Wikipedia:Help Project/June 2012 survey

In June 2012, a major survey was conducted seeking users' opinions of the Wikipedia help system.

Survey method
Registered users asked to participate in the survey were selected randomly from database queries. They were divided into cohorts according to total edit count (server count) as of 11 June 2012. The groupings used were: 0 edits, 1–10 edits, 11–100 edits, 101–1000 edits, and over 1000 edits.

Apart from the 0 edits group, all participants have made at least one edit on Wikipedia since 12 May 2012, to filter out long-term inactive users. Blocked users and bots were excluded from the sample (to the best of our ability, a few may have slipped through). The 0 edit and 1–10 edit groups had the additional condition that their account was created since 3 June 2012.

250 users from each group were invited to participate through messages on their talk page.

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out [SURVEYURL this brief survey] about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,

the wub (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

Unfortunately response rates among the 0 edits and 1–10 edit groups to the invitations on their talk pages were too low to be useful. Therefore 450 further users in each of these two groups were selected, with the same conditions as before and the extra requirement that they had enabled receiving Wikipedia e-mail from other users. These users were then sent invitations to participate in the survey via the Wikipedia e-mail system.

Subject: Wikipedia help pages survey

Hi there, my name is Peter Coombe and I work for the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organisation which operates Wikipedia.

I'm currently working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out a brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username or email address in any way.

The survey is located here: SURVEYURL

You can read more about the project here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_Project/Community_fellowship

Thank you for your time,

Peter Coombe (Wikipedia User:The wub - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_wub)

Use
Have you ever sought help on any of the following topics on Wikipedia?


 * 0
 * just joined
 * I have never sought help yet.
 * How to check that it written well 100%


 * 1–10
 * General Mentoring
 * changing information


 * 11–100
 * Wikipedia Cheatsheet,Wikipedia talk page guidlines
 * How to add images to Wikipedia from flickr
 * How to format
 * How to add redirect


 * 101–1000
 * Never, I'm a Wiktionary fan
 * How to find template messages for cleanup
 * no
 * It was a long time ago
 * How to add notes. How to format text. How to create special characters.
 * got pulled into edit warring
 * Style and formatting issues, how to setup advanced features like review and assessent rating systems for yoga projects, et.
 * Deletion of an errant category
 * taken help of experienced editors
 * Policies
 * how to post templates, RfC and other like items
 * more technical aspects such as adding usergroups
 * Various, mostly MOS related
 * not really as have tried to work it out for myself - if you have noticed anything I need correcting on please advise - I would particularily like to know how Wiki supervises vulgar and biased edits - while I am not an anti semite I have noticed foul remarks on pages of academic Islamic interest eminating from a Jewish school in an area north of London and written by immature minds. As a now agnostic former catholic I beleive in social justice and freedom of religious practices in general but don't believesuch juvenile venom should tolerated on a grand and hopefully eternally neutral and balanced site such as Wikipaedia
 * Using templates
 * How to create redirects.


 * 1000+
 * Virtually everywhere, also the Teahouse
 * Manual of style etc.
 * Admin help re editor behavior (e.g. edit-warring)
 * linking; templates; categories; wikification; complex coding; etc.
 * copyright tags listings
 * Technical issues, such as ParserFunctions
 * Copyright issues
 * Magic words
 * Templates
 * How to stab people in the face over standard TCP/IP
 * location and use of templates
 * How to create templates for Wikipedia pages
 * wp:mos
 * move page, criteria DYK, GA,
 * to many to count or mention in this tiny box.
 * How to format tables in Wikipedia
 * how to get a deleted page restored
 * How to name topic same name as existing one (disamb)
 * infoboxes; citation formats; MoS
 * Templates, Wikipedia policies.
 * copyright policies
 * Deletion
 * How to report unacceptable behaviour
 * Manual of Style
 * policy-related issues
 * Detailed technical matters (I'm a tool programmer)

Satisfaction
And how satisfied were you with the help you found on these topics?
 * (Values given are mean of responses. 1 = Very Dissatisfied, 2 = Dissatisfied, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Satisfied, 5 = Very Satisfied)

Reasons for dissatisfaction
What in particular did you find dissatisfying about the help on these topics?


 * 0
 * New to editing, can answer better as time and events go by
 * I need to be send a message so that i would be a able to know what i am doing, what i mean is a procedure
 * The instructions were not clear.
 * yes
 * I don't really understand, how people know that it written well.


