WikiInquirer

Original question posted at the Village Pump (assistance):
Hi, I wish to make a request to the administrators here. I am doing some research on Wikipedia and I wish to survey fellow Wikipedians on what motivates them to contribute their time, effort and knowledge to this great resource. I have prepared an online survey form hosted on my school server and I wish to contact Wikipedians to help me fill out this survey form, by email or by posting the link on the user's discussion page. Should the user not reply or delete my post , I would not pester them. Is this acceptable behaviour on WP? I don't wish to unwittingly flout the rules here. And also, any data collected would be kept private and confidential. I would only be asking questions that are related to my research and probably the most sensitive questions I would ask for are the Wikipedian's username and simple demographics (no income and such). I would require the Wikipedian's username because I am going to engage in a lucky draw for gift certificates as a reward for respondents who complete my survey. Is this OK? --WikiInquirer 15:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)talk to me

You could post the link here and see who bites; that's what's usually done and ensures more of a random sample than putting it on people's pages. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Or post at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). But, to answer your question, as long as you don't post to individual user pages requesting partipation (that's considered internal spam), you're pretty much okay. Other places you might want to post to would be the talk pages of Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Meetup, and Wikipedia:Wikipedians. Try to keep the posting down to four sentences or less - interested editors can follow a link to your site to read about privacy, for example, or any specifics on the type of questions; the shorter your posting, the less likely someone will object to it. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 21:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

But I have drawn up a sample of Wikipedians to be surveyed (to satisfy some research criteria) and the only options open to me would be either to contact these people via email or post to the user's talk page. Can I post on the user's talk page and limit my request to just 4 lines like you said? I would KISS. In addition, I would state clearly that if the user deletes my post, then it is understood as a sign of objection and I would not pester them again. I would also send the soliciting message block to you for approval before circulation. --WikiInquirer 06:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC) talk to me

I'm just an editor here, like you, so I'm in no position to approve anything. And, in fact, there probably isn't anyone that can approve this (yes, frustrating); the good news is that there isn't anyone who has to approve it. But I can offer advice, for which I need one key piece of information: How large is your sample? -- John Broughton (☎☎) 06:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Okay, 200 to 300. That's way more than I hoped you'd say. The good news is that the policies I checked, regarding spam, canvassing, and multi-posting, don't actually address this. Which doesn't make it okay - this is an encyclopedia project, and there certainly is some policy out there that can be read as "no surveys". But it does mean that if you do this very courteously, you may be okay.

First, I strongly suggest that you post only the briefest of messages on user talk pages - the four line limit was really for project talk pages. Something perhaps like this (in its entirety):

If you'd be interested in participating in a small survey, please see User:WikiInquirer/February 2007 survey. Thanks! (signature)

Next, on that subpage, you need to carefully explain how you selected your sample, and why you'd really appreciate as high as possible a participation rate, and what the editor will get from it (e.g., you'll send them a link to the on-line report once you've finished it). The subpage also needs to explain a bit about the project, and give the editor a sense of how much time is being requested (e.g., number of questions). And it needs to say that there will be no further followup on the initial posting on your talk page. (Whether an editor leaves your posting up or deletes it, if he/she fails to act, do not, repeat, do not ever post again on that page.)

Finally, you need to very carefully think through how many questions you're going to ask each editor, and how much personal information you ask. The more the questions, and the more the personal information, the more likely that someone is going to complain (and/or just quit in mid-survey).

If you'd like help on the subpage or on the survey questions, I'd be happy to offer some advice. Again, whatever you do, you need to totally respect the fact that you're asking editors for a bit of their time, and absolutely to minimize how much of that you're asking for. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 07:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Original question posted at the Village Pump (technical).
Hi, I noticed that the page hit count in table page is missing. Is this normal or a faulty dump? Specifically, I'm looking at stub-meta-current.xml.gz from the dump on 20061130. Alternatively, would stub-meta-history.xml.gz have the page hit count instead? Thank you! --WikiInquirer 11:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC) ^talkReply

