Wikipedia talk:Statistics/Archive 3

AFD/DRV statistics about repeated nominations
Is there a tool that will generate a list of articles that have been nominated for deletion more than __x__ times, or even better __x__ times in the last __y__ months? If yes, will the tool also have the results of any deletion review or other appeals proceeding? This would be very useful for a pending policy discussion about AFD/DRV procedures in this thread at the village pump NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If anyone ever comes up with one, please let me know. The number of relistings is out of control, and AfD participation is declining ever further.--Milowent • hasspoken  23:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Interesting trend. Wonder what is driving it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

WP ethical survey concerns


I quote from the code of ethics of the international public-opinion research society: III. RULES OF PRACTICE BETWEEN RESEARCHER AND RESPONDENTS
 * D. Responsibility to Informants
 * 25. The interview method or any other method employed by the researcher must never be used as a disguise for other purposes such as marketing, sales solicitation, fundraising or political campaigning."

(emboldening added 13:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)) Similar codes exist for the European and American public-opinion societies.

For ethical compliance and the avoidance of public sanctions, WP should remove the invitation for readers to begin editing from the survey (13:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)), because recruitment has been described as a major purpose of the article surveys. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 22:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC) (added "from the survey", which should clarify my intent and reduce confusion 13:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC))
 * Update: The American ethical-code is clearer:
 * "We shall not misrepresent our research or conduct other activities (such as sales, fundraising, or political campaigning) under the guise of conducting survey and public opinion research."
 * (KW 00:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC), emboldening added 13:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC))

Wikipedia's documentation of ethical survey concerns
The feature brings in editors. One of the main Strategic Goals for the upcoming year is to increase the number of active editors contributing to WMF projects. The initial data from the Article Feedback tool suggests that reader feedback could become a meaningful point of entry for future editors. Once users have successfully submitted a rating, a randomly selected subset of them are shown an invitation to edit the page. Of the users that were invited to edit, 17% attempted to edit the page. 15% of those ended up successfully completing an edit. These results strongly suggest that a feedback tool could successfully convert passive readers into active contributors of Wikipedia. A rich text editor could make this path to editing even more promising. While these initial results are certainly encouraging, we need to assess whether these editors are, in fact, improving Wikipedia. We need to measure their level of activity, the quality of their contributions, their longevity, and other characteristics.