 * 1–10
 * it does not function well at all. its virtually impossible to make changes. its not as easy as it appears to be. i have had to write to wikipedia to make chages and they take ages to get back.
 * They just seemed rather quick to delete the article I created, when I had given links proving notability. I've used smaller Wikia sites before and their layouts tend to be a bit more selfexplanatory
 * as to setting up pages.
 * Not easy to find the relevant information
 * Not layman friendly.
 * I could not understand how to include my new page


 * 11–100
 * Difficult to understand what steps to follow The language used wasn't very user-friendly Authoritarian tone of the language made it intimidating to try
 * They are not reallly helpful to someone new to the webpage.
 * I couldn't find the infomation I needed
 * It has not been explained properly how to add images, rather more focus is given on the prerequisites for that. A simple example with detailed explanation would be very helpful. Thanks
 * IT could have been better.Besides Wikipedia must realize that their content is sourced from one time books and encyclopedias.so dont want editors to tell me that Wikipedia doesnt want you to go back to books..Besides the help section is poor.Wikipedia has ruined education.
 * It only showed the basic way to add a reference link, without adding any details. Also, most help pages seem too complicated and confusing. There could be something changed into basic, intermediate and advanced. And/or start with the very essential, then go into the extras afterwards.
 * I recall I was unable to figure it out on my own, I had to check a "source code" of other pages to see how it could be done
 * I still can not add new images
 * Difficulty understanding the explanation.
 * It is not easily understandable in the sense that someone with no relevant knowledge at not would not know what to do after reading the guide. Suggest putting more 'actual' examples (links to established pages).
 * Following the Tutorial works fairly well . . but skiing off-piste quickly makes it clear that it's very hard to know when you know enough about an aspect of Wikipedia to be able to do anything with confidence . . you need to know _everything_ before you can do _anything_ (or you feek at risk of being ambushed by a more experienced contributor with opinions about how you _should_ have done it differently)
 * How to make it on the page like all the other wikipedia pages which is neat. Also I havent done images and may need help on them and they could be more hard than making refences.
 * There are no ready-to-use patterns to create the new pages. References (helpers) miss a lot of examples and situations. I mean, some kind of video course would be very helpfull.
 * Not understanding placing pics onto pages.


 * 101–1000
 * I believe that more understanding with the topics noted would make the user more aware of what they are permitted and not permitted to perform
 * There is no system... but nothing can be done.
 * Documentation on how to document copyright status is confusing.
 * 1) I had to google it. 2) Some of the stuff I googled was incorrect, so I had to figure it out myself.
 * It didn't tell me what penalities would be impose on me editing eg vandalism
 * There were no good examples provided for how to format a reference. Whenever I made one, I had to find another reference in the same article and base mine off of it.
 * I was a little unclear about creating copyright justifications properly and it took several attempts to upload images. When editing or creating articles it can be a little time-consuming trying to figure out how to use the correct Wiki formatting, templates and so on. This is probably a lot to do with my being used to more 'drag and drop' interfaces, rather than html coding. Often, when using infoboxes or other templates I have just gone to articles of a similar nature and copy/pasted the template before changing the details, as the templates didn't display properly initially. As I say, this is probably due to my unfamiliarity with the html elements. It would be nice to have an interface that is more 'drag and drop' though.
 * Creating a new page was easy last year. It is now encumbered with layers of required reviews from strangers with no interest in the topic. And the "help" pages give no overview of how much time it will now take. Secondly, there was no useful help on the topic of deploying a complete rewrite of some existing page, and dealing with the resistance of former writers.
 * not much help
 * The explanations on the page on how to perform the action is unclear and editors who held opposing views were not in the least bit helpful
 * Seems always hard to find the help you need and when you do, you have to follow link after link after link to get to where you want.
 * It is extremely hard to navigate the help pages. The help landing page is great, but from there on everything is intermingled with the content articles. The appearance, structure and formatting of help pages is that of encyclpedia articles, not tech documentation.
 * Not easy to find important information
 * A page I wrote was torn down and I was not given any help, Its very frustrating when editors have the power to abuse and vandalise your work without helping you
 * Adding a medical reference: It's unclear which of the several formats presented are supposed to be used. I finally found buried in one of the help pages a link to a website (which I don't think is even a Wikipedia website) where the proper citation format is generated after simply typing in the PMID or DOI code. Adding an image: I actually gave up trying to figure this out since the help pages were overly technical. I later stumbled onto "Wikipedia: the Missing Manual," which was very helpful. Surprisingly the main page or the help page does not mention
 * this very helpful resource.
 * Nothing.


