Wikipédia:2019-es szerkesztői felmérések/en

Más nyelven:

• Magyar
• English

In 2019 September editor surveys were run for three target groups:

• new editors
• active editors
• inactive editors

Survey questions and messaging can be found here.

A few answers have been lightly edited for anonimity. Texts in [square brackets] are editorial comments for readers unfamiliar with Hungarian Wikipedia.

Contact Samat for detailed anonimized results if you want to research the results in more detail.

New editors

1373 surveys were sent out, and 100 of them were answered (7,3%). Two of the answers were empty, three duplicated and one nonsensical. The 94 real answers (6.8%) are summarized below.

1. What is your username?

Not published (obviously).

2. Why did you register?

Multiple choice, 94 users gave 179 answers in total.

answers	number	percent
I wanted to fix an error / add something to an article	68	72,3%
I wanted to be part of a community	22	23,4%
I wanted to advance a cause important to me	20	21,3%
I wanted to have a profile page on Wikipedia	17	18,1%
I wanted to write an article about myself, a relative, or a company or organization I am a member of	13	13,8%
I wanted to improve myself	12	12,8%
I wanted a user account for reading	8	8,5%
I wanted to reserve my username	5	5,3%
as port of a school or workplace assignment	5	5,3%
I already had a Wikipedia user account, I wanted another one	4	4,3%
I wanted to see how Wikipedia looks from the "inside" (free-form answer)	1	1,1%
I wanted to clarify someone's past, with a factual expansion/addition (free-form answer)	1	1,1%
There were structural changes at the place where I live, I fixed that in an article (free-form answer)	1	1,1%
I wanted to create an article about a famous person (free-form answer)	1	1,1%
Often there are incorrect claims. Might be due to bias in certain topics. (free-form answer)	1	1,1%
Összesen	179	190,4%

3. What gave you trouble during your first edits?

Multiple choice, 94 users gave 144 answers in total.

válaszok	száma	százaléka
nothing, everything was easy	46	48,9%
complicated user interface, hard to understand how to edit	29	30,9%
reading and understanding rules, policies and guidelines	22	23,4%
I wasn't sure where to start	21	22,3%
I didn't know whom and how to ask when I had a problem	14	14,9%
I got unfriendly reactions	5	5,3%
I got no answer to my question	2	2,1%
even the registration	2	2,1%
Other: Fixing a few characters or words is of course simple, but people who are hopelessly maximalist and don't only care about the quick summary will no doubt spend days with discovering all the menu items, you can navigate to entirely unfamiliar territory, maybe this can discourage less motivated explorers. Given how diverse the guidelines are, I don't see how they could be made more compact, so in the end this is a useless observation that I cannot turn into a constructive proposal.	1	1,1%
Other: I don't have experience in things like this.	1	1,1%
Other: Lots of things. Too much jumping around between "explanatory pages". Finding the target was a pain.	1	1,1%
Total	144	153,2%

Excluding the "nothing, everything was easy" answers, we are left with 52 answers (4 editors checked both "nothing, everything was easy" and some problems):

answer	count	percent
complicated user interface, hard to understand how to edit	29	55,8%
reading and understanding rules, policies and guidelines	22	42,3%
I wasn't sure where to start	21	40,4%
I didn't know whom and how to ask when I had a problem	14	26,9%
I got unfriendly reactions	5	9,6%
I got no answer to my question	2	3,8%
even the registration	2	3,8%
Other: Fixing a few characters or words is of course simple, but people who are hopelessly maximalist and don't only care about the quick summary will no doubt spend days with discovering all the menu items, you can navigate to entirely unfamiliar territory, maybe this can discourage less motivated explorers. Given how diverse the guidelines are, I don't see how they could be made more compact, so in the end this is a useless observation that I cannot turn into a constructive proposal.	1	1,9%
Other: I don't have experience in things like this.	1	1,9%
Other: Lots of things. Too much jumping around between "explanatory pages". Finding the target was a pain.	1	1,9%
Total	98	188,5%

4. Did you have a negative experience during your first attempts? If so, what was it?

Free-form text field.

Of the 94 who answered, 44 (46.8%) left it empty, 34 (36.2%) said "no", so in total 78 (82.9%) reported no negative experience.

The rest of the answers:

• There are a miriad guidelines, with lots of jumping to and fro and thus losing time.
• Posting images.
• It was hard to find how to upload images, and I didn't even find the solution that I specifically wanted to.
• Getting a photograph made by myself approved was convoluted, I had to exchange lots of emails with an obtuse reviewer.
• While uploading a photo I made myself the interface whined continuously that it is not original. I had to prevaricate the image for it to finish complaining.
• It did not let me upload an image due to copyrights.
• When I figured out the method, not in fundamental modifications.
• Antiquated, old-fashioned wiki editors who live on the wiki like petty monarchs and are responsible for the wiki being outdated, old-fashioned and missing articles about new things.
• I learned I cannot copy text from Port [a website akin to IMDB for Hungarian movies/television]
• I did not know how to start.
• Editing was hard, I still don't know how to do it.
• Editing was hard at first but is smooth now.
• An editor locked on to me, followed me everywhere where I wrote and quarreled with everything I wrote. I have switched accounts since then.
• The error remained, my comment disappeared. Strange.
• Yes. The rejected it, even though it had supporting arguments.
• My first article was deleted. (I reported it, of course.)

5. Would it help if you could ask questions from an experienced editor when you get stuck or are unsure?

answer	count	percent
definitely	50	53,2%
maybe	28	29,8%
I don't think so	9	9,6%
I don't know	7	7,4%
Total	94	100,0%

6. Do you have any other ideas, proposals that might it more easy for new editors to join and integrate?

Free-form text field.

50 users (60.6%) left it empty, 11 (11.7%) gave some version of "no", 4 (4.3%) "not yet", 1 (1.1%) said "I think the current operation is adequate". In total that's 73 answers (77.7%).

