Actually, if we wanted to do a quick telephone omnibus insert across N=400 (so that margin of error is +/- 5 points at the 95% confidence level), we could probably get a price of $600 or so, if we limited the survey to one key question, such as:

On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is extremely unfavorable and 10 is extremely favorable, how would you rate the reputation of the following two entities:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DK Ref

ROTATE ORDER SHOWN a/b
a. (SHOW ALL) Wikipedia
b. (ROTATE FOUR ENTITIES, SUCH THAT N=100 FOR EACH)
.... Google
.... Encyclopedia Britannica
.... Apple Computer
.... AIG Insurance

If we got 12 people willing to pitch in $50 each, we could run this study, and I'm sure it would get some press coverage. The cost includes the omnibus battery of about 14 different demographic questions about each respondent -- so we could analyze key breaks between men/women, young/old, low/high income, etc.

If you're willing to donate $50, e-mail me. I'll come back here and update the crowd if I get at least six e-mails. Send note to thekohser (at) gmail (dot) com.

(MODS: Could you maybe split this off into a new thread?)

Apologies for the delayed split, I just read this.

Given the WMF is trying to counter the wave of ridicule that's been building up for wikipedia, doing some objective measurement of its reputation looks like a reasonable idea. Repeated at intervals, even. I'll put 50 in that hat.

Minor semantic quibble; that should be "Apple Inc."

i'd contribute 5-10 dollars if there were enough contributors and as long as the results were duel licensed under the GFDl and CC-by-sa

Notes:

I had written "Apple Computer", because I try to think in terms of what respondents will most clearly understand and recognize. It's just an example, anyway. We probably need to come to consensus about the entire survey.

Another off-WR pledge said they would not be willing to post about this on the WP Village Pump, because it would be seen as "another" attempt to discredit Wikipedia. I assure all those who witness this, I want the survey to be as objective and even-handed as possible. I am truly interested in a REAL measure of public opinion, not a "rigged" survey that produces the results we're hoping for. That's Moeller's specialty. Sorry, couldn't resist that one.

Wow, this is getting more traction than I ever thought.

I say, though, to keep finances from becoming a headache, and so that the "sponsor" list doesn't get unwieldy, I want to put my foot down and say no contributions less than $50 will be accepted. Donors may request to remain anonymous, too.

I'm thinking that this may belong on Akahele.org, so that the Internet Review Corporation is legally responsible for the money, thereby providing a legal entity for people to process in a court of law, should they become dissatisfied with the contractual commitment to use their money as promised. I really don't want this to be "another" Greg Kohs stunt. I think it would be good for Wikipedia itself to learn about public sentiment. Maybe someone who's on friendlier terms with Sue Gardner and Erik Moeller could e-mail them to see if there's any possibility of a collaborative effort. It would be nice to ask 4 or 5 questions, rather than just the one, but that would take a good couple thousand dollars.

Maybe some news outlet like The Guardian or The Register or the Associated Press would want to pitch in, too.

Basically, those who pitch in money get access to the raw data for, let's say, a 6-week embargo period, before the summary results are released to the public. That's how we'd get the bigger players to buy in.

Idea -- we could even make the research vendor bidding process an "open" competition. I'll bet some telephone omnibus supplier might come in REALLY cheap, just to get the subsequent PR buzz for their firm.

Take a look at fundable.com... I've never used it for anything myself, but I've heard it's quite good. I'd imagine it would be better than trying to keep track of donations yourself.

Some may find this objectionable about Fundable.com:

Completed collections (and only completed collections) have a 10% fee taken from their totals.

I'm ok with it, conceptually (being libertarianish), but I can see where others might not be. However 10% is a bit steep. I bet someone else could do it for less and still make money. Hmmm....

I've sent out an e-mail to someone I know at the Pew Research Center. I'm going to see if they would be interested in taking the reins on this. I'd rather see its findings considered reputable, rather than receiving the usual "Oh, Kohs is a known banned troll" rebuttal. If Pew doesn't want it, then I've still got a couple of other leads to test.

If nobody else with an unbiased reputation wants it, then I'll return to the idea of a "grass roots" research project.

Greg

UPDATE:

My contact at Pew finally got back to me -- he was on a vacation in North Carolina. As it turns out, Pew already conducts a tracking of media "credibility". He's going to see if there's interest in adding Wikipedia and Facebook to 2010's survey -- they only run the longitudinal study every even-numbered year. He's also going to see if the Pew Internet group wishes to tackle this more urgently than those who run the People & the Press study.

I also have a prestigious friend on the research vendor side who found this concept for a study to be potentially useful as a PR piece for their firm.

I think we'll get traction on this, without having to go forward alone as a "grass roots" effort.

Well done, Greg. Fingers crossed.