 * 1000+
 * They are either too detailed or difficult to read. I wish Wikipedia had a review section for pictures BEFORE they are uploaded, just like we have for new articles. Sometimes I upload pictures thinking I have the proper copyright permissions, but I don't. I wish someone could review our pictures if we decided to put them for review before they actually uploaded.
 * In many cases it was too general, frequently unhelpful, often complicated and hard to follow.
 * I found the complex legal-like language in copyright and other related help-pages dissatisfying. It can be made easy to understand, maybe by giving some examples. Although some examples are present, most of those seem to be from the view of USA. They do not necessarily clarify copyright issues and laws with other countries.
 * The nature of Wikipedia with its many embedded links makes it nearly impossible to get a complete understanding of any topic. Understanding a topic involves trying to understand many other topics.
 * my mom got scared and said you move in with your auntie and uncle in bel air
 * Images: too many, poorly structured help pages; information is scattered across too many pages, difficult to find. Refs: don't remember details (first use was long ago), but I found the presence of several competing systems of footnote creation confusing (this was years ago, when tags and templates were not yet universally used.
 * The language is unfriendly and overly complicated, and I have a background in coding.
 * difficulty finding how-to information when information found, the instructions were sometimes very difficult to understand; they are written with a technically experienced user in mind
 * I was helped by people, not help pages.
 * There are plenty of examples of each type of parameter, such as switches or if statements, but very few examples of how syntax matters.
 * Difficult to get to the meat of the issue.
 * Sarcastic members who look down on those that need to ask questions.
 * Sometimes its very hard to find certain info, for example how to solve vandalism etc. help pages are so complicated, it takes lots of time and you have to study how to make some suggestion for example how to complain 3RR vandals, its too complicated
 * There was no helpful links in topic "Creating a new page", so it was hard to find solution without knowing term "disambiguation".
 * It is very confusing. There is too much irrelevant information for those who just want to learn the basic functions. I'd suggest step-by-step examples of the most BASIC functions of that particular topic, and then add more information after that for more complicated edits. I learned more by going to a page that looks like what I'm trying to accomplish, and then clicking the edit button and looking at what they did. I'd then copy that. I learned more like that then by any of the help pages even though I went to the help pages first.
 * Finding the information was a little bit complex. You had to click on two or three differences before finding the actual tutorial.
 * I am an older person (77) wrestling with new terms and words! I tried to add to an article but it was removed and I have been unable to get any really clear, easy help for a beginner! I know my information is right but how can I explain?
 * Not very clear, although maybe the clumsy process is part of the problem
 * uploading images and proving they are free
 * Very difficult for newcomers to understand, densely linked, took much jargon. Admittedly I have not checked these pages in the last year or two, so they may have been improved recently, but in general the help pages on Wikipedia are really awful, an embarrassment to the encyclopedia.
 * Too much information to the point of being confusing.

Awareness
Which of the following methods of getting help on Wikipedia were you aware of?


 * 0
 * Just joined


 * 1–10
 * No responses


 * 11-100
 * Copying existing pages' code
 * Help link in Edit Toolbar
 * article talk pages
 * by the help of user talk: ansumang
 * just browsing!


 * 101–1000
 * Never thought of getting help, just picked up my editing at wikiHow
 * Manuals, like f.e. Manual of Style
 * copy similar wikicode to own sandbox and customize it until it works


 * 1000+
 * Asking users and WikiProjects
 * Searching though Wikipedia policy; looking up template documentation
 * Index
 * WP:Village Pump, WP:AN, and various other noticeboards
 * there is a page for everything, just seek it out
 * Use query related WikiProjects
 * Divine intervention
 * difficult to find how to typeset
 * Admin help
 * ask other on the article talk page
 * I observe a lot.
 * Village pump/Technical

Use
And which of these methods of getting help on Wikipedia have you used?

Satisfaction
And how satisfied were you with these methods for getting help?
 * (Values given are mean of responses. 1 = Very Dissatisfied, 2 = Dissatisfied, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Satisfied, 5 = Very Satisfied)

Reasons for dissatisfaction
What in particular did you find dissatisfying about these methods?


 * 0
 * No responses


 * 1–10
 * it takes forever
 * Clear answer or direction is not provided anywhere. User is made to go around in a loop seeking more info.
 * did not help what I was trying to do


 * 11–100
 * it was not easy to find answers. e.g. to find out what was the three-letter-code for countries, took me 10 minutes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1_alpha-3
 * It's like working in the blind, because the behavior of one article's code does not produce the same results in another article, or create the expected sections or work as expected. But I have
 * no time to search and read a whole encyclopedia about wikipedia's syntax, which is what is required when you need to make even the slightest amendment to an article.
 * Again, not enough information on how to do specific things
 * Again, like stated before, the interface seems too complicated and not very user-friendly at times. There should be the basic information, and an expansion as needed. And/or basic, intermediate and advanced tools and types of help pages.
 * Described before, unable to find how to redirect.
 * About two years ago (2010) the rules to write an article became too complicated and obfuscated. Mauch better is to have some kind of XML format description, and ability to edit/load XML files.
 * Nothing. I find it not needed since there's no one there to help.