Discussion

 * At this point, it is best that WMF separate the survey from anything that looks like a recruitment tool.
 * A public apology and resolution to avoid potential appearance of unethical surveying would help educate the public and the Wikimedia community.
 * Respectfully, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You would at least have to stretch the definitions a bit, if not legally then morally, to 1) count the article survey as "public-opinion research", 2) the invitation to edit Wikipedia as "marketing, sales solicitation, fundraising or political campaigning" and 3) the rather obvious process as a disguise. —Ruud 23:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Ruud,
 * Good point! "Public-opinion research" is the generic name for the profession of survey researchers, and this includes marketing researchers asking people in shopping stores, etc. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You may want to address the second point as well. I have a meeting with Dario in ~2 hours; I will get his perspective then. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You cannot begin with a survey, relying on the good will built up by generations of ethical surveyors, and then exploit that good will to recruit people.
 * This is the standard concern of all professional ethical codes.
 * As I mentioned, there are similar codes (and histories of public condemnations of unethical practice) for the American and European societies, which should be checked.   Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Kiefer, the survey is displayed in some cases, not in all cases. If it is displayed, it goes form - survey - "you can edit!" call to action (CTA). If it is not displayed, it goes form - "you can edit!" CTA. The survey itself has nothing to do with the CTA. As said, I will have a proper statement later on in the day - although I fail to see how your argument here addresses Ruud's second point. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That point about only a proportion of surveys then getting the CTA doesn't matter. The recruitment is displayed in c. 18% of the surveys, if my memory is correct. (Do you think that that proportion was chance, or involved a calculation of the proportion sufficient to reach a high percentage of the audience, say monthly? This question answers itself....) WMF employees and officers have discussed the survey (often primarily) as a recruitment tool in multiple fora, and this use of a survey is prohibited.
 * The American ethical code is more general: "We shall not misrepresent our research or conduct other activities (such as sales, fundraising, or political campaigning) under the guise of conducting survey and public opinion research."
 * Just separate the recruitment from the survey and all will be well. I and other statisticians and social scientists should have complained before.... Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We could have a very deep legal or philosophical discussion on this issue, but from a pragmatic point of view I would see little harm in using the article survey to both gain feedback on the content quality and attracting new editors. The two seem directly related, and although the latter is even phrased as a valid survey question ("Did you know you can edit?", although this can be compared in both a positive and a negative sense to the more dubious survey question "Did you know Coca Cola contains less sugar than Pepsi Cola?"). The survey is used to raise awareness, but can this be called "marketing"? From the context in which this term is used above, I would say it has to involve a commercial component. Now, if the article survey asked you to donate money, or the article quality feedback was simply discarded, I'd probably argue differently.
 * The end with an anecdote, last year I was offered a cheap fire alarm by the Dutch foundations for burn victims and now they keep requesting donations from me. I find this significantly less ethical than informing people filling out an article survey that they can also edit the article in question. —Ruud 00:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ruud, the ethical codes are designed to protect the public and the profession. Statisticians don't want people using surveys for other purposes, because people reduce their respect for surveys. Did you see my quotation from the American public-opinion society? "We shall not misrepresent our research or conduct other activities (such as sales, fundraising, or political campaigning) under the guise of conducting survey and public opinion research." Its ethical  code is more general and applies to this topic.  Kiefer .Wolfowitz 00:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, although I apparently interpret it differently than you do. The word "misrepresent" is very important here. In my opinion, we would be misrepresenting the activity of raising awareness about the fact you can edit articles under the guise of a survey if this was our primary motive of letting people take the survey. But it is not. We are primarily interested in the survey results and raising awareness of the edit button is tangential. Although I do sympathise with Carrite's position below. It isn't (shouldn't be) a disguised part of the survey, but a piece of on-topic information presented afterwards. This is also something we don't do for our own gain (as e.g. soliciting donations would be), but because we genuinely believe the survey-taker might be interesting in learning about the fact you can edit Wikipedia articles. —Ruud 00:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Another important point is that people take this survey out of their own free will and it isn't forced upon them like many surveys (either by being asked to participate in person or by through obnoxious pop-up). We can therefore reasonably expect they are doing so from a motivation to improve Wikipedia's content. The information presented after survey merely offers them another way to do so, without any subconscious trickery. —Ruud 01:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Ruud, I clarified my intent, above. (There is no problem with doing a survey, but there is a problem with ending a survey with a recruitment solicitation.)  Kiefer .Wolfowitz 13:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, let's take the premises that the article survey is public-opinion research and that editor requirement is an activity comparable to "sales, fundraising, or political campaigning" (both of which you have failed to thoroughly convince me) as given and focus on the "conduct other activities ... under the guise of conducting survey and public opinion research" part.
 * Is this what is happening here? I'd have to say no. The requirement message follows, but is is clearly separated from the survey. With "under the guise of" I would assume insinuating or misleading questions, part of the survey, are intended ("Did you know eating two Big Macs per week significantly reduce your chances of dying in a DIY-related accident?") Does the AAPOR offer some concrete examples of bad surveys? —Ruud 16:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ruud,
 * For example, consider a political "poll" that ends with the question "Did you know that you can volunteer for our campaign"; imagine that a reporter finds a memo (or in the case of WMF) a dozen memos describing the "poll" as a recruitment device. Imagine that the politician did not consult any statistician or survey researcher in designing the study, but instead had been evaluating it largely for recruitment.
 * What did K*nt say about publicity? Was it, "when in doubt, imagine your action being examined by a tough lawyer in front of a publicized hearing of a Senate Investigating Committee!"? :)
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that analogy is quite right, unlike in the situation of the political poll there is no other party/opponent here, I'd have to think a bit longer about it.
