I'm a big fan of "participants". Subjects sounds passive and "operated on" -- which is not a good description of most Wikipedians!
John
P.S. One of our most memorable moments in researching MovieLens was when we launched a new A/B study and our participants figured out what we were doing by comparing notes on our bulletin boards. One of them wrote:
"Once again, thanks for the site. I react in this way, also in part, because probably your widget counters are also gauging this, and I wanted to be an honest little white rat! See: Charly & Of Mice and Men"
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Parul Vora pvora@wikimedia.org wrote:
"subjects" is definitely typical, but in my experience and conversations (mostly at this years wikisym and wikimania) wikipedians feel more comfortable with "participants" and i try to use it where it doesn't confuse/dilute.
On 10/19/10 1:08 PM, Luca de Alfaro wrote:
No, no! "Informants" are the kind that needs FBI protection! :) "subjects" is the usual words, "human guinea-pigs" would be less ambiguous, but... :) Luca
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 02:00, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
2010/10/18 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
subject-matter recruitment
OK, this is definitely the last time I made this typo. I mean recruiting subjects for research projects. :-)
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.
RCom-l mailing list RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
RCom-l mailing list RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
RCom-l mailing list RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l