 * 101–1000
 * IRC: there was just no-one actively online. Wikipedia:Article - very wordy and heavy to get through
 * See previous answer. There is much incorrect info out there.
 * The nav buttons in left margin do not lead to the answers on needed topic, unless of course you already have found that answer some other way.
 * Didn't get answer fo what I was searching for.
 * If you know don't exactly what you are looking for, you won't find it. Often you are not sure how to, or for what, to search for when seeking help on a topic.
 * Intermingling of help pages, templates, and articles.
 * too complex!
 * They weren't very helpful. I probably should have asked someone directly on their talk pages for help, but it's hard figuring out who the right person is to ask.


 * 1000+
 * Again I find the answers are hit and miss, its hard to get answers and figure things out in Wikipedia if you are new.
 * Difficult to find the information you were looking for.
 * Unhelpful results, such as technical-documentation pages, and archived discussion pages
 * Search returned too many irrelevant pages for my query
 * Wikipedia search is the one component I always thought needed a major overhaul. In most cases, I have much better luck using Google to find what I need on Wikipedia quickly... particularly with help and technical issues.
 * The relationship between help pages, Wikipedia pages, and manual of style pages is convoluted. Answers to questions are not in one place.
 * Nothing happened
 * Inability to locate what I was looking for; Wikipedia documentation is sprawling and its organization is idiosyncratic.
 * Again, learning the basic stuff was too long ago to remember lots of details
 * search is not easy to use if one isn't quite sure what one is looking for while it is better now, the help tab on the left has historically been overwhelming, too much information, difficult to work out what help is needed.
 * difficult to typeset mathematical formulas, no help that I can find
 * Difficult to get to the meat of the issue. They are to lengthy, trying to cover too much. I have to drill down too deep to get the information I'm looking for.
 * Horrible search functions. If you click to search "wikipedia" you only get articles for deletion. Help page is no help for advanced questions IRC used to be great when Chzz and a few others were around, now rude rules the day
 * Finding my may through the forest of rules and regulations
 * Cumbersome and difficult to locate. Wikipedia is not geared towards helping others so this information is not in a prominent location. When found, explanations are overly complicated and, well...over wiki'd. If you are new and don't know your way around DO NOT BOMBARD them with everything at once! Guide them down a lane that shows them what they need.....in other words a content fork that has more forks to specific pages that are all geared in the same manner. A lane that is slower and explains things in a manner that gradually raises the level of comprehension a little at a time so that even those with some higher learning may be able to be nudged...and not pushed into an atmosphere of people finding joy in batting around a confused newbie....and /or the misguided old timer.
 * Wikipedia search engine ignoring specific letter-diacritic combinations, it is problem in for example Slavic languages
 * I have not had any replies to my questions.

General comments
Finally, do you have any other comments on Wikipedia's help pages?


 * 0
 * I found it near on impossible to set up a new page even though I am a registered used and have added content myself.
 * Wikipedia's help pages take time to learn. It would be nice to make them more accessible, in particular for not native English speakers.
 * I think that the wikipedia is quite good, but it might be easier to search if you could search topics on the subjects, that you request for.
 * I'm very contented. Wikipedia one of the best websites i ever met.
 * I'need feature notification after new topic and sometime find to easy wording.
 * I like the wikipedia because this site is giving brief description on the topic what we required and also to know the related topics on them.
 * thank you wikimedia iam already here for sience
 * its a lot complicated make it simpler for uploading some material
 * 1–10
 * Include video to show "how to". sometimes is easier if you see someone doing what you want to do, than just read it. Thanks
 * Nice, easy-to-understand instructions on how to add content to a section. I was able to do it right the very first time.
 * I found Wikipedia pages really helpful.
 * I've only used wikipedia once as an editor so my views are probably not relevant unfortunately. Good luck with the research.
 * I tried to use the sample editing page and was very confused by it. I thought I had saved the work but it did not show up on the page any where. I finally realized I could edit the real page
 * and press preview before submitting it and used that method.
 * Sorry, I usually find I can work it out for myself!
 * This is a terrific search engine and I am very thankful that it is here. Keep up the good work.
 * Yeah .... I have put myself up for adoption and been waiting for sometime ....for someone to Adopt me ....but no one's come forward ...so i guess i'll have to ask some personally..
 * Just to keep it stripped down to the most simple and effective format.
 * Overall I'm quite satisfied with how Wikipedia is set up. Editing is pretty simple, though starting from scratch isn't so much--albeit, I'm new to this. I can't really talk since I haven't ever really used the help pages, honestly. I tend to dive right in and figure it out as I go when it comes to these sort of things...
 * It all seems a bit too complicated to edit pages. Also I don't have a clue as to if a subject is there if it under a different title. Wikipedia seems to have covered almost every subject so I can't see how I am able to help. Maybe if you had a page listing all the topics you need help with researching on. I really like Wikipedia, a great help for all different kinds of research. Thanks
 * It needs to be drastically improved.
 * I tried to enter a new item about an up and coming choir of which I am chairman. I entered the information but the title needed adjusting. I could not get any relevant help so my page is now incorrect and incomplete. (and an embarassment). I could not get any help.
 * I think that making just a few (literally, just a few) changes to what pops out at me on a page as far as help goes would make it easier for people to find what they're looking for in such sections. Otherwise, don't change a thing. This format is simple and brilliant.
 * Cool beans.


