, no link to any page detailing the university's ethics policy about research, no project contact details etc etc. Moreover, the questionnaire has a number of issues of bias due to the way the questions are phrased. I can only conclude this is actually a student project. If you are a professional researcher - can I respectfully suggest you book yourself on a research methods training course ASAP! --Fredrick day 22:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)