The rest:

• you all know better than me :-)
• By improving the visual editing interface.
• wysiwyg
• Editing could be made easier, because less expert people don't know how to start.
• Access could be made easier.
• A more "user-friendly" structure would be more encouraging. (Including of course "filters" of some sort to prevent shutting out those who abuse the possibility of easier editing.)
• Give a detailed description of what causes good editing and how it can be achieved.
• An introductionary video from a more advanced person.
• an instructional video
• An online chat window or some other live, interactive platform would help a lot.
• A live support chat would be helpful.
• Hungarian chat about editing
• If there were a section that addresses you and one can write there
• There is a Facebook group, but as an external observer it gives me the impression of being aimed at "old hands". New people should be sent there, because even if the village pump exists, it is probably easier to talk on some non-Wikipedia-style interface at first. At least for me it was very strange at first that here even generic discussion happens in an article format.
• Contact or signaling to the editor, when an entry is clearly wrong or ideologically biased, but I'm not an expert on the topic
• I would be useful if they fixed the error, did not delete the comment...
• More freedom
• They need help.
• Support for the most expert users.
• Yes, I have an idea with which integration of new editors would give itself, by sharing with them material about them

7. Are you going to continue editing Wikipedia? If not, why not?

Free-form text field.

answer	count	percent
(no answer)	21	22,3%
"yes, I will continue"	50	53,2%
"yes, if I find errors, things to fix and missing topics" and similar answers	10	10,6%
"possible", "maybe", "I will try", "sometimes, only fixing errors for now", "occasionally"	6	6,4%
"if editing becomes easier", "if I could edit"	3	3,2%
"I don't think I want to do that. When I am searching for something I'm fine with looking at it, but I can't 100% accept the information presented as fact.", "I don't know but I will definitely continue reading it :-)", "I don't think so, I did not join with that goal in mind in the first place. Maybe I will get over my laziness eventually..."	3	3,2%
"there is no point in "debating" an editor who has no expertise in the topic of the new article but insists 140% on every letter of the editing policies - even when they are nonsensical or outdated for that topic..."	1	1,1%
Total	94	100,0%

8. If not, what could we do to make you continue?

Free-form text field.

88 (93,6%) left it empty (this includes answers like "see above, I do intend to continue"). Other answers:

• simplify the editing interface
• "Thank you, I don't think any help would motivate me to watch or read the wiki in my free time"
• "pay me :)"
• "Well... If some admin would allow me to publish my own page..."
• "replace the uppity, fossilized petty monarchs who think themselves gods"
• "Send me more charming surveys like this, it's a great activity to go with reading articles at dawn!"

9. Would you like to share your experiences with the topics above in a short interview?

92 users answered.

answer	count	percent
I'd rather not	65	69,1%
gladly	18	19,1%
"it wouldn't be timely now, when I have more experience I will gladly do it", "not yet", "My (earned, negative) experience is too limited for that."	4	4,3%
talán	2	2,1%
"About basic fixes, additions."	1	1,1%
only in writing	1	1,1%
"I suspect I'm not the ambitious, ready to act person you want :) (otherwise, no problem)"	1	1,1%
Total	92	97,9%

10. Your age

We got 90 responses.

answer	count	percent
17 or less	24	26,7%
18–24	11	12,2%
25–34	9	10,0%
35–54	28	31,1%
55 or more	18	20,0%
Total	90	100,0%

Active editors

Of the 284 editors who were active at the end of 2019 August (defined as at least 50 edits in the last 90 days), we randomly selected 142 for the survey, and received 71 answers (50%). 4 answers were duplicates so we evaluated 67 unique answers (47.2%)

1. What is your username?

Not published (obviously).

2. On a scale of 1-5 how do you find the vibe of the editor community / how friendly do you feel editors are with each other?

(1=not at all, 5=completely)

answer	count	percent
1	3	4,5%
2	10	14,9%
3	28	41,8%
4	23	34,3%
5	3	4,5%
Total	67	100,0%

3. What's your main motivation for editing Wikipedia?

Multiple choice, we got 238 answers from 67 users (3.55 answers / user).

answer	count	percent
I'm spending my time on a useful, meaningful task	45	67,2%
it is a fun pastime / entertaining / a hobby that makes me have a good time	41	61,2%
I find it important to fix mistakes, add my own knowledge since many people get their information from here	41	61,2%
I make the world a better place by contributing to a knowledge repository that can be used by everyone	41	61,2%
I learn a lot during editing	38	56,7%
I belong to the Wikipedia community as an editor	18	26,9%
it helps me to make myself or my company or organization better known	6	9,0%
"I came here for medical articles. As an expert I couldn't bear all the errors." (free-form answer)	1	1,5%
"fulfilling my duty" (free-form answer)	1	1,5%
"With this, I promote the Hungarian language worldwide" (free-form answer)	1	1,5%
"I like solving problems, which includes fixing errors; a lot of people get their information from here; adding my own knowledge (without ISBN) is hypothetical, but only important in moderation. Being part of the Wikipedia community can (also) be good." (free-form answer)	1	1,5%
"When something interests me and I read into it, or I need to accurately translate it for my own work or pleasure: why wouldn't I share the result with others?" (free-form answer)	1	1,5%
"you can pocket prizes" (free-form answer)	1	1,5%
"I accidentally learn about scientific fields and topics which I wouldn't easily hear about otherwise." (free-form answer)	1	1,5%
"Writing about television channels and other hobbies" (free-form answer)	1	1,5%
Total	238	355,2%

4. What do you consider the biggest problem in Hungarian Wikipedia?

Free-form text, 15 of the answers were empty or some version of "nothing". The remaining 52 answers:

• 1. Essential articles are missing, even whole topics are missing. Obviously this is due to the lack of editors. 2. Some take copyright compliance too seriously, and delete en masse images which never bothered anyone and can be found at a million places over the web. 3. Multiple editors mark as substubs articles which clearly aren't as they contain important information. Those articles then get deleted.
• 1. The distorted emphasis and the uneven quality of the articles. I feel that often non-encyclopedic or at least less important articles are very elaborate, while those which are (in my opinion) important are sketchy or not to the point. 2. I am fed up with the improductive, prolonged, often personal disputes. I have the same experience with wikiproject work as well (e.g. the basically inactive movie project), as they dust off and discuss a topic every once in a while, but the result is never pinned down (often discussion is just abandoned) or incorporated in the guidelines. The other problem is lack of interest: some question get a reaction very slowly or not at all. (I have a similar experience with the work of some monomaniac editors, who don't react at all, no matter what I write or ask.) My activity has decreased mainly due to this (and personal reasons, sadly); I have stayed out of debates for years. These days I'm only creating or updating articles on a few select topics, and verify the changes of the articles I watch. 3. I also see as a problem the increasingly complicated, opaque, often contradictory rules and and editing guidelines.
• Spelling and grammar errors
• There is no place for collecting good ideas, nor for principles or changes that have been accepted by a community vote or are widely supported. They are available in some place for a while, then they get archived and become hard to find. This can include the correct transliteration of names of people or ethnic groups, the article structure for certain topics etc.
• Editors who are cantankerous and expect perfection from others.
• Demotivating behavior of editors who encroach on the community and want to control it
• Hungarian is a very specific language
• Approval of the work of vandals who have become autoreviewers [a FlaggedRevs group].
• Meticulous debates about petty matters while important issues get ignored due to lack of interest.
• All the arguing and discord between editors.
• Ignoring our own standards, the subjective arbitrariness at higher levels of the hierarchy.
• The many vandalisms which the reader is likely to see, and red links
• Some editors work do very low quality work
• I consider bad communication within the editor community the biggest problem. Empathy is often missing: people don't consider whether their casual remarks are hurtful to others, and we do poorly at discussing complex problems.
• Vandalizers do indiscriminately what are no concern of them.
• Admins (same for English Wikipedia).
• My only problem is I can't lock what I wrote when I don't want it to be changed. I mean... I know the point is complementing each other to the best of our knowledge, when we find a blemish (something to fix) in an article. And I have no problem with others expanding the infobox in my articles, but I don't like it when they change other things.
• Impatience towards each other, whether that other is a newcomer or has been an editor for a decade.
• Important articles are missing in the topics I edit.
• Debate about sensitive articles like Horthy Miklós get rough quickly and easily. Instead of the spirit of Wikipedia pervading the editorial workflows of important articles, it is the character of public discourse that pervades Wikipedia. (I don't know how to change that, just that changing it would be a worthwhile goal.)
• The haphazardness, which is probably the result of not enough active editors. (I have been an editor since 2007 myself, but my other pursuits and the changes in my interests affect my activity as an editor. I imagine many old editors are in the same boots.)
• Overzealous long-time editors who, instead of discussion or debate, immediately delete edits which conform to Wikipedia's policies, but not to the tastes of that editor, and get deleted just because of that, without any care that someone might have worked hours or days on it; they take care of it by ordering the other not to revert the deletion, and add a sentence or a half instead of discussion or debate, I think this is a serious problem.
• In the areas I am familiar with, the quality of the information is still not good enough considering that Wikipedia is the first source of information today.
• Having to get articles approved. I think the English approach is preferable, where only individual articles get protected.
• That it isn't 100% reliable.
• Anyone can modify articles without logging in, and then the erroneous content or lay wording is often accepted by patrollers not competent on that topic. Also anonymous primary schoolers waste patrollers' time with vandalism.
• The lack of teamwork, individualism, willful ignorance of editing policies.
• 1. It just has a bad reputation unfortunately. When an average person thinks of Wikipedia, what comes to their mind is that it is an online encyclopedia anyone can edit (which is correct). But because of that everyone thinks it contains nonsense. Even the majority of intellectuals think like that, especially when they stumble on an article that's in a scandalous state. Since many form an opinion based on a single bad experience, they dismiss participation in editing as unimportant or nonsensical. 2. Besides that, some editors talk with others in a disgusting, patronizing tone. I have been editing for almost ten years with varying intensitiy, and I have been insulted so many times I can't keep count. The worst is that if you don't ignore it, it will just turn into a tiresome and fruitless debate. 3. Certain topics are not respected at all, including the one I usually work in. I have gotten so much abuse for one of my articles I just can't edit it anymore. Last time I nominated one as a good article, I was told I am stupid and can't speak Hungarian. The worst is that I liked that article, but now I really see it as bad and can't bear to look at it anymore. I think we lost a large fraction of the editors because of people like these with zero emotional intelligence.
• I'll be frank: groupthink-dominance-inflexibility
• When someone disagrees with others, they immediately go for the throat. Unfortunately this cannot be helped, it is a matter of upbringing :P
• That anyone can put unprofessional content in articles
• Due to its rigid structure it has become unable to improve. The greatest problem is the lifelong appointment of administrators which resulted in the utmost contraselection in the last 10 years. There are less and less intelligent, well-intentioned administrators, and more stupid narrow-minded despots. Intelligent editors who are experts of their topic have basically disappeared, got ground down in the futile debates.
• At the moment, edit conflict.
• It would be good if I wouldn't be editing for myself only. I mean, one can't find any sign of interest, encouragement or intent to help in the community. Editors only talk to me when I make a mistake. That is fine, mistakes should be fixed, but I got zero recognition for all the pages I created, expanded, improved in the almost ten years I have spent here.
• There aren't enough editors, other problems (lack, datedness, bias of articles) is a consequence of that
• not enough editors, not enough Hungary-related articles, for example geographical
• not enough information for editing
• Too little information and pages on expert topics (e.g. automation), distrustful and patronizing attitude from old editors
• inconsistency, fights for prestige
• Sometimes the lack of humility is a problem. Some editors find it more important to enforce various (sometimes even high and noble) aspects than to understand what the other editor wants. Rules are important but so are people.
• Some narcissistic, callously self-righteous patrollers and monomaniac editors. Lack of decisive action against their behavior.
• Beginners find it hard to fit int. Many guidelines is a good thing, but initially they are confusing. It would be good to have a tutorial that leads the beginners through basic steps before their first article gets written. This could also be a video, I would definitely watch it if I were a new editor. It would be good to have both a shorter and a more exhaustive video. There are new editors who would only fix an error or two in the beginning; for them a short orientation would suffice. Others are immediately gearing up for their great work, they would be helped by a video covering the full process of constructing an article.
• The rules of Hungarian and foreign Wikipedias are not uniform. Something that would count as an article in English Wikipedia might not in Hungarian.
• There is no problem, but when I get a warning with a message, that can happen.
• I understand the essence of Wikipedia's philosophy, sure, but it is often irritating when editors/trolls with no profile intentionally give false information, and we have to constantly fix or revert after them. The other thing is that many editors are unfamiliar with the correct Hungarian transliteration of Asian or even Cyrillic names, and no matter how much I fix, they always revert to the English version.
• many articles are missing
• Too much unsourced information gets in. (This problem is not specific to Hungarian Wikipedia.)
• Many things don't have an article.
• Many editors like arguing more than editing.
• I don't have any problems, everything works fine. Although... this is not a big deal but I'll write it anyway. For example I want to copy an image from English to Hungarian Wikipedia, and suddenly it disappears because I don't have permission. It happened a few times. If it can be used on the English site, why can't it be on the Hungarian one?
• I think the biggest problem is that Arbcom (and/or others in charge) don't mind the current quality of Hungarian WP, its bad reputation among "users".
• Edit conflict: the system does not handle the entered information well (it gets lost). This is especially conspicuous for larger changes.