 * 11–100
 * It is a general observation of mine that the "Help" pages are not crisp, meaning, the pages sometimes contain too much information about "something" and I think naive users/contributors of Wikipedia who are reading these pages might feel intimidated at the sheer length of these pages. Crisper help pages will do a lot of good.
 * Thanks
 * I don't use them much, mostly because I only make basic minor edits where I feel necessary.
 * No Problems, easy to navigate, great system
 * Wikipedia code is obscure, there should be a full GUI editor for all features, instead of being forced to remember the wikipedia language and syntax. That method works only for full time editors, not the occasional editor who just want to remove a typo or a troll's comment embedded in an article. For instance, the dozens of methods and syntaxes to make references have only one result for me: Instead of being able to include a rich set of references, I just add references with mostly irrelevant stuff, but a correct working link, because I am afraid to break anything I touch. As a result, I don't edit as much as I would and could. The Preview feature is also flawed, it does not display the whole page with its references, so it's a game of many trials. It shows only the main body of the article. The format of the Talk pages is also ridiculous. It should be more like a discussions forum, not another wiki page with wiki syntax. Nobody who is not an editor can use it. It's actually easier to make changes to the article directly, even when they are wrong, than asking if it's OK to make these changes in the Talk page.
 * some of the templates are hard to use and same goes for the help pages.
 * Simple examples with detailed explanation for some help pages will be really helpful.
 * I have found that putting in references is the biggest problem. An easy way of putting in references would be ideal.
 * Well, as contributor, besides of my knowledge I invest my time as well. So my concern is to spend as less time as possible to edit/create articles, unfortunately Wikipedia is not good in this. This is not only about "buerocracy" (adding categories, other languages, templates...) but - in this case - to find how this or that can be done in help. Frankly, I'm willing to try to find it once, maybe twice (if I really want to do it), but after that I'm leaving.
 * I must say that they were very helpful to me at times when I needed help. I recommend other people to take a visit to Wikipedia's help pages because it will really help them a lot.
 * Haven't used them much because most things are easy to understand.
 * I have mentioned in the page, 'Durgapur, Angul' to bring forward the negative character, who is an insect to the human society under a white cover. But omitted after that for the longevity of the page. So do anything from the WIKIPEDIA side if possible.
 * I've been logging my experience / experiences / progress at User:SquisherDa/sandbox - you're welcome to have a look if it might be useful.
 * Could be more worked examples structured aound things you want to do.
 * I'm still working on trying to figure out about "original research", and I'm also still trying to figure out how to improve a pages "score".
 * KISS
 * Wikipedia is awesome! :D