 * You're implying the WMF "did not consult any statistician or survey researcher in designing the study, but instead [has] been evaluating it largely for recruitment." Is this a hypothetical situation or do you believe this truly is the case here? —Ruud 17:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Ruud!
 * My Barbaric Yawp about a lack of a statistical consultant was made with high personal probability, based on two facts. (1) I looked at ads a half year ago, and said to myself, obviously they should hire statisticians instead of barbarians (system analysts, or IT fellows, etc.)! (2) The selection mechanism is so complicated and the participation rates so low that it is very difficult to link the data from this study to a population of interest. Seriously, I would guess that the best description of the survey respondents may be "readers with the highest propensity to become editors"! There has been research in the last decade on special techniques for evaluating surveys from volunteer respondents to on-line prompts, but I see no hint of such thought (or the recommended techniques) being used by WP's survey. Please surprise me! :)
 * But that paragraph is off topic. We should focus on whether or not WP should continue to end surveys (with positive probability) with a link to a "Call to Action", e.g., editing. I insist that WP can separate the too activities at little loss (and possible good karma). Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't do original research, hence there can be no ethical obligations breached. If there are, let's be horrible outlaws and may God save our souls.--Milowent • hasspoken  23:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're making the common mistake of confusing the encyclopedic content of Wikipedia with the community creating said content. E.g., the content is supposed to be written from a neutral point of view, however, as a community we are far from politically neutral. —Ruud 23:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems at most extremely unlikely that the article feedback system falls with the bounds of the kind of activity that the public-opinion research society is hoping to cover with their ethical guidelines.©Geni 00:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Geni, please read the American ethical code I linked above. "We shall not misrepresent our research or conduct other activities (such as sales, fundraising, or political campaigning) under the guise of conducting survey and public opinion research." Kiefer .Wolfowitz 00:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've read it. Nothing in it suggests that the article feedback system falls with the bounds of the kind of activity that the public-opinion research society is hoping to cover with their ethical guidelines.©Geni 02:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Article feedback is a survey. The concluding invitation to edit is the problem, especially when WMF documents and Sue Gardner's web-presentations suggest that the survey was designed to recruit editors. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * argument by assertion logical fallacy.©Geni 12:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've linked pages documenting WMF declarations that a primary goal for the survey is recruitment. Such rudeness and laziness has been a symptom of brain damage, in my experience, e.g. of teaching algebra to cancer survivors and traumatic injury survivors, and I trust that your behavior is a momentary lapse. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 12:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * a goal, not the goal. And I would suggest that you not make passive-aggressive insults in the future. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have consistently described recruitment as " a goal", despite e.g. Sue Gardner's description of the page rater as a recruitment tool in her London talk. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 12:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * again you miss the point. It is irrelevant whether or not wikipedia is trying to recruit people unless you can first show that what wikipedia is doing is the kind of activity the guideline was designed to cover.©Geni 12:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "WMF declarations that a primary goal for the survey is recruitment."
 * Now we're getting to the real point. @KW, if your thesis here is that WMF's seeming obsession with "new editors, whatever the cost" is a bad thing, then I'd agree with you (I await WP:IEP#2 with a sense of creeping Lovecraftian horror). So come out and say this and see what support there is for that view. Don't hide behind a completely bogus linkage to an irrelevant ethical code applicable to a different situation. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Andy,
 * I, the person behind the KW account, am a statistician. The KW account has been perhaps the 3rd most active contributor on statistics articles the last 2 years. I assure you that I take the ethical code of statisticians seriously, and have emphasized the importance of randomized experiments and randomized samples whenever possible during my time. Your suggestion was unworthy of you. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The WMF has strong support for getting new editors in, true. But new editors is not the primary goal of AFT5. As said above, we get godawful returns for the effort in terms of readers-turning-into-editors; if the goal was to pull in newbs, this would be a really, really stupid way to do it. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The survey, once implemented, is low cost to WMF, and brings in editors. Not so stupid. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, except the article feedback tool itself is high-cost, and as I have repeatedly explained to you, the "edit" call to action appears regardless of whether the survey does. The survey is not being used as a draw. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Okeyes,
 * I have believed that participating in the survey changes and indeed increases the proportion of first-time respondents who respond positively to the "Call to take action". This is a generic feature of survey participation, I believe. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 18:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, even if you eliminate the banner inviting people to edit, they will end up back on a page with a big word "Edit" at the top of the page, and the word "edit" next to ever subject heading all the way down the page. Also, AFT4 is currently awaiting the chop, to be replaced with AFT5. If this breaks the ethical guidelines of public opinion researchers (which I'm not sure it does), then their rules are both absurd and utterly unfit for the digital age. They don't seem to be too worried about the torrents of churnalism bullshit that dodgy public research firms seem to spew out. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's do what's right. It is a simple matter to separate the survey and the recruitment. I agree that this is not a capital crime, and that others behave badly.  