Talk pages consultation 2019/Trade-offs survey

During Phase 2 of the talk page consultation we will discuss the trade-offs that have emerged during Phase 1. To facilitate and supplement these discussions we plan to run a survey (open to all consultation participants, translated to multiple languages) that allows for force-ranking of options.

Data from the survey will potentially be able to answer the following questions:


 * 1) If Talk pages and StructuredDiscussions are both kept as separate tools, what features would be needed to improve both?
 * 2) *By looking at the individual ranking questions and their follow-ups, the team will be able to see the order of importance users place on individual suggestions, as well as what their cut-off is between what would be considered absolutely necessary and not.
 * 3) If a new product is built, what features would be necessary for editor satisfaction?
 * 4) *By combining the ranking questions' answers and their follow-ups.

Because ranking is split between Talk pages and Structured Discussions, the team will also be able to parse out different sets of data, included (but not limited to) the following:


 * What percent of participants ordered by editing history preferred which feature?
 * What percent of participants ordered by editing experience preferred which feature?
 * What percent of participants ordered by communication level preferred which feature?
 * What participants ordered by where they edit preferred which feature?
 * For participants who answered either ranking question, what was 1) their editing history 2) their editing experience 3) their communication level 4) their preferred method of communication and 5) the place they edit?

The point of the above sets of data is not to exclude any or to elevate any set above the other, but rather to determine if a wide enough net has been cast as it relates to user population. Post-hoc analysis can control for some of the expected weakness of the survey, as more experienced users are expected to have greater representation; other sources of data also help to increase strength of validity.

Draft survey questions

 * 1) How long have you been editing wikis? (there is probably an existing scale we should use)
 * 2) 0-3 months
 * 3) 3-12 months
 * 4) 1-3 years
 * 5) 3+ years
 * 6) How would you describe your experience level at editing wikis?
 * 7) I don't know anything about editing wikis
 * 8) I know only the basics
 * 9) I know a lot
 * 10) I know most or all of the advanced editing features
 * 11) How would you describe your experience level at communicating with other wiki editors on-wiki?
 * 12) I have never communicated with another wiki editor
 * 13) I have only communicated a few times
 * 14) I communicate frequently with other editors
 * 15) If you edit, where do you edit? (select all that apply)
 * 16) Wikipedia
 * 17) Wikidata
 * 18) Wikimedia Commons
 * 19) Wiktionary
 * 20) Wikisource
 * 21) Other (fill in)
 * 22) I don't edit
 * 23) What is your preferred method of communicating with other wiki editors?
 * 24) Talk pages
 * 25) StructuredDiscussions (orig. Flow)
 * 26) Off-wiki
 * 27) I don't communicate with other editors
 * 28) For Talk pages, please rank the following suggested improvements in order of importance. Please skip if you feel you do not know enough about this feature. (Note: This list is collated from past feedback. It will be adjusted to reflect Consultation feedback; also note that Qualtrics provides linking.)
 * 29) * Standardized archive bots
 * 30) * Avatars
 * 31) * Clear topic creation indicator
 * 32) * Topic close toggle
 * 33) * Special:OpenTopics
 * 34) * Link permanence
 * 35) * Mentioning users
 * 36) * Quoting mechanism
 * 37) * Reply feature
 * 38) * Automatic indentation
 * 39) * Automatic signatures
 * 40) * History preservation with thread move
 * 41) * Watch threads
 * 42) * Adaptive time stamps
 * 43) * Usefulness indicator of posts/comments
 * 44) * Visual Editor integration
 * 45) * Cross-thread linking
 * 46) * Separate mobile interface
 * 47) * VPN editing
 * 48) * Personal control over user talk page
 * 49) * Multiple "thanks" options
 * 50) *# Looking at how you ranked features, where would you draw the cut-off of items that are an absolute necessity? (Note: Qualtrics has a "carry over" feature that essentially combines this question and the previous so respondents may look at their rankings.)
 * 51) For StructuredDiscussions (originally Flow), please rank the following suggested improvements in order of importance. Please skip if you feel you do not know enough about this feature. (Note: This list is collated from past feedback. It will be adjusted to reflect Consultation feedback.; also note that Qualtrics provides linking.)
 * 52) * Avatars
 * 53) * Less white space
 * 54) * Support for switching between editors
 * 55) * Links in edit summaries
 * 56) * Greater editing flexibility (a la wikitext)
 * 57) * Post-by-date calendar for threads
 * 58) * Thread title searching
 * 59) * Special:Unresolved topics
 * 60) * Mention users in footnotes
 * 61) * Notifications mouseover
 * 62) * Adding non-desktop notifications
 * 63) * Quoting
 * 64) * Split, merge, move, or relocate topics or parts of topics
 * 65) * Per-user collapse/uncollapse topics
 * 66) * Expansive topic filtering
 * 67) * Bulk hide threads
 * 68) * Hide topic titles
 * 69) * Improved counter-vandalism
 * 70) * VPN editing
 * 71) * Separate mobile interface
 * 72) * Consolidate thread diffs
 * 73) *# Looking at how you ranked features, where would you draw the cut-off of items that are an absolute necessity? (Note: Qualtrics has a "carry over" feature that essentially combines this question and the previous so respondents may look at their rankings.)