The hit counters were turned off for performance reasons, so I wouldn't expect their data to be in the database dumps. --ais523 12:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The official announcement is in the Very Frequently Asked Questions. --WikiInquirer 11:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wikicharts offers a machine-readable version of its data, which will give you approximate hit counts for the most viewed pages recently. Tra (Talk) 16:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I checked Wikicharts but it can show the hit counts for the top 1000 (or so, but less than 1100) most viewed pages. Are there any other internal or external tools out there that has captured the hit count of each page in the English Wikipedia? --WikiInquirer 01:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)^TALKReply
And I suppose the Hitcounter table is also empty in enwiki? Sigh --WikiInquirer 01:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}Reply

Pagecounts are certainly disabled on enwp - we'd bring the servers to their knees in a snap otherwise. Wikicharts is the only statistical data I am aware of, unfortunately - and it's really only a rough sampling, since it takes one in every few hundred visits. Sorry there isn't more - we'd like it too... Shimgray | talk | 01:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Tra and Shimray, for your replies. It's understandable and hey looking at the silver lining, this is a good sign -- Wikipedia is growing and growing! --WikiInquirer 05:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}Reply

Hi, may I know when the next enwiki db dump would be released? As for previous dumps, can someone point me to a historical timeline, if available? Thank you --WikiInquirer 11:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

The dumps are supposed to be generated once a week but recently, they seem to be generated less often so there's no guarantees on when the next one will come out. If you go to http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiki/ you'll see a list of dumps generated in the past few months for the English Wikipedia, but if you need dumps from before then, you might be able to get one of the existing dumps and run an SQL query on it to remove all revisions and log entries for pages that are dated after a certain date in order to 'simulate' how the wiki looked historically. Tra (Talk) 15:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Where "recently" is the last few years.... Rich Farmbrough, 22:20 3 March 2007 (GMT).

Hi there. I have downloaded a portion of the English Wikipedia database dump on 30th Nov 2006 and I have imported stub-meta-current.xml.gz (364.7 MB) on my machine. Curiously, I found that each of the following three tables: page, revision and text has exactly 6,635,199 records. As the label 'current' might suggest, is any of the data in the three tables truncated? I have a hunch that the tables revision and text are truncated at whatever the number of records that table page has. Is this correct? What does 'current' actually mean?
Furthermore, I wish to understand what are the differences among the following three files in the db dump:

• stub-meta-history.xml.gz 3.1 GB
• stub-meta-current.xml.gz 364.7 MB -- This is the one that I'm staring at now.
• stub-articles.xml.gz 238.9 MB

Thank you --WikiInquirer 11:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)(Talk)Reply

Meta current is all pages - including user pages etc.

Meta history has all the history of the pages, so you can analyse changes, authorship or do roll backs.

Articles is just article pages plus possibly a few bits and pieces...

That's my best take on it. Rich Farmbrough, 11:55 10 January 2007 (GMT).

Thanks Rich for the above reply. Does that mean that stub-articles.xml.gz contain only pages and no revisions/text? In stub-meta-current.xml.gz, why would the tables page/revision/text have exactly the same number of records? Any missing data here? --WikiInquirer 04:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (Talk)Reply

"Current" means no histories, as opposed to complete or whatever (the much bigger one). Thus for each page, you have one entry in revision (the current one) and one entry in text (that of the current revision). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much, Simetrical. You answered my question on the spot. --WikiInquirer 07:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC) (Talk)Reply

Posted the question on Helpdesk on 4th Jan item 5.8 --WikiInquirer 05:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi there,
I am an IS undergrad doing some social research on the Wikipedian community -- What motivates people to contribute their knowledge to Wikipedia, in the absence of pecuniary compensation.
I am currently swimming through the archival data from the English Wikipedia database dump and I wish to find out how I can possibly get my hands on isolated fields in the private tables that should not violate Wikipedia's privacy policy?
Example being: In the user table (which is private), can I take a harmless peek at only the following three fields: user_id, user_name and user_registration? --with the intention of mapping the user's registration timestamp. Or are there any points of contact whom I can approach to make research-related inquiries?
Your help in this matter is very much appreciated. --WikiInquirer 09:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