 * 101–1000
 * Is it biased against Wiktionary users who edit at Wikipedia ocassionally? I wish that someone analyze my contributions.
 * I liked it so much I started writing an article on my sandbox. Amazing how easily it transfers to latex!
 * I really didn't know there were help pages.....
 * Privacy concerns should not get in the way of good science. My user name is Connor Behan. Feel free to release it if you want.
 * good quiz
 * I would love a central "help desk" Wikipedia page where I could conduct natural language searches for various help topics.
 * Yes, the best way of figuring out how to do markup is to look at what some other editor has written, then open an edit window and see how they did it. Another problem with help pages is waiting for pageloads. When the page does finally load,either it doesn't have your answer, or the answer is written on a 10th grade level and not very helpful. I notice some editors have lists of frequently consulted pages on their user page, so they can click on the links quickly. I have one on an off-site location (a small blog). This bypasses the problem of waiting for pageloads.
 * no not at this time
 * I think that there needs to be a better organization method, as it is not easy to find obscure help pages. I do not know if this is feasable, but something a little like the 'apropos' command in Bash would be useful, in my opinion.
 * 1. The information on horizontal Infoboxes needs to be consolidated and updated. 2. Creating an article in draft space (from Wikipedia search) is a nice feature, however the "publish article" forces the article into the articles for review. It seems that the instructions and choice behind this selection should be more verbose.
 * No, thank you
 * The biggest problem is that some useful information is included in Wikipedia namespace instead of Help namespace. Some guide of similar topics are placed in different namespace, which is sometimes puzzling.
 * Everything is good! :)
 * No
 * The language needs to be made a little simpler, except in cases where a strict tone is required. --
 * they need better step by step instruction for how to do things for the new editor, or for editors unfamiliar with the procedures, it took me days to figure out how to install an archive on my talk page because the instructions for installing the template are vague
 * Often very difficult to find the right page as you need to know the right search string. There doesnt seem to be any obvious logical structure to the help page system. Maybe a help index would be useful, For all I know there might be one, but how would I know? A link in the left side toolbar to an index page listing all the help pages or categories might be a way forward. It does get easier with practice, but even after a few years it is still difficult to find the right information even when I know it is there. Once found, the information is usually adequate to good, but again, some background helps. It can be very confusing to a novice.
 * Glad someone is finally taking notice of the poor state of editing assistance available. The learning curve for doing so many things is very steep. One gets the impression that the web site intentionally makes things difficult so as to discourage novice/inexperienced editors from participating. The standards for content must be kept high to assure credibility of the site's content, but the mechanics of editing can certainly be greatly improved to make the editing experience a much more user-friendly experience. And improving how to get, and find, help can go a long way in improving the editor experince.
 * No
 * Sometimes I want to look up how to do some particular thing in Wikipedia, and am not able to figure out where to find it.
 * Thank you for your efforts! We complain a lot but your work truly makes a difference.
 * They seem very adequate, it is difficult to propose anything which would further enhance rthem to be honest. Although my response may be coloured by my relative inexperience at this time.
 * I find them pretty useful for any questions I might have.
 * I am very frustrated with Wiki editors right now, I really need help with writing Jeff Rowley's page and I am not Jeff Rowley, but the page was torn down without any constructive feedback. I am intending to rewrite the article but without help its really hard for a new editor. I am feeling demoralised about Wiki because of the other users abusing their power. For example, another admin called my work a monstrocity, which i was not happy with.
 * Just that some of the advice offered is sometimes written in a very technical fashion and assumes some prior knowledge. It perhaps needs to written by somone with a very objective viewpoint who makes no assumptions about the reader and their level of knowledge.
 * I am in process of learning, hence this is not a right time to comment, any way help is usefull for me,
 * There should be a link on the main page or the help page to "Wikipedia: The MIssing Manual." I found this "manual" to be the most helpful resource for those wanting to edit wikipedia articles.