Kiefer .Wolfowitz 00:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not smart enough to know whether the "Survey Tool" is ethical or not in its current form. What IS clear however, is that WMF sees this as a de facto recruiting tool and that is what is driving this thoroughly useless and visually annoying feature. I await the first person to document that data generated from the so-called "surveys" has aided in the identification and correction of even a single "problem" article. What we have is a 3 column inch chunk of ugly digital uselessness. If Wikipedia wants to start running 3 inch ads on the bottom of every page inviting participation, I'd have less trouble with that than the Rube Goldberg-like contraption they have now, hoping that IP visitors clicking will somehow gain consciousness of Wikipedia's malleability and become productive contributors. That's a goofy theory, one could just as easily argue that clicking RATE THIS PAGE will deter people from clicking EDIT THIS PAGE and directly fixing what needs to be fixed. — Tim Davenport //// Carrite (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Editor recruitment is not our primary goal; if it was, we'd be going about it in a really stupid way. We've got five staffers working on a new version of a tool with a ridiculously low recruitment rate, making changes that only benefit the primary goal of the project: to get useful feedback from readers in order to improve content. It's bloody awful at recruiting people. It's impossible to say if feedback will help correct problems, because we haven't fully deployed the tool that allows you to give proper feedback yet. However, the hand-coding found that up to 70 percent of the feedback is "helpful". And for reference, we are testing whether there's any impact on editing :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I can backup with Okeyes is saying: I've helped with going through the feedback in the AFT5 trial. Subjectively speaking, there's lots of good feedback, and lots of useful feedback. Quite often, I'd see feedback useful enough that I'd go and edit the article to add it. In one case, there was someone offering to upload rare images for an article that didn't have any images. As they included an e-mail address, I sent them an email with advice on how to upload: haven't yet heard back from them, sadly. If you ask nicely, people do give really useful and helpful feedback that can improve articles. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @Tom Morris,
 * PO-Research ethical codes forbid using surveys to mask manipulation. WMF should simply stop ending the survey with a request to edit, per the ethical code.
 * WMF is free to ask some or all to edit, so long as such solicitations are not masked with a "survey" (especially at the end of a "survey"). (Nobody has disputed that the survey gives useful information. There may be an ethical problem with the questions about the reader background, which waste the public's time---to what end? ) Please stay on-topic:
 * Topic: Is it ethical to end the "survey" on article quality with a solicitation, particularly when numerous WMF documents and statements describe the "survey" as a recruitment tool, or not?
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see an issue here, we have always follow "anyone can edit" principle and backed this up with a "so fix it" attitude. Now we ask people who have read the article to rate it, then follow this with the so fix it attitude . If someone does give an article a rating then obviously they have some qualification in the subject, seriously these ratings aren't really authoritative because we have no way of knowing whether the person responding has the knowledge to review the topic nor on what criteria they decide to judge the article. Its nonsensical to think that asking a question about one article is causing some statistical sin that's going to destroy the ethics of surveys across the globe, the survey is more akin to an in-store taste test most people are going nod their head say they like it but very few are going to go and buy it, even less will buy it again the following week. Gnangarra 01:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * False premise that Wikipedia is a professional poll researcher: The claim of unethical actions might seem a resonable conclusion, but it is based on a false premise thinking Wikipedia is a professional public-opinion researcher, when in reality, it is not. Likewise, scientists are bound by a code of ethics to not publish falsified or slanted data, but Wikipedia is not a scientist either. In general, wp:NOTCENSORED applies, because Wikipedia is not a member of a religious society or other organization which forbids sacrilegious or offensive language (or inviting people to edit pages). When considering any line of reasoning, always check the assumptions first, and if they are incorrect, then the whole argument crumbles, due to the logical fallacy of argument from false premises. In fact, the heading for this thread, as title, "WP's unethical surveying" is a violation of "begging the question" and should be corrected, as improper as saying, "WP's continual wife-beating" which is an unfounded claim. I was a formal debate judge for years, so I hope the points I have raised, above, have clarified why the issue of unethical surveying does not apply to Wikipedia's Article Feedback tool. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikid77,
 * Ethical codes govern practices, and clearly state that anybody engaging in the practice is bound by the code, even if they reject the label of the profession and claim not to be bound by the code, and is subject to penalties for unethical conduct. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * per Ruud Koot, I cannot see this page rating or the associated survey as any form of "public-opinion research" nor is the invitation to engage with WP's editing as "marketing, sales solicitation, fundraising or political campaigning". Thus the ethical code cited is a simple irrelevance.
 * I'd also suggest that the esteemed editor posting this might themselves like to try editing articles in mainspace? There are namespaces other than WP: and User_talk: after all. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * AndyDingley,
 * You are citing the examples of unethical conduct without reading the principle, which I quoted distressingly many times above. May this be the last! "We shall not misrepresent our research or conduct other activities (such as sales, fundraising, or political campaigning) under the guise of conducting survey and public opinion research." (emboldening added, *sigh*)
 * Simply by checking contributions, you can see that your edits in mainspace give you little authority to direct my editing. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 13:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, why do you think that WP, on an internal survey (admittedly on a public-access website), is covered by the American Association for Public Opinion Research ? AFAIK, WMF is neither a member nor an affiliate of this worthy body. Nor is this some randomised vox pop survey. Secondly, nor is an invitation to edit any sort of sales solicitation. Is there some teaser to a fundraising campaign that I've missed? It's entirely possible that WMF is not following the ethical principles of this group, but why should they, when the context is so different? Nor are they following the ethical code of the Royal College of Surgeons or even the Cub Scout Code – why would it be relevant to do any of these?  Andy Dingley (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Andy, I answered your question below, in the next subsection, a half hour before you wrote this. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 20:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, we consider the Cub Scout Code an important obligation, and make every effort to comply with it. Indeed, woggles are mandatory at the office. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It's also got a self-selection bias, something reputable opinion polling organizations seek to eliminate to make polls as accurate as possible, but I don't hear any complaints about that, nor do I find this any more of a concern than the "recruitment" tool. I see no issue whatsoever; it's completely up to the user what they do with the "you can edit this page" portion and I don't think it violates polling ethics any more than the self-selection bias that no one seems to have complained about. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 23:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm just not buying the claim that the article feedback tool really counts as a "survey". It seems to me that it's no more a survey than Facebook's "like" button.  Not all forms of soliciting feedback are proper surveys.  (I do wish that the US presidential political campaigns felt constrained by these rules.  I'd be very happy if far fewer telephone "surveys" ended with "Can I tell that he'll have your vote in November?")  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Is WP covered by any of these ethical codes?