5. What is the biggest obstacle in your work as an editor?

Multiple choice with a free-text field. Pre-defined choices are italicized below. 63 users gave 87 answers (4 users left this question empty).

answer	count	percent
the other editors + "Some narcissistic, callously self-righteous patrollers clinging obsessively to their prejudices. They are just as fallible as anyone else, but due to their narcissism they think their fallibility is better than others'. They know everything better, they can judge the living and the dead, and they don't have to account for their actions."; "Since I care less and less, nothing, when someone interferes (this usually happens after 3-4 weeks), I just give up on that topic and find another, or just spectate."; "Old editors who view others' edits by their unique style"; "I haven't really experienced any, at worst the overzealousness of 1-2 editors discouraged me a few times"; "I have experienced very few obstacles. In a few cases other editors obstructed my work, but that was rare. Since it is rare, while I disagree, I put up with it, and continue doing what I can."; "Yes, sometimes the other editors; otherwise, no obstacles."	23	36,5%
unavailability of sources	20	31,7%
rules, policies + "adhering to criteria"; "Rules are necessary, but maybe we overdid them a little - not so much that it would seriously hinder us"; "1. Sometimes fellow editors expect familiarity with rules, policies or discussions which have happened a long ago. Those who have not participated back than have no way of knowing about those. 2. I don't speak English (I only learned Russian and German), so it is problematic that certain materials (guidelines etc.) are only available in English. To make it worse, English and Hungarian Wikipedia don't operate the same way."; "I haven't really experienced any obstacle. Maybe strict image licensing, but we have to accept that."	15	23,8%
problems with the user interface and tools	10	15,9%
Lack of time ("Time: alongside 8 hours of work, it is hard to do a good job."; "lack or time"; "lack of time :("; "Lack of free time"; "lack of time alongside my other tasks"; "My schedule having become unpredictable as of late."; "I have little time"; "other work I'm doing"	8	12,7%
"nothing"; "nothing, really"; "Honestly, nothing and not one is obstructing me currently"; "nothing is obstructing me, although obviously beginners might feel differently."	4	6,3%
"lack of energy"; "My own laziness."; "laziness"	3	4,8%
"the almost total lack of feedback"	1	1,6%
"My own deficiencies."	1	1,6%
"I have no accents."	1	1,6%
"a little bit of everything; sometimes multiple things at onces, sometimes a single one of them can be the main obstacle"	1	1,6%
Total	87	138,1%

6. What and how would you change?

Free-form text, 49 users answered (15 left it empty, 2 striked it out, one only put in a question mark). Answers were as follows:

• ? :D --- I made a few observations over the years; almost all of them were dismissed immediately
• I would make internal communication less constrained
• Make most articles openly editable; that would unburden the patrollers as well. One edit of mine has been pending review for months. There are many cases like that.
• The real breakthrough would be helping collaborative work. Maybe through portals, maybe some other way. The cooperation of two or three editors is often more effective than toiling on your own. At the same time, everyone horning into everything is not ideal. Maybe, if there are successful collaborations, then reports (outlining how they started, what the stumbling blocks where, what helped to find the solution) could help beginners do teamwork. Maybe some kind of improved soft "hierarchy" would help, too.
• Don't show modifications of articles immediately, only after a certain time, say an hour. Until then replace the article content with a message: "The article is being updated for 10 minutes". Before that time passes, only admins and other privileged editors should see the article. This would give the editor working on the article time finish their edit. The editor should be able to exempt another editor from this protection, e.g. if asking for help. That way, beginners would not be slapped with various warning or threatening templates (including "well-meaning" templates warning about deletion) within minutes from staring their editing.
• The number of articles. By creating new ones (not about everything, of course).
• I would erase the concept of substubs [a kind of automatic deletion process for very short articles]. In my opinion (although I only suspect this) it is more likely for a very short article to be expanded than for a non-existent article to be written.
• What counts for an article in English Wikipedia should count for an article in Hungarian as well.
• The attitude of admins (if it were possible, but it isn't).
• I recommend embedding an (interactive) sandbox, where an opportunity for continuous - immediate, in-place - practice with the topic/template of the edit can be chosen , for example content edits aiming at returning the initial bureaucratic knowledge, or other typical complexes...
• Edits which don't break any rules but have 1-2 errors or a different style should not be allowed to delete without debate or discussion, just because it doesn't fit the particular tast of some old editor. If this was already the case, then it should be enforced, because it is not adhered now, with rare exceptions.
• The ones which are wrong can be fixed by editing the source text.
• What I would change: if the title of an article linked from another article changes, it should stay blue, it shouldn't change to green [links to redirects are colored green]. To be more exact, for example, when someone changes the name of a soccer player (which is also the title of the article about him) then in an article that mentions him by his own name, that mention will be green. I can't think of other changes.
• Tricky: open question for solving a decade-old problem :) I think changing some fundamental settings would help, also making quality-related policies more strict, and a few other things.
• We would need a stricter leader who enforces the wiki's own rules on everyone down from the admins. Or at least some group effort towards that, not allowing different things.
• Nothing for now, maybe after I have worked more
• Creating simpler, up-to-date rules and a clearer, easy to find, less complicated editing guide.
• So far policies have not obstructed me in my work, although no doubt this is a big deterrent for newcomers. As for the difficulty of accessing sources, that is not something we can change.
• I would have to think more about that
• I am over it
• That I learned to link
• To be honest, in my humble opinion, there aren't any big problems, maybe screening new editors and IP editors could be done better.
• It would be good to collect free-content and/or online available sources, which editors can use. We tried that in the Hiker Wikiproject: https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Term%C3%A9szetj%C3%A1r%C3%B3-m%C5%B1hely#Adatb%C3%A1zisok,_kataszterek (I am sure it could have been done better) but it would be good to have it in other wikiprojects as well, when I'm editing in different topics.
• Less innovation. What is already good should be left alone.
• I don't have an specific problem with the editor interface, or at least I don't remember anything.
• Easier to access, more comprehensive editing guides, better template documentation.
• Creating joint projects would greatly change all areas of Wikipedia.
• Tiered royalties
• Because they revert my edits, even though I didn't write anything bad (cussing, spam).
• All edits should require logging in. After all non-minor edits a pop-up dialog should ask for references.
• like in English Wikipedia, free image editing and uploads [Hungarian Wikipedia has much more restricted fair use policies]
• As anyone can edit under any name they choose, I would disallow anonymous editing.
• Nothing anymore, I feel like I am starting have a good relationship even with the people I had bad relations with.
• I would place more emphasis on teamwork, so that within projects editing could be faster and more efficient. We tried that in the soccer wikiproject, but the initial enthusiasm waned eventually as we ran out of editors.
• I would introduce a very strict system of reconfirming adminis every 2-3 years (see German Wikipedia) and I would require admin applicants to take part in a communications training. Ideally, this requirement should be repeated for every reconfirmation.
• I don't really pay attention to how Wikipedia as a system works
• I don't see the need for important changes
• Instead of smart alecks and rambling, we need actions.
• I don't know how / with what the community's attitude could be changed. Sometimes I lose my patience myself. On some wikis I have seen that, when writing to the talk page, the message is not posted immediately, instead the interface asks you to review it. Sometimes maybe this would work well for us, to cool down in the middle of a debate, instead of immediately saying something offensive to the other person.
• I don't have any great ideas
• Unfortunately I have no substantive answer to that.
• I would like to see more of us speak up more often against bad communication (offensive, hurtful tone, fallacious arguments or even badly phrased proposals).
• During my edits I have problems choosing the right image(s). Most images are copyrighted so we need the author's permission which can be a complicated process. No one is making money from Wikipedia that way (as far as I know), so I would abolish the relevant rule and allow uploading copyrighted content.
• Maybe "categorizing" rules in one or more places, with an easier path to them.
• I would change television channels and other hobbies by editing.
• I would like to fix, expand, create articles about history and rulers.
• Somehow it should be possible to go through an article point by point, where I don't want others to change or expand that point I could lock that, and would only leave the ones editable where it is no problem that others expand it. So, for example, I would leave infoboxes (that is, the introductory section) editable (if there was a setting for that), or the list of characters of a movie, but I would lock e.g. the description of the plot because I know it is good the way it is.
• At some point I ran into a statement on Wikipedia that purchasing expert literature can be subsidized, but I couldn't find out the details. Writing to message boards is not worth the effort, as the people to whom it is adressed ignore it.
• I would change the fixing of automatic addition of references

7. Would you be willing to help people who are just getting acquaintanced with Wikipedia by answering questions every once in a while?

One answer could be given, with predefined (marked with italics) or freeform (marked with quotes) text. All 67 users answered.

answer	count	percent
sure, I'm already doing that	18	26,9%
I can try	18	26,9%
maybe	15	22,4%
I would rather not	11	16,4%
"I have been doing it already, but I would rather not become an official mentor; I think helping new users is important, but not necessarily all new users, and I wouldn't consider the main avenue of my own Wikipedia plans"	1	1,5%
"Once in a while, but I rarely have the patience. I have been thinking about writing an explanatory essay about the importance of notability and sourcing, though, which I would hope to be beneficial to beginners."	1	1,5%
"I don't feel myself experienced enough"	1	1,5%
"I doubt I could help much"	1	1,5%
"We need actions, not empty talk."	1	1,5%
Total	67	100,0%

8. Would you be willing to explain your experiences with the above issues in a short interview?

One answer could be given, with predefined (marked with italics) or freeform (marked with quotes) text. All 67 users answered.

answer	count	percent
I would rather not	36	53,7%
gladly	19	28,4%
"Gladly, but only via email"	1	1,5%
"Yes, but due to distance and time difference email or the talk page would be the appropriate place."	1	1,5%
"I presume you know my opinion well; if you are still curious, fine with me."	1	1,5%
"Maybe."	1	1,5%
"maybe, yes"	1	1,5%
"if I have the time"	1	1,5%
"You already asked me at some wiki-meetup, but I don't remember what I answered, sorry :D"	1	1,5%
"EN" [user's native language is English]	1	1,5%
"depends on my mood"	1	1,5%
"If it needs to be..."	1	1,5%
"I generally work on articles, I only take part in community and organizing work superficially, and I have no world-changing ideas"	1	1,5%
"Women tattle, men act."	1	1,5%
Total	67	100,0%

9. Your age

65 users answered. Percentages refer to those 65 answers,

válaszok	száma	százaléka
at most 17	9	13,8%
18–24	10	15,4%
25–34	9	13,8%
35–54	22	33,8%
55 or more	15	23,1%
Total	65	100,0%

Inactive editors

Out of 817 editors who were inactive at the end of 2019 august (at least 500 edit, but none in the last 90 days) we randomly selected 408 for the survey, and got 51 responses (12.5%).

1. What is your username?

Not published (obviously).

