Wikipedia Awareness Survey

Results of the 1st Survey

Survey period: October 24 - November 15, 2023 (23 days)

Number of respondents: 350
Ratio of male to female respondents: male 31.8%, female 66.5%, other 1.7
Respondent age ratio: 17.6% were 22 years old or younger; 11.3% were between 23
and 30 years old,
31 to 50 years old 37.4%, 51 to 68 years old 32.3%, 69 years old and older 1.4

1. "Do you ever read Wikipedia?" 99.1% (347 respondents) answered that they read
Wikipedia to varying degrees.

More than 80% of the respondents knew that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia," and a small number
of respondents (about 10% each) "did not know" and "have never cared whether it is an
encyclopedia. This result may be due to the fact that the survey was conducted at the site of
Wikipedia's outreach activities, which may have resulted in a higher level of awareness than the
general average.
3. 96% knew that "Wikipedia is a content that anyone can edit," more than those who knew it
was an encyclopedia.
This number may also be rated higher than the general average for the same reason
as in Q2, but there is no doubt that many people know that anyone can edit.

4. "Would you like to edit Wikipedia?" The majority of respondents (more than 51%)
answered that they would like to try editing Wikipedia if it would be useful for their
work, hobbies, or other aspects of their lives.
In addition, about 24% of the respondents each indicated that they would like to edit the data,
and about 24% did not want to edit the data at all, indicating that there are a certain number
of people who know that they can edit the data but do not think they would like to do so
themselves.
5. "How often do you edit Wikipedia?" 66.6% of the respondents answered, "I have never edited
Wikipedia," but about 10% of them answered, "I have tried to press the edit button. However, about
10% of them answered, "I have tried to press the edit button just to see if it works. However,
about 10% of them also answered, "I have tried to press the edit button to see if it works.
About one in three of those who have edited Wikipedia do so when they have had the
opportunity to do so, such as "when I read an article and find an error," "when I find an existing article lacking,"
and "when I edit together at events (but not individually).

6. "If you had the opportunity to participate in a Wikipedia editing event (editathon), would you
like to?" 41.3% of the respondents answered "I would like to participate if it were in my
neighborhood," followed by 30.9% who answered "I would like to participate if the location
and content were attractive," and 21.5% who answered "I would like to participate if the event
was attractive.
Many people who have never edited Wikipedia before (66.6% in the previous section) would like
to participate in editing activities if they have the chance, as indicated by the following responses: "I would
like to participate if it were online" and 16.3% of respondents said they would like to
participate if it were in a training session at work or in a class at school.
Only 14% of respondents did not want to participate.
7. In the "Image of Wikipedia," answered frankly in the free response section, an overwhelming
majority of respondents indicated that Wikipedia is "useful," especially in helping them get an
overview of something they are unfamiliar with.
On the other hand, opinions were divided on reliability. Most people thought that Wikipedia
information was unreliable, and those who had never edited Wikipedia tended to think that
Wikipedia was unreliable. We surmise that expanding understanding of Wikipedia's editing policies
and guidelines may raise expectations of Wikipedia and motivate people to participate in this
community.
We would like to continue to cooperate with various people in various situations and create
opportunities for people who are not currently familiar with Wikipedia to become familiar with this
community through editing experiences.

Below are the responses received to this question. (Numbers) summarize multiple responses.

Image of the contents

Useful and dependable (8)