You could probably download the log dump to get the dates of registration for the newer users. For the older users this data won't be available but you could make a reasonable estimate on when they signed up by looking at the date of their first edit. For the very oldest users, i.e. as old as Jimbo Wales not even this data would be available but you could probably find out their dates of signup elsewhere, e.g. in the archives of Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians in order of arrival. You won't be able to get the users' id this way but the user names are all unique (although bear in mind that usernames have changed for some people, you can find details of these name changes in the user rename log). Tra (Talk) 12:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the advice on Private tables in the db dump. I shall go and comb the archives. Are user renaming actions captured in the logging table?
WikiInquirer 05:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, and you can view them at Special:Log/renameuser so I would presume that they would also be available in the database dump, although I havn't looked at that particular download myself. If they aren't available, you could always just scrape the website. Be aware, however, that if a user performs an action before they are renamed then the logs aren't always consistent on whether the old or new username is used. You might want to look through the logs for a few recently renamed users to familiarize yourself on how the actions are recorded. Tra (Talk) 13:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Tra, thanks for the above reply. Just to be sure, a user cannot rename herself as another user who already has that username right? Meaning to say, there can't be more than one Jimbo Wales. I checked the db schema and it says that user_name is an unique index and user_id is the primary key to the user table. --WikiInquirer 05:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

It is not possible to rename a user to a username that is already taken, and it is not possible to have two users with the same username at a given point in time, but it is possible to rename a user to another username, which frees up their old username for someone to rename a user to, e.g. the following renames could be performed:

1. JoeBloggs -> JoeBloggs2
2. JohnSmith -> JoeBloggs (because JoeBloggs is now available)

This happens very rarely, however (since only Beaurocrats can rename users, and most renames are normal and straightforward), so you would probably be able to manually fix your statistics when this happens, if it causes a problem. Tra (Talk) 17:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much, Tra. You have been a great help =) --WikiInquirer 04:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm a relatively new user who is conducting some research on the English Wikipedia. I downloaded the database dump on 20061130 and I have a few questions about the user_groups table: Are normal registered users listed in this table because it has only 1,319 records? Only 7 distinct user groups are shown here: boardvote, bot, bureaucrat, checkuser, developer, oversight, steward, sysop? Does this mean that normal registered users do not belong to any of the above 7 user groups? Thanks --WikiInquirer 05:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I believe only users with extra rights are shown, though I haven't looked at the table in a while so I can't be sure. Prodego ^talk 05:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I looked. In answer to your question, regular users are defined as having no rights, anons are handled seperatly, but again are considered 'default'. Only users with some non default status set are on that list. There used to be a tool to match those numbers to a name, but I can't find it anymore, and using Special:Listusers is easier anyway. ;-) Prodego ^talk 06:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much Prodego! WikiInquirer 06:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Terence Ong 14:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC) Hi WikiInquirer,Reply

Could you confirm your attendance for the Wikipedia Meetup on Wikipedia:Meetup/Singapore 3? Please put your name under "Available" or "Not attending".

Once again, the meetup will be on this Saturday, 10 March 2007. Please meet at Queenstown MRT Station at 11.30 am on that day if you wish to attend the meetup.

Thank you.—Goh wz 15:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oops, slipped my mind. Indicated my attendance, thanks for the reminder --WikiInquirer 16:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Since you seem to be online now, could you log on to MSN if you use it, or send me your mobile number through e-mail, so that we might inform you of last-minute changes? My contact details are available on my user page. Thanks. —Goh wz 16:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have issues with some of the questions in the survey (which I just took). Among other things, not all editing is contributing knowledge, some is applying policy, helping resolve disputes, grammar and spelling corrections etc. Also, the inquiry of how many times people contribute a day should to be accurate have either approximations or be of the form "between x and y" number of times and a "less than littlelowerbound" and "more than bigupperbound" In particular, in my case I edit more than once a day often and there was no way of stating that. JoshuaZ 22:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, absolutely. I understand that not all edits are made to contribute knowledge but to organise/refine the content, etc. Thanks for pointing that out. --WikiInquirer 11:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Yes, although contributing knowledge is the major part of Wikipedia and producing an informative product, there are other aspects as a means to that end (although I can understand using the term as a generalization to keep things succinct). Thank you very much for taking the time to survey us though; we really appreciate it when the academic or public communities take an interest. — Deckiller 22:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

• How did you select participants? Note that if you look at your contribs some messages are "created page", these users are unlikely to be around, but maybe you know better. Rich Farmbrough, 22:27 3 March 2007 (GMT).

