User:Jorgenev/research/Wikipedia subreddit user survey

On 3 October 2011 volunteers were solicited from the /r/wikipedia forum on the social media website reddit to take a survey primarily about their relationship with Wikipedia. More than two thousand responses to the short questionnaire were received in a single day; the below analysis is for the first 2235 responses received.

Results

Answer distribution for all questions

Frequency of article usage

Respondents were asked "How often do you use Wikipedia?".

Feelings about Wikipedia

Respondents were asked "What is you impression of Wikipedia overall?".

Perceived reliability

Respondents were asked "How accurate is Wikipedia?".

Wikipedia edit count of respondents

Respondents were asked "How many edits have you made to Wikipedia yourself?".

reddit karma of respondents

Respondents were asked "What is your reddit karma? (comment and link combined)".

Specific behaviors

Respondents were asked "Have you ever....." and then given a list of actions.

Myers-Briggs personality indicators of respondents

Respondents were encouraged to give their Myers-Briggs Type Indicator if they knew it. About half reported a type.

Ratings of Wikipedia editors intelligence

Respondents were asked to give their assessments of the intelligence of Wikipedia editors on a scale from 1 (extremely dumb) to 10 (very smart).

Ratings of Wikipedia editors personality

Respondents were asked to give their opinions of the personality of Wikipedia editors on a scale from 1 (extremely dislikable) to 10 (very likable).

Random word associations with Wikipedia

Respondents were asked to provide the first word they could think of that they associated with Wikipedia.

word	times
Limitless	2
Omnipotent	3
Knowledge	4
Crowdsourcing	2
Springboard	2
Foundation	5
Anything	2
Accessable	2
Informative	23
Truthiness	7
Reference	4
Global	4
Vast	10
Innovative	2
Fast	6
Awesomeness	2
Robust	2
Easy	10
Progress	7
Available	4
Collaboration	3
Game	2
Godsend	2
Impressive	4
Brilliant	5
Freedom	9
Wonder	3
Distributed	2
Genius	2
Book	3
Accessible	3
Tits	3
Nice	5
Endless	6
Necessary	3
Words	7
Summary	2
Encyclopedia	34
Encyclopedic	2
Time	4
Better	2
Crowd	3
Library	3
Hitler	2
Omniscient	3
Invaluable	3
Wiki	9
Bananas	2
Encompassing	2
Sweet	2
Community	6
Sources	4
Stuff	5
Blue	2
Interesting	23
Easy!	2
White	12
Encyclopedia	2
World	2
All-knowing	4
Rad	2
Whales	2
Reading	2
Editable	2
Cool	16
Reliable	16
Starting-point	2
Fantastic	3
Jesus	2
Human	4
Facts	9
Huge	13
Educational	2
Start	3
Know-it-all	2
Dictionary	2
Reference	2
Encyclopaedia	3
Helpful	31
Database	2
Beautiful	4
Love	3
Dichotomy	2
Diverse	2
Underappreciated	2
Information	122
Hivemind	4
Power	2
Food	2
Important	2
Revolutionary	4
Collective	5
Depth	2
Google	3
Incredible	2
Thorough	2
Research	3
Fun	12
Math	2
Pedantic	2
Sharing	3
Big	12
Free	22
Large	3
Quick	12
Help	2
Fascinating	5
Overview	2
Random	4
Education	2
Useful	4
Wikipedia	5
Chaos	2
Source	5
Extensive	7
Homework	2
Worldwide	2
Good	6
Collaborative	6
Comprehensive	15
Godly	2
Wisdom	2
Info	13
All-encompassing	2
Occupied	2
Finally	2
Addicting	3
Factual	2
Smart	7
God	4
Penis	3
Learn	4
Entertaining	3
Essential	4
Fact	3
Current	2
Useful	45
Inclusive	2
Intelligence	2
Open	22
Citation	3
Til	2
Complete	6
Resource	4
Utility	2
Lots	2
Convenient	20
Internet	4
Awesome	2
Unbelievable	2
Handy	10
Truth	4
Classy	2
Text	3
Learning	4
Democracy	2
Broad	8
Amazing	23
Expansive	5
Answers	5
Unreliable	2
Overwhelming	2
School	2
Neat	5
First	2
Jimmy	5
Cheap	2
Knowledge	200
Everything	45
Bureaucracy	4
Addictive	6
Awesome	64
Books	2
Perspective	2
Dynamic	4
Potential	3
Memory	2
Whoa	3
Know	2
Discovery	3
Great	6
Fingertips	2
Practical	5
Future	7
Massive	6
Modern	2

Bias

This question was a free paragraph response which was answered by 772 persons.