Convenience (29)
Easy, casual search site (9)
(1) I always use it for work. (2)
I personally use Wikidata a lot.
Familiar tools
Part of life
A source of information when you can't look it up on the public pages.
It has information on maniacs.
Strong in subculture items.
(1) Adults are sometimes in trouble. (2)
When I want to research a person or event, I first use a wiki.
It's speedy. Convenient to know information quickly. (4)
...they can tell you anything, they can tell you almost everything, they can tell you everything (11)
(7) The information is diverse and plentiful. (8)
... detailed (2).
There are some mistakes, but I use it to see the details.
I don't know much about it.
Affordable for basic, overview and listings (17)
It is useful as an entry point for a quick search, a good starting point, a hint for research, and a
step forward to what you want to know. (19)
It gives an overview of the case. It can be used as a clue for research (because it shows the
source, official HP URL, date of the incident, etc.).
I'm not sure if it's a good idea to make it official, but it's good for a quick search.
It functions as a veritable encyclopedia, from the hard items to the subcultures.
It's very convenient. But keep in mind that not everything is.
I use it as a reference for my research because many of the articles are easy to read and summarized.
It helps to get the big picture. Interesting to follow the links.
(1) I always look for information when I do research, but I also check other information sources. (2)
Where to find references (5)
It can be used as a reference but not as a citation. (3)
The first site that comes up and is looked at first when researching (16)
The second or third site that comes up as a search candidate when you do research.
Frequently used to search for global information sources.
You can see it right away and get some information there and then. (4)
I will look at it first for now, but I am concerned about quality and reliability. (7)
Can be effectively utilized, but not fully utilized because it is not publicly available.
This information is not official and cannot be used for professional documents.
The information is not always accurate, but it can be obtained in a fairly comprehensive manner.
Some of the information is substantial enough to be enjoyed as reading material.
A study of a person who is currently active.
Open and valid information limits with a certain degree of control over the source
It is such an interesting and useful tool, let's use it to its fullest!
All-purpose
Commons (2)
Collective knowledge, DIY space for knowledge (7)
Information is gathered widely, but I have the impression that there are some uncertainties in the
collective knowledge.
Still incomplete. Insufficient. (3)
The possibilities are endless.
I think it will be more wonderful if we understand it and use it well.
I rely on it. Although some information needs to be corrected, it has become indispensable as
collective knowledge.
... must be (2)
The knowledge base of people around the world (potential)
It is also convenient to look up things that are not readily available.
Mixture of useful and useless content (2)
There are shades of information, information that can be used and information that cannot be used.
There is a mixture of information. There is unevenness. (12)
The content of some items is substantial and interesting to read. I get absorbed in reading.
However, I am disappointed when Wikipedia is cited in student reports.
Fun and interesting readings (6)
Literature. Wikipedia 3 I often read pages that are considered literature!
I have read many of them and found them very interesting for a hobbyist.
Support for understanding all things
A site to find hints on how to get to the information you need.
The explanation is often written in a way that is relatively appropriate for explaining information
to someone who is completely unfamiliar with the subject matter. It is used when one cannot
think of an appropriate expression for what one wants to explain. (2)
The information is not always correct and cannot be relied upon, but it can be used as a reference
or to get an overview of the field. (2)
I'm not sure how much I can tell you, but I can tell you what I can tell you.
(2) Those that provide a minimum of knowledge, but require consulting other sources to get it right.(3)
The online encyclopedia is available to everyone. However, I feel that there is still room for
improvement and a lack of Japanese-language content.
It is not appropriate as a primary source, but it gives you an idea of what you are looking for.
Most useful as a reference when inaccurate verification is not a problem.
...detailed itemized (true or false)...
Just enough to pass the time.
The accuracy of the data varies, but we feel that it serves to write down the momentary
immediacy of the situation, while also including solid items such as the Sankebetsu brown bear
incident and the Hakkouda snow marching disaster.
Database
A treasure trove of knowledge
Free
I'm so excited!
The Internet encyclopedia that everyone today knows.
Excellent
Clever!
Open

Image of Reliability

Not very reliable, not very accurate (15)