May I refer you to my subpage on the Wikipedia Study, I apologise that I had not created the subpage earlier. It elaborates on how the sample selection was carried out. --WikiInquirer 10:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

• I took the survey on an anonymous basis. Thank you for the invitation. Ancheta Wis 22:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Hi WikiInquirer. Good survey; thanks for the opportunity. JoshuaZ has a good point--a lot of our contributions aren't contributing knowledge per se, they're doing other things (like reverting vandalism). I'd be curious to know the results of the survey: I suspect really a lot of us write here because it's fun and feels good to share what we know; those are rather simple and delightful motivations. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would be glad to share the results and the paper with everyone. The study is scheduled to end in late May 2007. Perhaps then I can upload the paper in pdf format to a common file repository on WP? May I know where shall I upload the file to? --WikiInquirer 11:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

• I just wanted to point out that I, for example, am far more active in the Latvian Wikipedia than in the English one. I based my responses on my contributions there (where I'm also an admin). I'm sure I'm not the only one...

By the way, will the results be available to the general public? --Tail 16:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I would be pleased and honoured to share the results with everyone. May I know where I can upload my paper? I am also mulling over an application for a scholarship to the Wikimania Conference 2007 at Taipei. --WikiInquirer 16:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am a little worried by the mass spamming of talk pages to promote your survey. Can you refer me to any discussion relating to this. Viridae^Talk 02:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have also made a post about this at WP:ANI, feel free to contribute there (bottom of the page). Viridae^Talk 02:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

The unblock request has been resolved. Thanks, Viridae! This issue is also listed on the admin noticeboard. I am planning to put up a subpage devoted to the study so that I can provide more information to respondents. --WikiInquirer 02:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! Thank you for inviting me to participate. Please let the Wikimedia foundation have the $10 you offered. I'll have a look and be in touch. Cheers! David Cannon 03:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sure, please give me some time (7 days as promised) to dispense the reward. As you have already known, you can specify your choice of reward in the survey. Thank you for participating! --WikiInquirer 10:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

You sent this to me as well. I started your essay, and actually have something you might be interested in knowing. It may be surprising, but a lot of the people here do not write articles. Your survey seems tailored to those who do, but many of us do other chores, fighting vandalism, deleting spam, fixing grammatical errors, linking and categorizing articles, as well as other, less obvious tasks. Because of this, it is very difficult for me to answer a lot of the 'knowlage' based questions, since my article contributions basically are F-15I (now merged into another article). Just thought it may improve your essay, Prodego ^talk 04:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, JoshuaZ has mentioned this too. I guess it's fine so long as you have contributed some knowledge before, as compared to admin work. Although this survey focuses on knowledge contributions, I just want to let you know that all the admin work you guys do are equally important, if not more so. It is a great challenge to bring some semblance of order to the chaos out there and normal users like me would probably leave Wikipedia had there been no effective admin. --WikiInquirer 10:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok thanks, Oleg. Noted. --WikiInquirer 09:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi

You invited me to take the survey and I have done so. I trust that as promised you will keep my demographic data confidential. I am curious as to how people were selected. User Viridiae stated you had emailed him "and demonstrated how the users being "spammed" were chosen for the study." Could you make that information more public please?

I agree with some other comments above that some wikipedia work is not contributing knowledge (eg writing here :-) ) and the survey doesn't really cover the time spent on project organisation. Nonetheless I think knowledge contribution is an important part and I thought your exploration of the motivations interesting. Look forward to seeing the results. Regards --Golden Wattle ^talk 05:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey I also wonder how you pre-select the people as well, several of the admins you gave the survey to doesn't really edit in the project anymore while others including me never got it. Thanks Ja ^{wat's sup} 05:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

May I refer you to my subpage on the Wikipedia Study, I apologise that I had not created the subpage earlier. It elaborates on how the sample selection was carried out. --WikiInquirer 10:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

To address Golden Wattle's concern, I will delete all email addresses of respondents in the database when the study ends in late May 2007. --WikiInquirer 11:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Keeping my email address private is important, however, it is also important to me that I cannot be identified by my demographic data. I am a real person but for wikipedia purposes I prefer to be the sum of my contributions and little more :-) . That is my age and educational attainments (or lack thereof) should be of no interest; my contributions should be judged on their own merits. Pseudonymity is important to some including me and maybe less so to others.--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I received an inviation on my talk page but after reading the survey introduction and entering my personal details I was informed that I was not eligible.

