On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 02:00, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: May we redefine it as something like "recruiting informants for research projects"? My first parsing of "subjects" is "topics" and I don't think that I am alone in that.

I agree on the preference for participants! Luca On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 1:28 PM, John Riedl <riedl(a)cs.umn.edu> wrote:

I think there is an important difference depending on whether people know they are taking part in a study. To my mind a participant is someone who has agreed to participate in a study. A data subject is someone who may not be aware of the research, but is one of the subjects being researched. Consent obviously varies between the two, as therefore does what is reasonable to include in the research, and whether it is reasonable to pseudonymise or anonymise the results. For example Wikipedians are aware that their editing is public on the Internet. But calculating league tables from that editing and even analysing those patterns by time of day or day of the week is not necessarily something that people think they've agreed to, even if by the letter of the relevant disclaimers arguably they have. So as a result of longstanding Wikipedia consensus editors can choose to have their total number of edits anonymised at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edi… - though they can't opt out of having their total included in that research. However looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ADMINSTATS where statistics are collected on admin actions; It does not have such an opt out mechanism. I suspect this is because the assumption is that when you take an action as an administrator you are open for more scrutiny than when you take an action as an editor. But knowing what days and what time of day editors edit is far more contentious, and if you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/nominate#Remi… at least one of those tools operates with an opt in that can be withdrawn. I would suggest that we restrict participant to people who have chosen to participate, for example by completing a questionnaire. I don't like the term data subject but for want of a better one it probably is worth using that where people have not chosen to participate in a study, but usually one could be specific and refer to editors, admins, RFA candidates or whatever group one is studying. Regards WereSpielChequers On 24 October 2010 01:52, Fuster, Mayo <Mayo.Fuster(a)eui.eu> wrote:

Hi there, I think it'll be great to have a glossary of terms or something like that as Mayo and others suggest - esp. if that makes things easier (and alleviates the risks of alienating participants/wikipedians, etc). But, it's often the case that terminology also depends on the kind of methodology one intends to use/or uses - let along different epistemological traditions and disciplines. 'Subjects' is a term used a lot in the sciences, but it is also commonly used in surveys. Participants is more commonly used in qualitative research and in ethnography...Informants again is not something that is not unusual in political science, international relations, etc. It's often the case that researchers refer to interviewees, stakeholder interviews, participant interviews, or even the even a generic participant/subject recruitment.... Dealing with publicly available data, anonymously is another issue, and I don't think it's being discussed widely in circles of internet research and ethics. Consent from list-serves, community managers, admin etc is also required in this case anyway. Giota Dr Panagiota Alevizou OLnet Researcher The Open University, Walton Hall Website: http://iet.open.ac.uk/people/p.alevizou and http://olnet.org/ ________________________________________ From: Fuster, Mayo [Mayo.Fuster(a)EUI.eu] Sent: 24 October 2010 16:31 To: The Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee mailing list Subject: [RCom-l] RS: RS: [Request for input] Developing a research policy Hola! Thanks WereSpielChequers. To me it makes sense WereSpielChequers distintion, however, again, I think it would be needed to add a specification in the document 8or a link to a glossary where to explain the terminology), otherwise other readers might not understand it. Cheers! Mayo «·´`·.(*·.¸(`·.¸ ¸.·´)¸.·*).·´`·» «·´¨*·¸¸« Mayo Fuster Morell ».¸.·*¨`·» «·´`·.(¸.·´(¸.·* *·.¸)`·.¸).·´`·» Research Digital Commons Governance: http://www.onlinecreation.info Ph.D European University Institute Research collaborator. Institute of Govern and Public Policies. Autonomous University of Barcelona. Visiting researcher. School of information. University of California, Berkeley. Phone Italy: 0039-3312805010 or 0039-0558409982 Phone Spanish State: 0034-648877748 E-mail: mayo.fuster(a)eui.eu Skype: mayoneti Postal address: EUI - Badia Fiesolana Via dei Roccettini 9, I-50014 San Domenico di Fiesole (FI) - Italy -----Missatge original----- De: rcom-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org en nom de WereSpielChequers Enviat el: dg. 24/10/2010 16:36 Per a: The Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee mailing list Tema: Re: [RCom-l] RS: [Request for input] Developing a research policy I think there is an important difference depending on whether people know they are taking part in a study. To my mind a participant is someone who has agreed to participate in a study. A data subject is someone who may not be aware of the research, but is one of the subjects being researched. Consent obviously varies between the two, as therefore does what is reasonable to include in the research, and whether it is reasonable to pseudonymise or anonymise the results. For example Wikipedians are aware that their editing is public on the Internet. But calculating league tables from that editing and even analysing those patterns by time of day or day of the week is not necessarily something that people think they've agreed to, even if by the letter of the relevant disclaimers arguably they have. So as a result of longstanding Wikipedia consensus editors can choose to have their total number of edits anonymised at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edi… - though they can't opt out of having their total included in that research. However looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ADMINSTATS where statistics are collected on admin actions; It does not have such an opt out mechanism. I suspect this is because the assumption is that when you take an action as an administrator you are open for more scrutiny than when you take an action as an editor. But knowing what days and what time of day editors edit is far more contentious, and if you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/nominate#Remi… at least one of those tools operates with an opt in that can be withdrawn. I would suggest that we restrict participant to people who have chosen to participate, for example by completing a questionnaire. I don't like the term data subject but for want of a better one it probably is worth using that where people have not chosen to participate in a study, but usually one could be specific and refer to editors, admins, RFA candidates or whatever group one is studying. Regards WereSpielChequers On 24 October 2010 01:52, Fuster, Mayo <Mayo.Fuster(a)eui.eu> wrote: _______________________________________________ RCom-l mailing list RCom-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l -- The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302).