2. Why haven't you been editing Wikipedia for a while?

Multiple choice, got 81 answers from the 51 users. Több válasz is lehetséges volt, és összesen 81 válasz érkezett az 51 kitöltőtől.

answer	count	percent
I don't have time (work, family etc.)	36	70,6%
content conflicts (others deleted or modified my work)	15	29,4%
I found a different hobby	11	21,6%
personal conflicts (editors were unfriendly, someone chased me away etc.)	9	17,6%
not interested anymore	3	5,9%
I already did what I came for	2	3,9%
I miss the old, cohesive community (free-form answer)	1	2,0%
this is just a sock, I am still active (free-form answer)	1	2,0%
True, my last edit was 5 months ago, but I'd like to still consider myself an active editor. (free-form answer)	1	2,0%
health problems (free-form answer)	1	2,0%
I am not a student anymore (free-form answer)	1	2,0%
I switched to Wikinews originally (free-form answer)	1	2,0%
Unfortunately had negavtive experience with an editor who made incorrect article additions in a very subjective, fan/advertisement tone, and it wasn't deleted. (free-form answer)	1	2,0%
I was removed even from the list of authors sometimes... (free-form answer)	1	2,0%
Total	84	164,7%

3. If you could only chose one

what's your most important reason for not editing?

Free-form field, 3 users left it empty. The 48 answers, in our subjective grouping, are:

No time (17):

• My free time became fragmented, so I can't really dig myself into a topic, read up on it, and then formulate it nicely before getting distracted.
• Lack of time mostly. I am not out of circulation, news don't get to me anymore.
• Few time, lot of work
• No time
• No time
• No time
• No time
• Time
• I don't have time
• I do so much else - I would like to edit, I have plans, but no time sadly
• The only one I checked: no time lately. Even for sleep I only get 4-5 hours :)
• I just don't have time. Preferences have shifted.
• Lack of free time
• When I was editing, I was a time millionaire; I am not anymore.
• I don't have time for creating articles. All I have time for is small fixes in the evening.
• I don't really have time
• I have a severe time shortage.

Work, family, health, other occupation (13):

• Besides my job, and other official editorial tasks, I have no energy left to create or improve more articles.
• 1. I started lots of other things, so I would have little time left for Wikipedia. 2. When I would have time, I prefer to spend it in different ways, as my job puts me before a computer for 8 hours a day, so I don't want to sit there in my free time too.
• Family and workplace activities.
• I have temporarily stopped due to a family tragedy I will continue when I can.
• For the last one and half years I have been battling a not too severe, "merely" annoying illness/symptom
• Too busy.
• Large family lifestyle.
• I work in a hospital as a doctor, I don't have time.
• otherwise occupied
• Replaced by another interest, hobby.
• My priorities have changed, I need to focus on my job, I can't buy food from editing Wikipedia :)
• It requires spending too much time before the computer, I had to reduce it due to my work.
• Maybe primarily lack of free time, when I started editing, I wasn't working, then I started working, and since then I only edit when I run into a spelling error, even though I still have "projects" in my head, articles I want to work on, hopefully I get more chances in the short-term future.

Problems with other editors or the Wikipedia community (10):

• The atrocious and stupid style.
• Editing is determined by dumb, nefarious and lying groups who trample wikipedia's own rules underfoot. For example they did not document the museum letter supporting the deletion of a certain article, but use it as an argument for deletion, while repeatedly removing counterarguments, to make the pro-keeping position appear undocumented. These execution squads have not capacity and no intent for a scientifically supported decision, instead they gratify their hatred by deleting and vandalising good articles. This is well illustrated by the state of articles on [topic] which is nothing short of shameful. Wikipedia is, in its current form and at the mercy of this dishonest mob, completely incapable of fulfilling its role. I would only be willing to continue working as an editor if no one would be allowed to edit the lines and articles written by me, at best they should be able to add their own position on another page.
• That the ones buggering you about, and pushing in to be administrators, can barely get one or two articles together, while not being competent at anything. There are also the professional destroyers.
• one editor found some sick enjoyment in changing all my edits and commenting on it multiple times in an atrocious tone.
• alienating, often clearly template-like tone for deletions, lack of due diligence in some cases (at least I felt that sometimes)
• Frequent (in one case continuous) conflicts with some editors
• I miss the old, cohesive community.
• Aggressive vandalism by a certain person and their gang
• I don't want to annoy myself with the low quality of other editors. There are articles I like to edit though, because I don't see any vandalism.
• I have put many hours in a project which at some point was declared not to belong here - and uploaded images get a strict treatment as well.

Other (8):

• Wikipedia has become more and more professional, my knowledge might be too little for improving it.
• Unnecessary fixes which are only done to increase the edit count. Frequent renames, recategorizations.
• I haven't followed the various changes. I am not up to date in editing.
• lack of internet
• I am not in the mood.
• Too much work, not enough people.
• I would need more community support.
• Lack of feedback

4. Please tell us what you considered the greatest problem while contributing to Wikipedia; what would you change if you could?

Free-form text, omitted by 8 users. The 43 answers, in our subjective grouping:

Nothing:

• –
• I haven't encountered any particular problem.
• I haven't found any serious problem.
• no such thing
• No such thing.
• I had no problems.
• I had no significant problems
• I didn't really have any problem
• Nothing
• honestly: I didn't perceive any problem, but my motivation kept decreasing and the environment did not help. (A barnstar is not motivation...).

Wikipedia's internal mechanism (rules, supervision):

• The complicated permission requesting process.
• Ineffective screening of spelling and grammar errors.
• I missed the discussion before creating an article.
• In the debates we have often run in circles, repeating the same discussions.
• We couldn't screen out pseudoscience. (despite only being supported by a negligible fraction of the scientific community, the articles mainly respecred their position)
• Some areas were unnecessarily over-regulated (e.g. photos), and subjective and personal motivations often gained too much ground.
• Having to wait very long, months for [FlaggedRevs] approval.
• In some (few) cases the lack of reaction to bring a started discussion forward.
• I don't necessarily agree with certain articles being declared irrelevant.
• I had no serious problem. What is sometimes an issue is that e.g. only copyrighted images can be found, and although they can be used for nonprofit purposes, we cannot use it on Wikipedia because we allow the content to be reused for any purpose.
• Unnecessary localization of templates, lack of patroller verification
• Patrollers who were for my taste too strict, and (maybe due to being overloaded) inconsistent.
• There was a certain rigidness. For example I asked my friend for some images, and uploaded them under the friend's name. This was immediately objected to, and saying that I have received a verbal permission was no help. I might have been "better off" if I lied and said I made the images.