 * The principle does not apply; there is no research being conducted, nor is there any indication in the form or content of the feedback tool that suggests a systematic public opinion research purpose. We are neither a member of nor affiliated with the AAPOR or the WAPOR, so I find it unlikely in the extreme that there would be any means by which such an organization could sanction the WMF. What form would such a sanction take? Would the AAPOR enforce it through legal action? Adding a line to the general disclaimer that reads "Requests for comment, feedback, advice, insight, or information should not in any way be construed as an attempt to conduct Public Opinion Research, nor should such requests be construed as a formal survey, scientific or otherwise." If indeed this is a problem, and I am not convinced that it is (no matter how many times you repeat the principle in question), this seems like it would be a simple fix. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 16:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Responding to Wikid77, I answered this before (above), so this time let me try to quote the code:
 * "The Code describes the obligations that we believe all research professionals have, regardless of their membership in this Association or any other, to uphold the credibility of survey and public opinion research."
 * Again, the code covers all survey research. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I read that bit. But you fail to address any other point I raise. What sanctions exist, and where are they listed? What form do they take? If Legal (they sue us for violating the code), then WMF Legal Counsel should be involved. Would a disclaimer that the feedback tool is not actually a proper survey or Public Opinion Research process be sufficient? Why not? Repeat yourself ad nauseam, but that doesn't help to build consensus in your favor. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 16:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your other point is irrelevant (apart from consequentialist assessment). We should do what is right regardless of the severity of penalties for wrongdoing. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And the person to decide what's right is this organisation we've never dealt with, and not our actual readers? Who have so far raised no objections to the presence of the survey? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We should absolutely engage in ethical conduct. But an outside organization saying that a thing is or is not ethical does not make it so. We may wish to consider why the AAPOR code reads as it does, and examine how our process mitigates those concerns. We don't tell people to come offer feedback as a way to get them to the website - they're already here. And we don't use the feedback tool as a way to get people editing, because they've already been told that they can edit (most prominently by the big "Edit this page" link at the top of almost every page - and certainly the ones for which we seek feedback). An example of unethical conduct would be to get people into a room to fill out a survey, and then "While you're here..." give them a sales pitch. This isn't that. So, apart from the fact that this process may or may not comply with someone else's code of ethics, what specific ethical objections to the process exist? UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 18:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The survey has been designed and evaluated as a way to transform readers into editors, as I and others have stated many, many times. Just stop asking persons the question "Did you know that you can edit this page?" at the end of the survey, and you will be much more in compliance with the AAOR and WAOR standards . Kiefer .Wolfowitz 20:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Ethics is ethics. We are soliciting feedback on articles, and following that up by prompting those surveyed that they can take steps to make corrections (perhaps the very ones they have suggested). This is a useful public service all round. Whilst I applaud the efforts of those professional bodies to limit unethical practice within their industries, I think our process is in itself ethical and meets our own standard of ethics. As with any "rule" it must be judged sensibly; the amount of discussion this minor issue has generated is rather crazy :S --Errant (chat!) 22:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As to (posted on Jimbo's talk): Nonetheless, professional ethical-codes cover the practice, and persons who engage in the practice are obligated to follow the code or suffer public sanctions, regardless of any affirmation of the code or any membership in the society.. What sort of public sanctions, exactly, could happen? I suspect anyone attempting to make a public fuss about this will meet shrugs from the populace... --Errant (chat!) 22:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why don't you read discussions on ethics at the sites I linked? Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

