Talk:Article Creation Workflow/Survey of New Page Patrollers

Introduction
The purpose of this survey is to  gather information  based on four  main  objectives:
 * Identify the suitability  of editors for new page patrolling
 * Help recruit  more patrollers
 * Establish whether or not NPPer should be a user right
 * Better understand their needs, and make patrolling easier through the development of tools such as for example the Zoom,  and possibly making  a tutorial - perhaps a video, and introducing other new page controls such  as filters that  can automatically identify  some problem pages as soon  as they  are saved.

The survey questions address  three main  areas, so  some regrouping  of the questions might  be necessary:


 * 1) About you: This section  asks for some basic background that  might  help  to  identify levels of maturity and competence,, and where they  are geographically  based because there is a  need to  know when patrollers are available online.
 * 2) Your Wikipedia activities: This section is designed to  provide a profile of the users' general  Wikipedia experience, which  may  give some indication  of knowledge levels of how Wikipedia is structured, how it  works, and its policies.
 * 3) ''Your patrolling of new pages: This section is designed to provide feedback on  their experience at working  closely  as a reviewer of content. It  also  gathers information  on why  editors  do  NPP and how they  found out  about  it.

--Kudpung 11:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Revision
I just posted a revision of this. I took a stab at reorganizing the questions along Kudpung's themes above. Here are some proposed changes:
 * Where applicable, I've made the questions/answers consistent with what WMF did in the Editor Survey.
 * For the respondent's Wikipedia edit history, I've changed the questions to simply ask the respondent to input their information from memory. While I think linking them to the X!'s counter, the counter itself is a bit too interesting and respondents may end up playing with the counter and not completing the survey.  Alternatively, we can ask for their username and we can look up their edit counts after the fact.
 * I've separated out the NPP-specific questions into two sections: Background and Workflow. Background contains questions about motivation, how they surveys likre this ar guaranteed to  be anonymous, found out about NPP, etc. and Workflow contains more detailed questions about their specific NPP activities.  I’m wondering if it would be possible to condense the Workflow section into 2-4 questions and maybe follow up with individual respondents for more detail. Howief 23:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a couple of observations: Although surveys are guaranteed to  be anonymous, respondents nevertheless occasionally find some questions intimidating. Considering  that  this survey addresses respondents that  are form  different  cultural  backgrounds I'm  not  sure if a question  on  sexual  orientation  is appropriate, Just for example, Brits over 50 may find the question offensive and might  give up  on  the survey (I  would). I also  don't  see how this is relevant  to  NPP.
 * There are huge differences in cognisance and maturity  between the ages of 12 and 17, I  personally  favour keeping  this as granular as possible - this is also  based on  my  empirical  research  into  requests for adminship,  from  allocating  other user rights, and blocking or mentoring minors. This is also  based on the fact  that  NPP attracts many  youngsters. We  could make this a dropdown of all  ages from 12 to 60, or a free text  box (numerals); this wouldn't  pose any  technical  difficulties.
 * In view of the guaranteed anonymity, I  don't see how it would be technically  possible to  follow up  with  individual  respondents.
 * --Kudpung 23:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that gender may not be necessary. If it's not critical for the purposes of understanding page patrollers, we can keep it out.  We can also do a male|female|other/decline to state.
 * How about asking users what year they were born with a drop down? This way, we can have the granularity if we need it.
 * I think we should guarantee anonymity as the default option, but provide respondents with an opportunity to participate in further research if they so choose. Howief 00:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent suggestions.  --Kudpung 04:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Rather than a dropdown, just enter year  of birth into  a text field (numerals), regex queries can parse this quite easily.. Yes  to  male|female|other/decline to state. I'm adding something  to  the end of questionnaire about  getting  additional  feedback, perhaps you  can  modify for something  better. --Kudpung 04:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sexual orientation is unimportant, but gender should have more options. The WMF surveys usually include four:  male, female, transgender, and transsexual (plus "prefer not to say").  WhatamIdoing 15:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * doi:10.1038/nature08711 :-) Have mörser, will travel 20:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if you collect this info, I'm not sure how you'd interpret it in this context; see vs.  :-) 79.119.87.5 20:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Previous in-depth research  has demonstrated that  female editors have a different  approach  to  their work  on  Wikipedia. I  think  all  we need to  know is their gender. Because the survey  is anonymous, I  don't  see how 'prefer not  to  say'  would be either necessary or helpful. --Kudpung 08:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC).
 * Well, if you don't mind having offended people refuse to complete the survey—exactly as you say above that you would personally do for a different question—or to make up garbage answers, then you could make selection of either "male" or "female" mandatory. WhatamIdoing 15:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)