Behavioral and personal problems:

• Patience with the (primarily new) users who are unfamiliar with the platform
• Stupidity.
• Flamewars, the constant hostilities (although this is the projection of society).
• Lack of good faith from some editors. With 99.999% of editors I never had problems, I have to add.
• Village pump debates which sometimes degraded into rough personal attacks, the forming of cliques.
• The constant pressure towards less experienced editors from uncompromising and unconstructive editors. Only what has been made by the erudite editors can be true and good.
• The nefariousness of editors. It is not the spreading of knowledge that is important for them, but badmouthing the results of Hungarian writing systems, even by lying.
• Vandalism by official representatives of Unicode and ISO.
• I am disappointed, I moved to the countryside and have 2 children
• The behavior/attitude of some admins. Valuing newcomers above reliable editors and some people's tone towards serious editors gives me a bad feeling. Partially it is personal experience, partially it happened to others and I saw it. Around 2008-2009 the community was quite different. Also, the deletion of soccer logos (citing copyrights), that did not happen on other wikis, has irritated me much. Clubs will NOT sue us and everyone knows that. And if they didn't like it they would say so first anyway.
• Certain editors.
• To continue, the professional destroyers, who are Wikipedia's biggest problem, those, who have nothing better to do, than to hang out on Wikipedia, and as soon as a new article goes up, they pounce on it, pull out all the wiki rules in existence like a good bureaucrat, and try to find some excuse. (One reaction, on English Wikipedia, arrived in a record 42 minutes, with the article still being under development, but there was already a template about insufficient references on the top.) You waste your time having to debate these chaps the whole day, it can easily take up four times what was needed to write the article. I would rid Wikipedia of these people first of all. It is one of the reason I don't like editing there anymore. When I get the email notification that someone sent me a message or changed the page, I feel my stomach curdling as I look whether this is a positive or negative reaction. I don't need that, thank you very much.
• Wikipedia's Assume good faith! principle is occasionally ignored.
• the tension between editors, disagreements about the content, discarding less supported options in a vote, edit wars
• There have been a few particularly bad idiots.

Other:

• "Quieter" editors just exist there, they get practically no feedback.
• On Hungarian Wikipedia I have not experienced anything excessive, that could not be solved. I know someone who left the wiki because all their hard work has been ruthlessly deleted.
• Undeterminedness of directions, goals
• I never had a problem. My only trouble is, writing an article is a lot of time, for me at least...I don't have that much free time these days.
• It takes a lot of time (for me at least) to write something substantial.

5. What would you change, if you could?

Free-form text, 33 users entered something. In our subjective grouping:

Don't know / want:

• I don't think it's my job to think about this.
• I can't give an authentic reply to this.

Nothing:

• -
• -
• -
• The thinning out if my editing work has a personal reason, so I can't recommend any changes.
• Basically it is good the way it is. You have to get used to it and be able to adapt.
• No such thing.
• Nothing, this comes with being a community.
• Nothing. The problem is not with the wiki but with people being more and more busy and overloaded.
• Nothing

Rules:

• On "overregulated" editing rules.
• Stricter punishment (ban) for regularly damaging editors and those with atrocious spelling.
• I would create a more active community. Might have happened already.
• Making admin election truly democratic, to stop the same 20-25 people voting in the same 20-25 people with basically circular voting. Precisely defining so-called "notability", because it is a blanket rule that can be abused.
• More reasonable rules, active participation in debates as it can be closed sooner if more people comment.
• not voting about all the good faith, constructive things but immediately accepting them instead
• It would be good to make it easier to publish official photographs without the permission of the photographer. Often it requires a written permission even when the photo is free to use.
• Allowing editing without approval

Technical changes:

• 1. Back then there was no forking tool for splitting apart or translating a large article while keeping the edit history - maybe nowadays it exists. 2. I would turn FlaggedRevisions off. A lot of people might be deterred from editing by not seeing the results instantly. Yes, that includes vandals too. Yes, that includes normal users too.
• bots are needed, but within reason. E.g. if there is a dead link, how long does it take to search for it and fix it? It is easier to leave it like that and check the box that the patroller fixed another article... it might be good for self-justification, but it doesn't improve quality.

Other:

• Naming vandals delegated by official organizations, analyzing their deletions and text changes, noting their biases (e.g. official lobbists - they should indicate what organization they represent), their edits should require admin approval.
• The helper project (mentorship?) was good, it could be expanded by helping the receiving of content from users who don't want or like to use the platform
• Wikipedia has become like a Facebook debate group. And some of these are as if they have just started middle school. Wikipedia is an alliance of inexpert professional bureaucrats who rule it over those who really actively contribute to it by writing articles.
• Editors known by name and title should be responsible for the individual articles or article sections, and others should not be able to change what's written by them.
• I would make editing fully anonymous, ask the other editors to only talk about the articles on their user pages, not about themselves.
• More helpfulness towards editors who clearly do not have any destructive intent.
• I would value the old, useful editors more.
• Some editors should not edit.
• In my own case, I don't know anything. In the case of my acquaintance, I would check admins more strictly.
• I don't know the means of the foundation and whether this is allowed on the wiki, but whatever I could I would put on a market basis. Basically everything other than editing. For example, you should hire a professional PR person to the office with a competitive wage if possible, to popularize the wiki wherever it can be done, organize GLAM projects, competitions (with serious prizes maybe), apply for grants, network etc. etc., maybe give the job to an external contractor. I don't mean this as a criticism of your work, I just mean it should be coordinated by people who don't do it as volunteers but in an accountable manner, and not in their free time but fulltime.
• Popularize editing in schools, among both students and teachers.
• I wrote medical articles back then, if I were in Wikipedia's shoes, if I could I would contact Hungarian universities (e.g. students should edit articles as part of some course or even as a required subject, with the teacher reviewing their work)

6. What would be needed for you to regularly edit Wikipedia again?

Free-form text, 4 users left it empty, one striked it, so we got 46 answers. In our subjective grouping:

Time:

• 48 hours instead of 24 :)
• Basically, more free time.
• Time
• Time
• time :(
• Time :|
• Time, for my private life to get in order
• Time.
• retiring :-)
• more free time
• more free time
• More free time :)
• More free time :)
• More free time
• More time
• More time :)
• A lot of free time :)
• More time, especially for researching topics that have no articles
• A little more time I can use for this + a deep breath. :)
• Currently time, and less senseless conflicts.
• I would have to switch jobs.
• Personally for me, more time. Maybe if I had a different workplace, I could have more time to edit, to write articles...

