Berkman Center Poll Options

[mydog]

What do people think about the new survey that's being put on by the Berkman Center and SciencesPo? Some people aren't very happy that it's being given a big banner: See the discussion at ANI.

I took the survey, acted like a selfish pig, and got $30. You guys should try it. I'm not sure if you actually need a Wikipedia account - I think you just need to set up a PayPal account so they can give you money (or you can be generous and give it to the foundation - I'm sure that will be a popular option with this crowd).

[Eppur si muove]

What do people think about the new survey that's being put on by the Berkman Center and SciencesPo? Some people aren't very happy that it's being given a big banner: See the discussion at ANI.

I took the survey, acted like a selfish pig, and got $30. You guys should try it. I'm not sure if you actually need a Wikipedia account - I think you just need to set up a PayPal account so they can give you money (or you can be generous and give it to the foundation - I'm sure that will be a popular option with this crowd).

It's people like you who cost me money. Grr. Although I have suspicions that soem of the stuff may be automatically generated. When it first went up they might be able to easilly pair off responses but the longer the thing goes on the less likely there are to be other people doing the experiment when you are.

But this isthe first time I've managed to make money out of visiting Wikipedia.

[carbuncle]

I didn't participate in the "research", but based on the comments about it I gather that the subject of the research was "How much money can we spend in needlessly replicating existing research on game theory?".

Far more interesting is the fact that the WMF allowed and facilitated banners being displayed that linked to a website not controlled by the WMF, for the benefit of an outside group. As one respected admin and trustee of Wikimedia UK put it:

If it looks like an advert, it is an advert. The banner says "Please help" under logos and by-lines for two organizations that are not Wikimedia. With this precedent there is no constraint on the partners the WMF may choose to allow free advertising for next. With prospective future partners for sponsorship of research and collaboration under discussion such as Google or telecoms companies, the question is are we happy that our users will log in and see Wikipedia carrying a large Google logo at the top of the page? Regardless of the goodwill and charitable motivation behind this banner, it shows a clear lack of judgement for how to implement the principle that Wikimedia projects will always stay free of advertising. I discussed this banner last night on IRC with RCOM and DEV representatives who pointed me to the WMF, who have pointed me back to RCOM; I do not appreciate being given an unsubtle run-around when my complaint was as simple as requesting that an apparent advert is removed from Wikipedia due to the potential for negative long term press impact it may have. --Fæ (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Although this was meant to be shown to a small number of users, it was actually shown to every user. Even users who set their preferences to disable the fundraising banners? Yes, even those. No ads on WP? I think that barrier has just been breached.

[radek]

I didn't participate in the "research", but based on the comments about it I gather that the subject of the research was "How much money can we spend in needlessly replicating existing research on game theory?"

.

That's pretty much it, with the spin that this is "among internet users".

And yeah the two threads should be merged. In anticipation of that i'm gonna address something from the other thread - at the end of the survey you get a choice to donate your winnings not just to WMF but also Red Cross. Which actually changes the game-tree considerably, especially if you believe that you're playing against other Wikipedians, and hence, by playing 'selfishly' are taking money away from them and giving it to the Red Cross.

[Michaeldsuarez]

Some people aren't very happy that it's being given a big banner.

Wikipedians don't want banners for anything. They even complain about the donation banner, even though donations are what is preventing ads from appearing on the site in the first place. The SciencesPo experiment even gave Wikipedians the option to earn money and the option to donate those earnings to Wikimedia or the Red Cross.

Wikipedians hate anything that distracts from their all-important wiki accomplishments, so they even hate innocent banners as well.

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez: Fri 9th December 2011, 1:53pm

[Malleus]

Wikipedians hate anything that distracts from their all-important wiki accomplishments, so they even hate innocent banners as well.

You paint with too broad a brush. I was perfectly happy to be given the opportunity to earn a few dollars from Wikipedia for once.

[jd turk]

What do people think about the new survey that's being put on by the Berkman Center and SciencesPo? Some people aren't very happy that it's being given a big banner: See the discussion at ANI.

I took the survey, acted like a selfish pig, and got $30. You guys should try it. I'm not sure if you actually need a Wikipedia account - I think you just need to set up a PayPal account so they can give you money (or you can be generous and give it to the foundation - I'm sure that will be a popular option with this crowd).

I'm not seeing any banner ads for it, are they taken down already?

[Eppur si muove]

It's been disabled for now.

[thekohser]

It's been disabled for now.

F*ck it all! I just logged into a 23-month-old sleeper account, just to collect my monies!

I wonder... if their intention was to distribute the solicitation to only a small percentage of users, but they accidentally issued it to all users, do you think they received magnitudes more respondents than desired, and now don't have the budget to actually pay all of the participants?

That would be hilarious!

If anyone receives an apologetic e-mail from the Berkman Center, explaining how an "unanticipated mistake" led to the collection of too many surveys, and there is no budget to pay you, let's hear about it. I think I know a class-action lawyer in Massachusetts who would be happy to bring a case against Harvard!

[mydog]

It's been disabled for now.

F*ck it all! I just logged into a 23-month-old sleeper account, just to collect my monies!

I wonder... if their intention was to distribute the solicitation to only a small percentage of users, but they accidentally issued it to all users, do you think they received magnitudes more respondents than desired, and now don't have the budget to actually pay all of the participants?

That would be hilarious!

If anyone receives an apologetic e-mail from the Berkman Center, explaining how an "unanticipated mistake" led to the collection of too many surveys, and there is no budget to pay you, let's hear about it. I think I know a class-action lawyer in Massachusetts who would be happy to bring a case against Harvard!

There was a statement on the village pump that for a short time before it was taken down, clicking on the banner gave a message that the target number had been reached, and they weren't taking any more. So it sounds like Berkman decided ahead of time how many surveys they were going to do (I think I read that the target was about 2000 on a different page), and then cut it off so they wouldn't have to pay to many people. Still, 2000 people earning an average of say $25 bucks is a good chunk of change.

[SB_Johnny]

Still, 2000 people earning an average of say $25 bucks is a good chunk of change.

What this world really needs is more people who have more money than brains.

[timbo]

Shitty precedent, hopefully the backlash will bit WMF in the ass.

Poor decision to allow that.


t

[Eppur si muove]

Shitty precedent, hopefully the backlash will bit WMF in the ass.

What backlash? It seems that the community has voted with its feet and helped the researchers reach their target number of people. A few drama queens have complained at the boards but that should not be confused with the views of the majority of editors.