"We should do what is right regardless of...". Many Muslims feel it is "right" to remove all images of Muhammad. Some Irish nationalists feel it is "wrong" to note that Ireland is one of the British Isles. What is right and what is wrong is incredibly subjective, and I have seen no evidence that what these organizations feel is right for their members is applicable to Wikipedia. Perhaps when AAOR and WAOR members honour our policies on NPOV and NOR, I'll change my tune on honouring theirs. Resolute 23:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Reso,
 * Your suggestion that researchers should not conduct original research reminds me that I have better things to do. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously it was a smartass comment, but it underscores my point: There is no reason why those organizations would be expected to honour the policies or best practices of outside groups.  By the same token, there is no reason why Wikipedia is obligated to honour theirs.  Nor, it seems, are many convinced that there is anything unethical about what Wikipedia is doing.  Resolute 21:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Nor, it seems, are many convinced that there is anything unethical about what Wikipedia is doing."
 * It seems that many are happy that Wikipedia is plagiarizing copyrighted texts, and using its influence to reduce its liability. Do you think that anybody initiating the SOPA discussion might have a COI regarding SOPA? Kiefer .Wolfowitz 00:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And that is relevant to this debate, how? Resolute 00:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "plagiarizing copyrighted texts" - sorry, what? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this discussion went off the rails a bit, didn't it? I guess I'll call the question - there does not appear to be any consensus whatsoever to change the Feedback tool as per Keifer Wolfowitz' recommendation. But, should we add language to the disclaimer (or to one of them, anyway) as I recommended above? UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 21:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to it? I've kinda lost track of things amongst the TL;DR ;). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's up at the top of this subsection. Based on discussion here, such as it was, I'd propose adding this to a disclaimer - maybe the Terms link in the feedback tool, maybe the general disclaimer, maybe something else. The language would look something like "Requests for comment, feedback, advice, insight, or information should not in any way be construed as an attempt to conduct Public Opinion Research, nor should such requests be construed as a formal survey, scientific or otherwise. Users are not required to edit the English Wikipedia as a prerequisite to using the Article Feedback Tool." That last bit might be too on the nose, but I'm not sure how else to phrase it - the intent is to make crystal clear that A) you don't have to edit Wikipedia, B) if you don't edit, you can still offer feedback using the tool, and C) whatever feedback you input will not be impacted by whether or not you've edited before. I kind of see the issue now; we get IP editors all the time who start comments with "I don't know if I can comment here, but..." or "If my opinion matters...", and this would defuse that - your feedback is your feedback, regardless of whether or not you edit. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 02:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think that adding the disclaimer is either necessary or helpful. If you believe that AFT constitutes "public opinion research", then no amount of text saying that it's not will affect your belief.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The problems is the continued inclusion of the call to action at the end of the quality survey---after the WMF had proposed the survey as a recruitment device and now that the WMF has evaluated the survey as a recruitment device. However, manipulation may be part of WMF's standard operating procedure, particularly after the SOPA stunt.
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz 14:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And hyperbole may be part of yours. Kiefer, I'm seeing nothing actionable here. The vast majority of the people here disagree with your assessment that there is a problem, and statements like " manipulation may be part of WMF's standard operating procedure" are not helpful. If you have a problem with the tool, there is an easy solution: go to the "preferences" menu and disable it so you never have to see it again. If you ever manage to substantiate the claim that we're plagiarising materials, drop me a note on my talkpage. In the meantime, I think we're done here. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not hyperbole to note that Wikipedia and WMF are publishing pirated copyrighted texts, and are devoting their resources to stop SOPA and similar laws that would increase the likelihood of enforcement of existing copyright laws.
 * I believe that the copyright project has a 2 year backlog of dealing with suspected copyright violations. (Moonriddengirl cleaned up about the last of roughly 10 pirated articles I listed this summer.) Kiefer .Wolfowitz 14:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 14:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The hyperbole I was referring to was "manipulation may be part of WMF's standard operating procedure". Regardless, there is nothing here that demonstrates substantial issues with the article feedback tool or our research. We are not signed up to any of the agreements in question - and, quite frankly, any organisation without "government" in the name that thinks you can enforce agreements or standards on people who never agreed to be bound by them is clearly not up to speed with the 21st century or, indeed, the 20th - and it seems clear that the community has no issue with the wording. If you come up with anything demonstrably actionable, drop a note on my talkpage. In the meantime, I'm going to go do actual work. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

