This is medical information in the English Wikipedia so English Wikipedia policies apply. The rules of Medical sourcing are stricter than the default on Wikipedia, this is due to the extra risk involved in medical matters, as well as the ongoing problems with the alternative health lobby.That some transgressions have not yet been detected does not justify a transgression as part of a research project.
RegardsJonathanHoi,There is plenty of medical information that is thoroughly debunked that is finding its way into Wikidata on the strength of "it is included in another data source and that makes it ok". So when you talk about potential harm, when is it ok to include damaging information based on it blindly copying it from another "trusted" source and when do you consider it medical information that may do harm?Thanks,GerardMOn 12 August 2016 at 10:38, Stuart A. Yeates <syeates@gmail.com> wrote:It's worth noting that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talonid appears (in so far as I can grasp what it's about) to at least verge on being medical information.Medical information is subject to specific laws and an exceedingly brave place to start a research project like this. In terms of potential harm to research subjects (=readers of wikipedia) it pretty much hits the jackpot.cheersstuart--
...let us be heard from red core to black skyOn Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Kerry Raymond <kerry.raymond@gmail.com> wrote:And to its policiesWith particular reference to"Intervention includes both physical procedures by which data are gathered (for example, venipuncture) and manipulations of the participant or the participant’s environment that are performed for research purposes."Putting that articles into Wikipedia manipulated the environment of Wikipedia readers and editors.Now I am not saying that huge harm was done, you would have to ask those who subsequently edited the articles (a known group) and those who read the articles (an unknown group) to find out if they are unhappy about what took place.What I am saying is that if consideration had been given to the question who is impacted by this research plan, the maybe the research plan would have been redesigned to prevent the problem, and we would not have to have this conversation.KerrySent from my iPadI draw attention to Penn State's IRB websiteI am asking you to share the documentation of the ethical clearance or exemption your institution would have required, not what people did or didn't say to you as part of conference reviewing or at conferences. Ethical clearance is a process that should have been undertaken before your research commenced, not when you are writing the paper or attending a conference. Are you saying you undertook the research without any consideration of the ethics? Does your university have no guidelines about this?The Wikipedia guidelines about content analysis are not particularly relevant here. You were not analysing existing Wikipedia articles but injecting new articles of dubious quality into Wikipedia.Nor is the data about individuals my point. If you wasted people's time reacting to the articles created, you did them harm. If people derived incorrect information from reading your articles, you did them harm. None of those people were aware they were part of your research experiment; that means they did not have informed consent in relation to choosing to participate in your experiment. You could have generated the articles and sought the opinions of readers and editors of Wikipedia on those articles without placing them into Wikipedia itself. That way would have enabled informed consent; others not wishing to take part would not be mislead into doing so.
Sent from my iPadI thought I should add this too as I missed it in the previous email.talks about the Content Analysis (seeing number of references removed, or content removed)-- which we did (with the few articles) and that is what we followed as it says "generally considered exempt from such requirements and does not require an IRB approval.".My advisor should be able to add more thoughts on it (I have requested him to reply on this thread).Thanks,SiddOn Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 9:36 PM, siddhartha banerjee <sidd2006@gmail.com> wrote:As I have mentioned earlier, this is not the first work on article generation. This is one of the first work we know: https://people.csail.mit.edu/csauper/pubs/sauper-sm-th esis.pdf All these did not mention anything about human subjects as finally no personal information is used (about the person, who is deleting, etc). Nor did any reviewers/attendees in the conferences in this area question on this aspect.Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Sign is relevant here as it talks about our previous work.post/2015-01-28/Recent_researc h if "record of someone doing something" is relevant from human subjects point of view, any data on Wikipedia can be used to find the editors (if not the real person). For example:I have met several researchers who work using data (revisions from Wikipedia) and nothin on IRB ever came up.Nevertheless, as I said, if there are concrete rules, I think it would help the research community as a whole to know what can or cannot be done and also ask for permissions.I appreciate the suggestions that Stuart mentioned in a previous email abut experimenting on would be deleted or articles lacking sources. But, as of now we are not planning anything and if we do, we would for sure get in touch with Denny (who had a video chat with me before starting this thread) and would try to know the best ways of doing it.I have asked my PhD advisor (other author on the paper) to check this thread and he will be able to give more inputs as I am not very qualified to comment on these aspects.Thanks,Sidd_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki- research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki- research-l