It's reliable, but it's not understood.
(1) The report is generally reliable, although there are some errors in the descriptions from time to time.
(2)
(4) The item may be correct in some details, but you cannot rely on what is written. (5)
Neutral explanation. If there are several positions, we try to include them as much as possible.
Sometimes there is a bias. Sometimes there is a slight deviation, so you can't be too careful. (2)
(5) The company should be cautious when referring to reports, papers, etc. (6)
I don't allow students to use it. If you use it, only link to it. It would be helpful to have the disclaimer clearly written.
It is useful to use it as a reference sometimes and sometimes not. (2)
Is it really right?
It is convenient, but I am not sure if the information is correct. Sometimes it is wrong. (11)
It's useful, but you have to look at the source! I have an image that fact-checking is important.
(2)
I use it because it is very useful, but I don't think all the information is accurate, so I just use it as a
reference.
・Images used by many people, images that can be avoided citation in papers, etc.
It is not good to take it for granted, but the image is suitable for a little research.
It is useful when doing research for hobbies, etc., but it is difficult to know if the information is
true or not because anyone can edit it.
(1) Those that can serve as a trigger for information, but cannot serve as a basis for it. (2)
It is useful, but should not be used in a report because the source is not well known.
There is a lot of information, but I don't know how much I can trust it.... Cannot be used for
college reports.
...I guess I shouldn't trust everything? I think so.
I use it for research (b
Idon't
ecaus know how accurate the information is), but I have an image that it is
not very trustworthy.
Encyclopedia with occasional mistakes and lies (2)
The information is detailed, but it may not be reliable. Do not believe too much. (4)
The book contains a wide range of information, both correct and incorrect. (2)
Useful for broad and shallow knowledge, but not reliable.
... Image with false information
As a user, the social recognition of an item does not necessarily correspond to the accuracy of the article.
A mixture of lies and truth, similar to Twitter.
I can't help but feel that the mistakes are a little more frequent than on other sites.
The low threshold for use is attractive, but some items have an image of unreliability.
Because anyone can edit, if Wikipedia is used as a source, the credibility of the book, etc., will be
questioned.
Pages that have been accessed by a large number of people, have been edited by experts, or have
adequate sources are trustworthy, but not otherwise. (However, in such cases, many pages other
than wikipedia are also unreliable.
I think the site is useful enough with information on citations and where to find the data. I believe
there is still information that is not.
I am careful when using some of the content because the basis for some of it is unclear.
I have seen papers overseas that say it is somewhat reliable, and it looks good for beginning
students. In Japan, I have an image that some errors can be found.
I think this is the first page that many people try to access when they want to research
something. Therefore, if wrong information is written, it will be written in various places, and
as a result, the information will spread.
I think there is a danger of that happening.
I have more credibility than before. I check the sources when I use them. In some fields, there
are too many descriptions and I sometimes end up not reading them. I feel that a certain
degree of brevity is needed.
Lately, it's been better for content.
. there are many reliable articles these days.
90% confidence level
Generally reliable
The image is always accurate information.
Convenient, fair, and truthful.
Wikipedia alone is sufficient to know the information you want to know. However, since the
source of the information is often not listed, we consider the reliability of the information to
be about 70%.
The encyclopedia that should not be trusted. If it's a touch part, I still think it's okay to look at it.
I enjoy quizzes, but Wikipedia is not reliable enough to use to back up my question making, and if I
do use it, it tends to be a source of quotes, etc. (Sorry.)
Before, the image was "anyone can edit = not necessarily correct". However, these days the
Internet has become a place where people can ask, "What is 00? I personally looked it up! The
result was not clear! Click on the ad!" I often see suspicious sites like this at the top of the
search results, and I rather think that Wikipedia is safer just because there are no suspicious ads, and it is
the first page I look at when I search the Internet. I usually look up "who is this celebrity..." while
watching TV, so I don't have any particular expectations about accuracy. There are also games and
other activities using Wikipedia, so rather than an encyclopedia, I have a strong image of it as
"collective knowledge," like Yahoo!

Teaching 👉Image on site

The university considers them to be "less credible" and not to be reference materials.
I often use it because I think it's good to get an overview, even though my university professors
tell me I'm not supposed to quote them. When I was in junior high school, I was addicted to the
game of following links in order to kill time (my parents were angry at me because I only looked at
pages of cases).
The University has been very verbal about not copying and pasting wikis.
I am told not to use this image too often in research and study.
I tell my students that it is good to use when doing research to get the big picture, but be sure to
back it up. However, I think it is a very useful compilation of information that is not available elsewhere.
It is convenient but not recommended for elementary school students because of the risks involved
when researching and learning.
Young people are in trouble because they believe what they read.