This seems dodgy: what's going on?

prat 08:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Pratyeka, thanks for taking time out to do the survey. I tried to login your username to the survey and it works. Can you try entering your username in this string exactly "Pratyeka" (without the double quotes)? Thanks! --WikiInquirer 08:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

On User talk:Dino, you observe,

"Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 22:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

^{talk to me}

---

Yo, National University of Singapore! Been there. To Singapore twice. My first doctoral advisor spent some time at NUS in Singapore; once I was off to Bangkok and said, "Hey, lets drop by ..."; she pulled one or two strings and I spent two nights in Temasek Hall, NUS.

I drink coffee without sugar, and shortly learned that when in Singapore, one says, "Coffee, no sugar," as they always put sugar in it. Blech! Interesting place, Singapore.

But you ask of the research project. Sure I'll take part. Drop me a line if its still available.

dino 17:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I thank you for the opportunity. Regards. --Bhadani 09:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Likewise. Good luck with the study and thanks for contributing a donation to the project. Rockpocket 20:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I've just filled out the form. Thank you for the option to either give to the WMF or a gift voucher: I have chosen to give the gift to the Foundation, as they are who need it the most! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can I be in the survey? I could use ten dollars. Use the force 03:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

...as a editor mostly working on Malaysian articles. I don't really need a voucher though, but a donation to Wikipedia is OK. - Two hundred percent 08:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, with reference to the above on my talkpage, I wish to inform you that I have completed the survey - pl. gift US$10 to the Wikimedia foundation. Thanks for undertaking this survey and hope that a summary of results would be made available to the respondents, --Gurubrahma 06:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the invitation. I was not eligible for the reward but completed the survey anyway. Some of the questions are worded strangely (the one that stood out read "look forward to contribute" when it should read "look forward to contributing" as it is future tense) but it was quick and easy to complete. I would also be interested in seeing the results.--Opark 77 17:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Reward recipients, please list your signatures here. Thanks! --WikiInquirer 02:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

• $10.00 donated in my name. Thanks. Trey 03:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
• $10.00 donated in my name as well. Thanks! Antandrus (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
• $10.00 in my name, too. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
• $10.00 was donated in my name. Triddle 02:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
• $10.00 in my name too. --Sheldon Rampton 02:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
• $10.00 was donated in my name [1]. Thanks. --Bhadani 02:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Same here. Thanks for supporting the Wikimedia Foundation! --bdesham ★ 02:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
• $10.00 donated in my name. Thank you for the offer and taking the time to survey us. — Deckiller 03:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Ditto that. Best of luck in your research. - RedWordSmith 05:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
• $10.00 dollars in my name. Hope your research pans out, but glad to see the Foundation getting a little something out of the deal in the meantime. Keep us posted! --InShaneee 06:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
• $10.00 in my name. Mushroom (Talk) 07:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
• $10.00 dollars in my name. Timrollpickering 09:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
• $10.00 was donated in my name. LordAmeth 09:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
• $10.00 was donated in my name. Thanks. --Patrick 10:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
• $10 donated in my name, thanks for supporting WMF! -- Chuq 12:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Yep, thanks for the donation in my name. :) --Conti|✉ 14:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
• $10.00 in my name Qaz 17:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
• As per all above. Thanks for supporting the project and best of luck with your research. Rockpocket 18:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
• $10 in my name for participating in the survey 68.16.174.6 22:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
• I got mine. Thanks :) - furrykef (Talk at me) 19:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Kaihsu 19:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
• I received my email. Vjasper 19:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Got mine; thanks. JanneM 23:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Study and reward credible by my account. Bilious 00:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
• 10$ in my name. JoshuaZ 00:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Yep and yep. —BorgHunter (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Jay(Talk) 04:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Got mine. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
• --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Got my donation too; thanks. Excalibur 23:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Got my email - so $10 donated on my behalf to the Foundation. Metamagician3000 05:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
• I am greedy and opted for the gift certificate. Andrew Levine 00:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
• $10.00 in my name. --Ragib 05:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Good luck with your research! Amnewsboy 09:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Received, thanks. Henry^Flower 10:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
• $10.00 donated in my name. Thanks.--Nick1915 12:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
• thanks and good luck.--Teodorico 16:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Got your latest e-mail & the reward; thanks. dino 16:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Got the gift certificate, thanks! 205.179.22.178 18:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Apparently, I'm a bit more concerned with myself than other Wikipedians... I got the gift certificate. — SheeEttin {T/C} 20:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Recieved the Amazon gift certificate. Thank you kindly. --Scimitar ^parley 05:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Sorry, didn't see your email until today -- a good four months later. Blame it on the spam filter. Thanks for the ten, good luck with your academic pursuits. - Tijuana Brass 17:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Yep! Rich Farmbrough, 09:01 20 December 2007 (GMT).

