according to the report, the methodology is described thus:

“The survey was conducted online on all Wikipedia language sites in the last week of April. Using the help of the community, the survey was translated into 21 languages beyond English, including: Chinese (traditional, Hong Kong), Chinese (simplified), Serbian, Russian, Portuguese, Polish, Dutch, Macedonian, Italian, Hungarian, Croatian, Hebrew, French, Finnish, Spanish, German, Danish, Welsh, Catalan, Bulgarian and Arabic. The survey was conducted in native languages for which translations were available, and for the remainder of Wikipedia language projects the survey was available in English.

The survey was limited to only registered Wikipedia users, and each user saw a link to the survey only once. This ensured that all users (editors) had an equal probability of participating in the survey, and the survey was not biased towards those editors who edit more frequently. We had to set a cookie within the Central Notice banner for the survey to guarantee that it would only show up once per user. The foundation used an open source survey tool, Lime Survey, to field the survey, and the survey was hosted by the foundation. Survey participants also had the option of saving the survey and taking it later.

The survey ran for seven days on the website, with a total of 31,699 views of the banner invitation. By the end of the week, we had collected a total of 8,193 responses to the survey. After data cleaning, which involved removing instances of vandalism, deleting unfinished surveys, etc. we had a total of 5,073 responses.”

Hope this answers your query in your first paragraph.

You might also investigate the unyielding attachment to the status quo. I’ve left Wikipedia twice; both resignations were a result of attitude from other editors, but the second was also influenced by Wikipedians’ stringent refusals to change. I suggested positive changes — these were supported by some other editors — but my suggestions were ultimately overridden simply because of Wikipedia’s contrary precedent.

I understand that Wikipedia has sort of an alternative policy on governance and decision making, but I think this is something that should be reconsidered. I have strong professional and educational credentials in the area where I suggested change, but a group of editors who have zero relevant credentials overthrew my proposition.

And, on a side note, I really hate the “ignore all rules” rule. That is the epitome of a mixed message, and mixed messages inspire chaos in any sort of governing body.

That’s a little bit of a vent session mixed with constructive criticism, but I appreciate that you’re trying to improve Wikipedia.