The full list of answers has been dumped at User:Jorgenev/research/Wikipedia subreddit user survey/full list of bias answers.

The only widely cited bias was a liberal one.

Correlations

Personality vs intelligence ratings

Notice that while some gave high ratings for intelligence while giving terrible ratings for personality almost no one rated editor intelligence lower than personality. If you like a guy you have to respect him I guess.

Personality rating by edit count

Perceptions of editors personality seem to decrease as people get more involved to with the community, up to a point, then start increasing.

Percent donated to foundation by usage and approval

The first point of data for usage is non-significant.

Editcount versus karma

For this association each interval increase was assigned a value of one.

It does appear that whatever predisposes a person to be an active Wikipedia editor also predisposes them to be an active redditor.

Edit count versus donation percentage

Donation percentage of vandals and non-vandals

Vandals	14%
Non-vandals	15.9%

Vandalism by personality type

Type	Non-vandals	Vandals	Percent vandals
ENFJ	14	6	0.3
ESFP	6	1	0.14
INFJ	38	5	0.12
ESTJ	7	3	0.3
ISTJ	32	12	0.27
ENTJ	49	9	0.16
ISFP	10	1	0.09
INTJ	221	40	0.15
ISTP	27	8	0.23
ENTP	50	19	0.28
ESTP	11	2	0.15
INTP	149	47	0.24
ESFJ	10	1	0.09
ISFJ	14	0	0
ENFP	33	3	0.08
INFP	53	11	0.17

Perhaps the only statistically significant difference was between INTP and INTJ.

Have vandalized by edit count

Edits	Non vandals	Vandals	Percent vandals
“1”	122	39	0.24
“2-10”	102	30	0.23
“10-25”	517	82	0.14
“25-100”	102	30	0.23
“100-300”	31	12	0.28
“300-1000”	26	7	0.21
“1000-3000”	14	8	0.36
“3000-10000”	23	4	0.15
“10000+”	15	4	0.21

All correlations between activities

activity	VAA	PAA	UWFW	DWMF	EAE	BSOAFFW	SVOAA	WAAYWRWS	UAAFPSG	BABAFFW	UWFS	WAAYWRWL
vandalized an article (428)	100%	016%	061%	014%	087%	076%	089%	060%	025%	094%	089%	091%
plagiarized an article (205)	035%	100%	056%	011%	064%	071%	079%	060%	030%	095%	093%	089%
used Wikipedia for work (1463)	017%	007%	100%	019%	065%	072%	074%	051%	014%	094%	078%	089%
donated to the Wikimedia Foundation (347)	017%	006%	081%	100%	078%	074%	079%	048%	014%	095%	076%	090%
edited an article (1364)	027%	009%	069%	019%	100%	073%	081%	053%	017%	093%	082%	091%
been suspicious of a fact from Wikipedia (1565)	020%	009%	067%	016%	064%	100%	077%	056%	016%	095%	078%	091%
seen vandalism on an article (1626)	023%	009%	066%	016%	068%	074%	100%	054%	016%	094%	080%	091%
wished an article you were reading was shorter (1112)	023%	011%	068%	015%	066%	079%	079%	100%	018%	096%	082%	095%
used an article for personal sexual gratification (327)	032%	018%	065%	014%	071%	079%	081%	061%	100%	098%	088%	092%
been amazed by a fact from Wikipedia (2073)	019%	009%	066%	015%	061%	071%	074%	051%	015%	100%	078%	090%
used Wikipedia for school (1725)	022%	011%	066%	015%	064%	071%	075%	053%	016%	094%	0100%	090%
wished an article you were reading was longer (1957)	020%	009%	066%	016%	063%	073%	076%	054%	015%	095%	079%	100%

Comments

General comments were also collected which have been dumped out (with personal information, attacks on individuals and valueless offensive content removed) at User:Jorgenev/research/Wikipedia subreddit user survey/edited list of comments.