Image about editing

It is fun as an event organizer and participant, but sometimes it is difficult to reach a consensus. However, it is
sometimes difficult to reach a consensus. I cannot guarantee that I will be taken care of after the event.
However, it is very beneficial, and I would like to use it and participate in it even if it is only a
small part of my efforts.
Difficult to write (2)
The source is important.
As a creator, it is more difficult to correct inaccurate items or add references than to create new items or make
additions.
We have such a convenient means of disseminating information to the public and preserving it for
posterity, so let's keep using it to the fullest.
Editing requires courage.
There are times when I would like to try editing, but I don't have the time or I don't want to get
in trouble for touching it.
I think it is a meaningful activity because I have been a frequent customer. I also think it must be
difficult to maintain the site, so I would like to cooperate. However, I don't have any knowledge
about it, and I feel bad if I write something wrong and have to rewrite it, so I can't take the first
step.
I'm interested in editing Wikipedia articles, but the notation and local rules are just too much
trouble.
The editing war is scary.
Everyone can participate in editing. Ability to read and organize materials is also required.

Image about Wikipedia Community

A place for all kinds of people

Expandable web pages
Easy Social Contribution
You are doing a great job!
Thanks to all the strangers who edit. It is very helpful to the authority.
I am very grateful for your help!
Very helpful site!
I am looking forward to seeing you again.
I think it is an epoch-making mechanism that caused a paradigm shift in human civilization along
with the Internet.
The Second Age of Enlightenment was realized.
A good system that is built on the dedicated work of volunteers.
Intellectual volunteer work that is grand and never-ending
...Rough when it comes to flames.
...where the pages of people who have been flamed on the Internet are vandalized.
A neighborhood you can count on.
... from time to time, we ask for donations.
Wikipedian You are knowledgeable, dynamic, and wonderful!
I am a little disappointed because there are cases of pranks, etc.
The "war zone" where very scary people are warring with each other in a coquettish way,
defending their own territory or fighting for territory.
I have an image that scary people are doing this. The way they talk to each other seems harsh.
Free encyclopedia written by someone in the know.
Expediency Gathering
The image that seems to be created by a maniac.
Chaotic home world
A gathering place for people who want to write about "the scope of their hobbies.
I feel like I'm stuck in a closed world.
battlefield
A place where all kinds of information is mixed together. A place where the passion, good
intentions, curiosity, self-expression, and self-satisfaction of the person who edits the book
emanate.
I am very interested, but I wonder if Wikipedians have a bit of this and that with each other.... I
wonder if there are invisible rules, and I sometimes feel uneasy.
I think that knowing the features and structure of Wikipedia will make a difference in how we
use it. Since I deal with students on a daily basis, I think I need to communicate such things to them.
Before I learned about the Wikipedia Town initiative, I honestly did not trust it much because
anyone could edit. Learning about the responsibility of editing and the careful editing attitude of the
Wikipedians I met at Wikipedia Town has greatly increased my sense of trust. At the same time, I
learned the fear of casually dabbling in the editing process.
I have been making monthly donations by automatic debit. Please continue to illuminate the
world with correct information and guidance without being defeated by public opinion or
pressure.
I felt like it was something I was just looking at until it was featured in 👉The Place of Books. I was
surprised to see it being utilized for teaching 👉. I would like to experience it if I have a chance to
participate. I had not had the image of it being something that everyone creates together, so I
think PR is important.
Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Please keep up the good work.
I always look forward to reading your articles. Keep up the good work as the original source of the
Uncyclopedia.
Please.
Utility bibliography (encyclopedia-like, cataloging and sharing tasks) Very useful. I don't
believe everything because I can't confirm if it's a lie or not. Knowledge media made of
compassion.
The Big Sea
There is a strong sense of insecurity in a sense in the library. Why don't you tell them that there are
firm rules?
A living encyclopedia
A place to disseminate local information
It is a space for learning that is open and free to all, but also a space where one can learn the
difficulties of keeping it that way.
It's what we all make of it. Good intentions.
It's amazing! Human beings.