Duh! Well, I did the survey. Should I bounce through Singapore again, someday, I'll drop you a line. Don't count on it in the near future, though -- life's busy in the States.

dino 19:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please, read my answer on my talk page, and provide a reaction over there too, my dear friend: okay? Extremely sexy 17:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I would be interested in taking part in your project if you are still accepting participants. If you are, perhaps you could let me know via my talk page? All best wishes to you, and good luck with the research. Armeria 18:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC) (talk)Reply

Thanks for getting back to me. I shall take the survey - the reward wasn't my concern (I would have nominated the Foundation anyway) - I was just interested in finding out about your project. Again, all best. Armeria 17:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC) (talk)Reply

Hello, WikiInquirer! Thank you for the gift card! What I was wondering was how you selected the individuals doing the survey. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 23:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

So, where are the results of the research? :) --PaxEquilibrium 15:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Pax, We are still working on it. The results should be out pretty soon. I shall notify you when it's ready. --WikiInquirer 13:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The results of the study can be found here, on the research home page. --WikiInquirer 09:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

do you finally decided to go to taiwan in august? Chaerani 10:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, I'm not. *sheepish grin* I have already started work on probation and it would be difficult for me to leave. Weizhong too has decided not to go because of his studies. Cheerio, Chaerani. Ping me if there is another Wikipedian meetup and I would try my best to attend. --WikiInquirer 08:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the report. It is very interesting and I am yet to go through it more carefully. It seems like you must have made some real SQL gymnastics to get some of the needed data ! I was wondering however, if there was also not a game-theoretic framework for examining the subject. I have been mulling over the idea that there should be a kind of visible payoff for I lose-You lose - but we all win, especially when you consider that several authors here are capable enough of publishing their own books. It may be interesting to compare the situation with citizendium or other qualification dependent wiki. Best wishes. Shyamal 10:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

At a quick read, (not that quick, a good half hour skim) it looked fairly high-level stuff to me, cetrainly postgrad level, but maybe academic standards have got much tougher since I wrote my undergrad BA Hons. dissertation back in 1975! However, a plain english summary would be helpful...as a manager I like my reports to be one or at the most two pages of A4 - what were you looking for, how did you do it, what did you find out? It looks interesting, probably fascinating, but I'm struggling to discover the lessons learned and what changes you suggest are needed as a result. Excalibur 22:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi WikiInquirer, you were originally invited to Singapore meetup 4. However, due to the lack of response, the date of the meetup has been changed to November. Please refer to this page for more information. -- ZhongHan (Email) 05:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I saw that you protected the Season 5 page of Dancing with the Stars. I was wondering how you did that so that the main Dancing with the Stars page for the US could be protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktb529 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi WikiInquirer, you have been invited to attend the SGpedians' meetup on 29 December 2007. We are planning to make this a full day event, but you may join/leave at anytime you wish. If you can or cannot make it, please leave your name here. It will be good to have you at the meetup. Terence (talk) 08:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please confirm your attendance asap. Thank you. Terence (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear WikiInquirer,

I read with great interest your study. I have often wondered what possesses people to volunteer hour after hour to an encyclopedia, no less. Very interesting! I hope you go to grad school to continue your research. Renee (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for your kind comment. Really this is a first baby step in investigating the Wikipedia phenomenon. It was my pleasure to see this through. --WikiInquirer (talk) 05:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

G'day! You are cordially invited to a meetup Tuesday evening (tomorrow; 4 September). Sorry about the short notice. Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Singapore 6. I hope to see you there! John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, there is another Singapore meetup 31 October (Wednesday). Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Singapore 7. Cheers, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply