Analysis on the survey dataset continues. We've found that the distinction of "generalists" vs "specialists", based on participants' selection of the form of contribution that is "most important to you", is meaningful in a lot of different ways. Generalists combine three of the most common contribution forms we heard about (899 respondents total), and specialists combine most of the smaller and more specific forms of contributions we heard about (549 respondents). Significant differences include:

• specialists spend more time per week contributing
• specialists have a stronger and more positive relationship with Wikipedia
• specialists are more strongly motivated in a couple of motivational dimensions
• specialists and generalists are motivated by similar groups of motivators, but the groupings have several important differences
• generalists experience "lack of interest" as a barrier at a much higher rate (18%) than specialists (3%)

Update: We have been working with our collected dataset for one week, and presented some very preliminary emerging findings to project stakeholders on May 29. The presentation deck can be found here (WMF credentials required). We will continue to work with these survey responses in triangulation with an ongoing qualitative consideration of previous WMF-sponsored research in this area throughout the month of June. Work on V2 archetypes is expected to continue into Q1.

Update: @Bethany was successful in negotiation a custom solution with our vendor Userlytics, and at this point we have collected our full dataset for V1. We anticipate that V2 work will continue into Q1, and we also anticipate that V2 will also have a need for a survey component, so we are trying to think ahead to how best to support this. Regardless, we're currently officially in the survey analysis phase of this work.

Thank you, yes that's correct. We (@Bethany and I) are in communication with both Prolific and our approval people at this point, it seems like some wheels are starting to turn.

I had the pleasure of working with Shriya on her Outreachy project investigating Multilingual Editors, and I am confident that she would do an excellent job on this project. She has a strong technical background, and importantly also displays a strong sense of motivation and work ethic. She's a strongly independent worker, but also displays a keen awareness of when to seek out additional perspectives and sources of input. I'm happy to endorse this proposal.

@KStoller-WMF no thanks for closing it!

Thank you all for the amazing interest in this project! As stated above, please simply leave a link to your microtask submissions in the form of a response to this task. You can add me via email (mraish@wikimedia.org) as a viewer/editor/commenter to your document if you'd like to keep the document itself private. Thank you again, and stay tuned for more communication!

@Maryann-Onyinye thanks for the help! I followed the steps you outlined above, including nominating an additional mentor (who might not have a phab account).

In T332805#8828785, @Whatamidoing-WMF wrote:

The year prefix contains relevant meaning that might be useful for future editors ("Oh, that temporary account was three years ago. There's no point in trying to contact them...").

Hi all, FYI that the Design Strategy team recently wrapped up initial usability testing of IP masking (desktop+mobile)—findings deck located here—and the * issue popped up in the user tests as well. A large proportion (up to half) of the 25 English-speaking testers interpreted the temp account *23-15.498 as representing their IP address (in part or in whole). For some testers, the * contributed to that interpretation by looking like it was being used to obscure part of their IP address.

Hi @alexhollender_WMF I am leaning toward no browser, mostly because it takes up more space. @Laura.sti is working on a pilot instrument with the mocks you provided, and it should be shared with the group soon.

@alexhollender_WMF @ovasileva I'm a fan of option 2, "[X} editors have contributed to this article". It refers to "editors" as a type of user and explains what editors do.

@alexhollender_WMF these look great to us. We're comfortable moving forward with this appearance of the tested features on the other articles. See below for one minor suggestion, but feel free to disregard the suggestion and proceed as you think best.

@BCornwall thanks again. I anticipate needing to SSH into stat machines in order to access Jupyter Lab and run spark queries. I'll update the task description accordingly.

Hi @BCornwall, sorry for the delay and thanks for the ping. Yes, I had intended to add an SSH key to my account to facilitate some analytics tasks. Sorry for the confusion, as I didn't know that I also had access granted via analytics-privatedata-users permissions.

@Vgutierrez thanks, I updated with a new SSH key. Let me know if this is adequate, and thank you

@Trizek-WMF sorry for the delay. As far as I can tell, the mass message campaign was not successful, and did not result in any survey responses (or responses via other avenues mentioned in the recruitment message).

Thanks, I've updated the Spanish, Arabic, and Japanese lists--redefined to include only users who created the account at the target Wiki and who aren't blocked there.

Thanks @Trizek-WMF , I've updated the messages to include a link for special:EmailUser/Mraish_(WMF). These messages are ready to post as soon as we can.

Closing this task since we've had luck pursuing distribution avenues by working directly with some community members, and this task is now superfluous. Thanks for everyone's support.

adding my WMF account @MRaishWMF

tagging @Prtksxna due to his recent work on similar issues

After being open for some time, the Spanish survey has netted 37 responses and the Arabic has netted ~10, however both of these numbers are sufficient for my purposes and I am ok to disable these surveys at this point. I have the impression that .1% of editors and >10 edits was too restrictive, although it would be helpful to know how many times the surveys were viewed, which I gather is not currently possible. For the future I would plan to change both the % of editors and edit count, especially on smaller wikis. Thank you all!

@Jdlrobson that's a great point. I had hoped to hit editors with 10+ edits ( >10, as @Urbanecm noted). Thanks for flagging that the % of traffic may need to be drastically increased.

The Quicksurveys have been successfully tested on Arabic and Spanish. Everything links to the correct place and the text is appearing perfectly.

Hi @cmooney , actually I just checked again (80 minutes later) and I actually do have the access I need now. Maybe it took a while for everything to fall into place? Thanks a lot for your help with this!

Hi @cmooney , I'm still getting the following error message when logged in and attempting to access a particular dataset that I'm interested in:

Hi @cmooney , thatnks for noticing that. Yes, the 'mraish' account was set up when I was still contracting, and I set up the 'Mikeraish' when I converted and linked to my wmf email. It would be great to remove the original 'mraish' account and add access to 'Mikeraish' as you suggested. I just signed in to the old account looking for a way to delete it, but I wasn't able to find one, however. Should this deletion ideally come from your end or from mine?

Marking as Resolved because I don't believe there is call for more engineering QA on this task.

@kostajh I believe QA is appropriate for this, given that all TODO's above have been completed.

@ema it looks like we're up and running! Thanks a lot