There is a survey out there if you have something to say about Wikipedia, and I tried to go through it. Stopped at around 50 %, didn’t hit the submit button, I promise to reconsider if a new questionary come up in the future.
Wonder who prepared the questions/responses and who approved them.
First page, About yourself, your usual data with some questions to add if you have already edited a Wikipedia article.
Second page, Wikipedia among your peers, where you can express some of the concerns about how contributions are handled and most importantly if you think that Wikipedia’s content can be considered as reliable or not… and much more.
Third page, and it’s here where I started being uncomfortable with the question/responses combinations, Wikipedia and you:
Editing Wikipedia may help build my scientific reputation
Strongly motivates me? what kind of masochist would answer that?
Editing Wikipedia may undermine my scientific reputation
Again, Strongly motivates me?
I am not allowed to write about my original research in Wikipedia
Strongly motivates me? That’s a Wikileaks candidate 🙂
My legitimate contributions may be arbitrarily reverted or removed
Strongly motivates me! yeah, right…
I dislike engaging in discussions with anonymous contributors
Strongly motivates me… ROLF
I dislike arguing with amateur contributors
Yep, Strongly motivates me is still an option.
Wikipedia is a reliable source for educational purposes in my field
Let’s change it a little bit, Strongly discourages me…
I edit Wikipedia because it’s fun
Of course, Strongly discourages me, who likes having some fun?
Fourth page is about More about yourself, you are the hero of the survey after all… Now, there is a very interesting question here : « Would you consider helping rate/review wiki articles in your field of expertise? » Is this the beginning of a peer-review process by experts? That would be nice!
As I LOLed a little bit to hard with page 3 I abandoned there.
You may want to give it a try.