When You "Crowd-Source" Facts and Truth ...
... who can really object to crowd-sourced ethics? Moynihanian (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We never claim to be true or presenting facts :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * People have been conditioned to believe that an encyclopedia is factual, and that it strives to present a true account of whatever person or subject chronicled. So Wikipedia, by calling itself an encyclopedia, has to a large degree traded on the popular understanding of what encyclopedias do. But you're correct, Wikipedia has never claimed to be accurate, factual, or true. What's happening is that people are, in stages, being informed of this. Moynihanian (talk) 02:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean the Disclaimer we've had at the bottom of every single page, article or no, since 2003? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The disclaimer is not "at the bottom of every single page." Actually, it's not at the bottom of any pages here. That's a fact, but maybe it'll be outvoted, in which case it'll no longer be a fact to Wikipedia. In any case, I do favor the idea of a disclaimer. It should be prominently posted at the top of every page, informing readers that factual accuracy is not in any way relevant in preparing, retaining, or editing Wikipedia articles. That would certainly satisfy me, and would have the advantage of being honest. Moynihanian (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * See the link at the top in the old classic skin. Happy? Not that I am in any case greatly concerned about what satisfies you. You appear to be here purely to try and play politics (zero article namespace edits? really?) so objectively it matters litter if you are satisfied or not.©Geni 02:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you read my talk page. I have given my views at more length there, including some comments about my Wikipedia experience. Moynihanian (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Holy ****! I've made over 2,000 edits on Wikipedia, and I just saw that disclaimer page for the first time. Only because I happened to wander onto this page, which is far off the beaten path of the encyclopedia. Where have you been hiding it? How is a "normal" reader supposed to see it, or navigate to it?