 * 1000+
 * I think there are a lot of things we coul ddo better. Making the Help system easier to use and more user friendly would be good, link the teahouse to the help menu, make it easier for new users, etc. We have a lot of things in Wikipedia that need work.
 * There are so many help pages that it is difficult to finf the information you want. It would have been helpful if I had noticed the "Help" link on the left side of the page!
 * The directions (or example, on Admin noticeboard pages for reporting users) are often EXTREMELY complicated, and I say this as a college-educated, professional Web editor and journalist for a major metropolitan daily newspaper.
 * Help: namespace pages (like portal: space and other areas which have lower editor traffic) are all too often out-of-date, need expansion, and sorely lacking in updated (and reciprocal) navigation. And this is exacerbated by the cross wiki linking (and soft redirecting) to meta, which all too often suffers from similar problems. The whole thing needs streamlining. Wikipedia has been around long enough that those policies, guidelines and help pages which have long stability, and which apply to all (or most) wikimedia wikis should exist as the clear "core" on meta. Giving new editors more sense of a one-stop-shop to understand "how-to", and "what's allowed" (and not) and what's encouraged (and not). And at the same time giving meta more of a "sense" of what it is beyond just being a hub for all the interlanguage wikis to ask for a steward or a new wiki. And so maybe (hopefully) increasing editor (not just reader) traffic at meta (win-win).
 * Extremely informative and helpful.
 * Not really. The issues for which I needed help that were not completely resolved were generally the result of editors trying to help but not being sufficiently knowledgeable to answer my question fully. WMF can't force editors to become more technically aware and can't force the tech-savvy editors to frequent the Help Desk and WP:VP/T, and those are the only things for which I wish on this subject.
 * They should be made clearer for new users. Absolute rules should be there, people not able to argue back and forth for years to get what they want changed, or to prevent others from changing things. More easy to click templates that help fill out required information for them to avoid problems with overjealous deletionists.
 * No other comments than the one given before.
 * A less wordy and more graphic help-page layout with fewer distracting link-forks would probably help keep "new users" more focused and less frustrated as they skim for quick solutions. However, the exact help page a user needs is often difficult to find without using Google.
 * I'm not sure how helpful my responses are here, since I have been on Wikipedia since 2008 (and know just about everything about editing). I mainly taught myself everything (and didn't use many help pages, assuming they were available during that time). Asking other editors seems like the best source of help. Good luck with the survey.
 * Monkeys aren't donkeys, stop messing with my head
 * Image help pages are still a mess. There are far too many of them, and things are treated in the wrong places (policy issues treated in a MoS page; editing advice treated in WP:IUP, etc.
 * no
 * Overall I am very satisfied with the help system on WP. I think the Tearoom has been an excellent innovation. Other editors are very helpful (and help delivered personally is the best form, because this is also a community). Some avenues of help I just have not needed. I think the welcome templates for new users are an excellent method for getting people started. I would like to have a kind of preview facility when choosing a template for a new user. It's hit & miss so I tend to stick with the standard. Personally I don't think things need to be made any easier. I am much more interested in knowing how the right sort of editor can be attracted into the work. I permit you to forward this last comment to any project that has this objective in their remit. I want to encourage people in my city to edit and I am open to ideas (I am aware that there is a local chapter). I am beginning to look at GLAMS. I am concerned about copyright issues (not enough help there) and I am concerned about recent exploitation of WP content for commercial advantage by other organizations. The entire text I have submitted here may be forwarded to any Wikimedia or Wikipedia project or editor (permission granted).
 * No
 * Getting past the rudimentary of Wiki markup was the biggest learning curve for me, but the help pages were obviously fairly helpful (that and much practice), otherwise I wouldn't have become the fluent editor I am now (though some may dispute that). Overall, I found (and still find) them to be a very useful tool.
 * difficult to do math typesetting, little and poor help offered
 * Hopefully the help page on Wikipedia in more detail in explaining the procedure for Wikipedia.
 * Examples never hurt.
 * Actually, I'm a helper, not really a helpee.
 * Maybe adding links to users who are very knowledgable and willing to assist on the help page subject could be a solution.
 * There is an assumption that if you are asking for help, you most have some problem or deficit in your abilities. It would help if people where chosen for help projects and admin with a higher level of concern with how they get along with others. Right now, if have a problem...it can be held against you on the Admin pages. If you see this behavior being cast at others...you are less likely to ask for help from someone you observed being a real prick to someone else at another time in an official capacity.
 * Never used 'em.
 * The one problem of a number of Wikipedia Help Pages is their complexity, size and difficulty of navigation. Besides that, there is a giant amount of rules that easily confuses not only new editors but even some more experienced editors. Such matters require urgent rectification.
 * There should be an easier way of locating and adding images. Checking through Commons can be very time-consuming
 * I'd like to see them more simplified with step-by-step instructions. As it is now, the help pages give you too much information and overload you with options. By the time I finish reading a help page, there are a bunch of new options that all sound so similar that I don't know which option I should be going with. For example. Recently I've been trying to figure out how to make an infobox template. I still have no idea how to do it even after going to the help pages. Everything is split up and on different pages. I just want to find a simple example that takes you step-by-step through the entire process of creating a simple infobox. The way it is set up now is incredibly confusing.
 * Needs more awareness that Help pages exist (especially those under "Help:" namespace)
 * Please make it less confusing to use, KISS!
 * You guys are doing great and keep up the good work :)
 * As the survey itself shows, there's an awful lot of ways of getting help, and maybe that is a problem in itself. It's not obvious to a puzzled user precisely where one should go.
 * I find the range of help pages confusing, particularly as some repeat information on others, and some are just sub-pages of others, again repeating the same information largely. There seems to be no overall listing of all WP help pages in something like a site map, unless I've missed it, which would again show how complex the range of help pages are to navigate. When I began writing on WP I picked-up most things by suck-and-see osmosis, often picking-up tips by analising experienced editors additions - I think many WP editors learn this way. When I have found useful help pages, sometimes it's difficult to navigate to where I found the in the first place - my fault I know as I should have bookmarked, but then a lot of editors display this fault I think. To repeat, it would be very useful to have a site map of all WP help pages, sub pages and project pages.
 * Already outlined on previous page where comments were encouraged. I am a long-time very active editor but I often look at help pages because I try as much as I can to meet and greet newcomers, and help them understand how WP works, so therefore I need to see if the help pages are going to be useful to brand new editors. Usually they are not intelligible to newbies. I sometimes consult help pages for my own use, and often find them tiresome and difficult, even with the amount of experience I have. I feel we need many of our help pages to be rewritten from scratch by editors who excel at empathy and clarity and simplicity, people who really know how to teach. The help pages are really the only part of Wikipedia that I feel is considerably less than excellent.

