On Wednesday 03 June 2009, Aaron Halfaker wrote:
This proposal isn't really about the merits of any
particular study. I
only offered a link to the discussions about my most recent user study
because I felt it was a good example of push-back from Wikipedia editors.
I think identifying the particular scenarios (i.e., push-back) would be a good thing
within the proposal, and how the proposed solution might provide remedy. Some quick
thoughts:
1. This is a challenging problem. (My experience soliciting participation for interviews
on WP -- left on a Project page -- was that I got no responses! :) Leaving lots of
messages on people's talk pages might have generated more attention, but obviously not
all of it good. (I actually didn't make much use of interviews, and got the few I did
through personal/f2f contacts rather than online solicitation.)
2. I would not call it a Wikipedia IRB.
3. I think it was reasonable for Wikipedians to object to the many dozens of messages left
on User pages.
4. Katherine's messages were fairly good relative to what a IRB notice/consent form
would look like, but I don't see any indication of IRB. The NICE notice could be much
more specific. An example of an IRB approved solicitation I used can be seen here:
http://reagle.org/joseph/2006/disp/9-consent-form.html
5. I expect that: (a) some ornery folks might always complain, even if there was consensus
on a Village Research Pump, (b) the Foundation would not in any way want to indemnify the
work being done by someone else.
That said, anything that helps researchers develop appropriate instruments, that furthers
information within the community, and that is in keeping with policy and community
sensibilities is a good thing.