Inclination, motivation, own decision:

• Inclination and more time
• More time and more inclination
• My own determination
• Truthfully, it is my own decision
• I don't intend to make promises, because the primary reason is schedule and other hobbies. Even if I return to Wikimedia, Wikipedia probably won't be the primary one.
• Lonelier private life, or getting bored of my new hobbies.
• Motivation, but currently I'm finding that elsewhere.

Defeating some technical or financial obstacle:

• my own internet, more time
• More time, a safer financial background.

Simple editing environment (interface, rules):

• Maybe a cleaner editing policy and editing help (which might well exist already without me knowing) that can be learned in a few hours.

Relaxed editing, good community:

• Leaving me to edit in peace. When I make mistakes, as I am human, then fix it or tell me to fix it, without derisive comments and cockiness.
• A community that from time to time invites me to edit or review a page.
• A cohesive, active team in the area where I am editing.
• For my good and thoroughly considered edits to survive. I have a degree in the topic I am editing, I know what I am doing.
• Hard question. A positive turn in the leadership and community.

Nothing, I intend to edit more:

• I plan editing at a later time.
• I plan editing in the future.
• The above. I haven't actually stopped editing, though, I might just be out of ideas for now. I am still open to it in the future.

Nothing, I won't edit more:

• This ship has sailed, sadly. I would only continue if a certain person and their sockpuppets were deleted.
• Nothing, I am finished with Wikipedia, I am mainly active in English Wikipedia and Wikibooks, although I might leave those as well soon because of increasingly being buggered about.
• It won't happen, I won't have that much time and energy anymore.

Other:

• If I started studying again, I would visit the site regularly, and I could not stand only being a reader...
• I don't know...
• Anonymous and unverified editors should not be allowed to edit my articles. Obviously unfair editors need to be acted against and barred from editing. Hungarian wikipedia should have a fair and personally accountable leadership, with authority to decide in enforcing rules, but not in scientific questions; and they should only exercise it in the interest of Wikipedia's most important goal, informing people (that is, serve the goal of growing the information content, not deleting it). My article should be removed from the unscientific category, and those who have put it there should permanently lose their editing rights (because, besides their hatred, they have also revealed that they have no idea what the word science means, nor about the current state of science).

7. Other thoughts, proposals you want to share?

Free-form text, 31 users omitted it, 8 responded "no" or similar, so we got 14 comments from 12 users:

• :)
• Image upload licenses are too restrictive. There are plenty of overzealous chaps there, especially in Commons. I try avoiding it where possible, as I have no desire to get buggered about, especially in English. That tends to work randomly, too. For one article I uploaded multiple images from Facebook, five were accepted, for two I had to ask the author for permission. A lot of sense in that. Pinterest, Instagram, Facebook etc. do not restrict images at all. This is just Wikipedia being overly cautious. The other thing is, in English Wikipedia the surrounding countries' perception of history is too dominant, including the writing of historical Hungarian places and family names. When one corrects these, it gets reverted in a few hours or days and you even get told it wasn't sourced.
• I would encourage everyone to continue the editing work.
• Back then it surprised me a bit that during the closing of [Hungarian] Wikinews fellow editors challenged the currentness of the project, while one of the fundamental principles of the whole Wikimedia content is that when something is missing, and you need it, you won't reference its lack but instead you write it. I don't think Wikinews set out to be serious news media, and due to circumstances (free time vs. paid staff in normal media) it won't ever be.
• There is no overlap between the projects in functionaries and in discussions: village pumps could be integrated, active users of the projects could be allowed to cross-vote (small projects or Hungarian Commons/Data editors in Wikipedia, Wikipedians in small projects less so as then votes would be dominated by people not active there). Patroller and admin roles could extend to all projects. At Wikinews this would have been needed.
• The chapter could keep a specialized lawyer for copyright questions (or maybe ask for charitable help from the bar - doesn't seem too likely though). Or just leave it all to Commons and disallow image uploading completely.
• Deletion policies should be reconsidered.
• There is place so I will put it here: during my last edit I changed my password, then forgot it, so I can't log in, and also disabled messages, so I cannot be reached. Here is my email address: [redacted]
• No, thanks, most of Wikipedia is very fairly maintained.
• Limit foreign agents (even on English pages) in local topics.
• See above.:o)
• maybe I will rebound now :)
• Wikipedia's editor community should not accept editor positions like "I am not an expert on this, but it is an absurdity, so I recommend deleting". Scientific argumentation cannot be replaced by epithets, and a wiki editor should know that. If they are not an expert, they should be more modest and reserved during deleting and judgement-forming.
• Creating wiki pages was a kind of therapy for me. When I had a lot of free time, it gave my days a purpose. I could feel I was doing something useful, important. It filled a void. Both in my life and on wikipedia, since I mostly created new articles that I felt were important, missing.
• I still consider Wikipedia the most timeless web content, so I will continue editing when (soon) I will have more time as a retireee.

8. Would you like to share your experiences with the topics above in a short interview?

Two user gave no answer, so we got 49 answers.

answer	count	percent
I'd rather not	24	47,1%
gladyl	19	37,3%
"I would gladly do but time is the bottleneck for me. Although I think it wouldn't be long so maybe I can fit it in."	1	2,0%
"gladly, although I would rather reply to questions - I don't have anything to add that I could remember"	1	2,0%
"Gladly, but I couldn't substantially help. For years, I have been only reading, not editing."	1	2,0%
"I don't think it is necessary, I'm really only away due to the reasons above, and will return once..."	1	2,0%
"Maybe electronically, in writing."	1	2,0%
"I don't really have anything to add."	1	2,0%
Total	49	96,1%

9. Your age

50 users gave an answer. Percents are relative to those.

answer	count	percent
at most 17	0	0,0%
18–24	3	6,0%
25–34	17	34,0%
35–54	19	38,0%
at least 55	11	22,0%
Total	50	100,0%