Help topics
It is clear there are marked differences between editors with different amounts of experience.

Strikingly among the 0 edit group, the most desired topic is "How to create a new page", whereas none of the other groups have this as their most popular topic. It is probable that in many cases, they have registered an account solely to make a new page, hence having no edits elsewhere. Their ratings of help in this area are on average neutral, although they rated this topic more highly than any of the others. This is likely because a lot of effort has been put into simple processes and documentation for creating a new page, as it is such a common desire for new users. Of course there is always room for improvement.

Among the users with some edits under their belt, "How to edit a Wikipedia page" and "How to add references to a Wikipedia page" are usually the most sought after topics (the sole exception being 1000+ editors, who are more interested in how to add images). Help on the admittedly broad topic of "How to edit a Wikipedia page" is generally rated more highly than the other topics. Again this is an area where a lot of effort has already been put in; despite the acknowledged complexity of wiki markup there exist some very basic guides such as Cheatsheet linked from the edit page itself.

Many users, even those with over 1000 edits, expressed their dissatisfaction with help on adding images. This is a difficult topic as successfully adding an image has three prerequisites: an understanding of copyright issues, understanding the upload process itself, and understanding how to edit the image into a page. All of these were flagged up as reasons for dissatisfaction: It would certainly be beneficial to have more integrated information on adding images. This is somewhat complicated by the existence of Wikimedia Commons as a separate site, but this difficulty ought to be possible to overcome. The findings from this survey support the decision to focus on this as an area for improvement in the fellowship.
 * "I found the complex legal-like language in copyright and other related help-pages dissatisfying.", "Documentation on how to document copyright status is confusing."
 * "It has not been explained properly how to add images, rather more focus is given on the prerequisites for that."
 * "Not understanding placing pics onto pages."


 * Aside: One interesting suggestion from this section was "I wish Wikipedia had a review section for pictures BEFORE they are uploaded, just like we have for new articles. Sometimes I upload pictures thinking I have the proper copyright permissions, but I don't. I wish someone could review our pictures if we decided to put them for review before they actually uploaded." This is obviously outside the scope of the help fellowship, but is an interesting idea all the same (although the Articles for Creation queue regularly suffers huge backlogs, would an image equivalent face the same issues?)

A particular "other" topic frequently mentioned was finding templates, especially among users with higher edit counts. There already exists an index of templates at Template messages, but this could perhaps use further attention.

Help methods
The results from this aspect of the survey also show significant differences between users by edit count.

Unsurprisingly given the prominence of the Wikipedia search form, using it to find help is the most popular method, and this is consistent among all user groups. The ratings for this seem to be somewhere in the middle compared to other methods. It is clear that the quality of results from searches will vary depending on the topic, and the search terms chosen. Since this method is so popular, and likely will remain so, it will be important to structure help pages well so that they can be found, provide useful titles and redirects where appropriate.

There appears to be no significant difference between the ratings of the Wikipedia search engine, and external search engines such as Google. The quality of results from the Wikipedia search engine has been a topic of complaints in the past, but this survey suggests that the situation has improved.

Probably the most striking result is that asking questions on another editor's talk page is by some distance the most satisfactory method, at least among those who are aware of it as an option. It certainly seems to be a preferred method among the cognoscenti (1000+ editors), who use it at a rate only behind the Wikipedia search box.

Unfortunately new users seem to be largely unaware of this method, despite its obvious benefits. It would certainly be helpful to encourage it more. One step towards this has already been proposed in the more personalised messages at Requests for comment/Level one user warnings which very prominently introduce the warning editor, and invite questions on their talk page. The proposed "Orientation" tutorial of the fellowship should also attempt to encourage this, by familiarising new editors with the talk page system. Software improvements such as Echo and LiquidThreads also aim to make talk pages easier for newbies, but these must be viewed as long-term projects and in the interim better explanations of the current system are needed.

The Help link in the left sidebar (leading to Help:Contents) appears to be quite often overlooked by new editors. As part of the overhaul of this page proposed for the fellowship project, ways of making it more obvious or linking it elsewhere should perhaps be examined. It is also rather unpopular and deemed less satisfactory among experienced editors, it will be important to try and address their concerns when working on it.

Full data files
In case anyone wants to do their own analysis, here are files containing all the raw survey responses in .csv format.
 * Full responses: 0 edits
 * Full responses: 1-10 edits
 * Full responses: 11-100 edits
 * Full responses: 101-1000 edits
 * Full responses: Over 1000 edits

Thanks
Thanks are due to Siko Bouterse for feedback on the survey, Jonathan Morgan for further feedback and assistance with database queries, and Ayush Khanna for his help with the survey software. And of course thank you to everyone who participated!