Hmm, it doesn't look like many article pages link to it, though some talk pages and images do

What is old classic skin, I don't know what that means. —Wbm1058 (talk) 03:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * In vector its at the bottom of the page third link from the left. Classic is the name of an old wikipedia skin that was used back before monobook.©Geni 03:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. Thankyou. Next to "privacy policy" and "About Wikipedia".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbm1058 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, the tiny link in 6-point type. Hardly a "disclaimer," but rather a virtually invisible link to one. Reminds me of those speed-talk listings of the contraindicators for whatever new drug they're advertising on cable TV, or the fine print in one of those mortgage ads. Not exactly, um, transparent. Moynihanian (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

"Rate this page" suggestion
The "rate this page" stats at the bottom of an article are useful in helping show general reader opinion on the quality of the article. If the article is rated low in one category, however, the rating doesn't really give specific advice on how to fix it. Could a "comments" link be added to the box, which when clicked automatically starts a thread on the article's discussion page in which the reader can leave suggestions/comments for improvement? Cla68 (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Already working on it :). See WP:AFT5. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, your reference documents an unethical use of a survey for recruitment purposes:


 * "Article Feedback Goals
 * • engage readers to participate more on Wikipedia
 * • initial focus on article feedback and content quality
 * • encourage a collaboration between editors and readers
 * • develop new ways to drive thoughtful participation "
 * (emboldening removed and added)


 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz 12:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Kiefer, it seems fairly clear at this point that literally nobody agrees that what we are doing in any way falls within those guidelines and/or violates them. May I suggest quitting while you're behind? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okeyes,
 * You are wrong about your "literal" statement. I suggest you talk to Robert Lawton or others interested in ethical engagement with Wikipedia.
 * The other thing is that this is not a popularity contest. None of you have claimed to have any experience with the codes of ethics of statisticians and surveyors.
 * The academic who "estimated" Iraqi War deaths and refused to disclose his methodology was sanctioned, regardless of his judgment about whether the ethical code applied to him. I am just alerting the community as a courtesy, and because I would wish that some WMF staff or officers have some sense, perhaps from experience.
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz 12:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You wish to cite PR people with regards to ethics?©Geni 12:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To judge by two talk-page discussions about (1) manipulative surveys, here, and about (2) violating the terms of service of a small music company, WMF and WP needs to lift its head before it can turn over, and then crawl before it can walk. Let us talk about running another day.
 * I guarantee that a reputable PR firm would not have responded publicly with questions like, "well, if we are wrong, what are the penalties?" A reputable firm would have said,


 * "I am surprised to learn about your concern, and I assure you that we take ethical codes very seriously. I shall have our experts look at this and issue a statement soon. But I assure you that our mission statement states that we strive to be a leader in ethical conduct, and we will do the right thing."


 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz 20:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You wish us to follow the example of PR people?©Geni 23:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Understanding of "basic quantitative information" needed
There has been a request at Talk:Erosion, about an article which has very high encyclopedic value and importance, for someone with more experience to deal with issues such as excessive citing of newspaper reports instead of real scientific studies (all too easy to do), a need to deal with "the misuse of the concept of overpopulation" (not a statistical concept, admittedly, but related), a need to include "basic quantitative information", and so on.

Vital and near-vital articles like this one constantly suffer the curse that they are too general to attract the attention of many experts from any field at all, and at the same time so vital that they attract passers-by who (as the complainant said) are summarising snippets of newspaper reports when proper scientific studies would be much better. Any help would be greatly appreciated - even just to encourage the lone warrior on the talk page - and I will also ask at related WikiProjects. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This is the wrong forum for such a question This page relates to statistics of Wikipedia editing rather than the use of statistic in an article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs)

Proposal of changing page design
This page is a bit chaotic. I don't think people search for live, periodical or manual statistics, they want answers to exact questions, and don't care about how the statistics were generated. We can order the links by topic. Regards. emijrp (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. Some more graphs would be good as well. I want some article deletion and creation stats added into my empty section. We also have to try and avoid the contents for going stale too quickly. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect word on a statistics Web page
It should say "their" instead of "her" - I don't know how to edit it; it doesn't appear that I can so I thought I'd bring the error here. Acoma Magic (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The same error here Acoma Magic (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The Toolserver is a separate website. The Toolserver user is also an English Wikipedia user, though, so you could leave User:Emijrp a nice note about the grammar problem.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I left a note more than a week ago and it hasn't been fixed. Acoma Magic (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There's nothing we can really do about it. Either the user will voluntarily choose to change it, or he won't.  It's not our website and not our choice.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Disk size of Wikipedia
Is there anywhere I can find out the total hard drive space Wikipedia takes up, considering it stores every single revision of every page? I think this information should be posted somewhere on the statistics pages. --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 13:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Try these:
 * http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesDatabaseSize.htm
 * http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaZZ.htm
 * Database download
 * One of them probably has the sort of information that you'd like to have. I don't think that any of those include images or other media files, though.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)