Daniel, WSC – thanks for your feedback: I agree there is no reason for the banner to run for 2 weeks if they get their complete 2K sample before then.
The omnibus survey also sounds like an interesting plan, but I suspect many researchers may feel uncomfortable not to have control on the exact design of the survey. On the other hand we definitely need to find ways to avoid redundant recruitment requests. I'll add a specific item on this issue to the agenda of the next RCom meeting.
Dario
On Jun 26, 2011, at 3:46 PM, WereSpielChequers wrote:
I've made some specific comments on the talkpage, but hadn't appreciated that they were planning to run this for two weeks. Perhaps naively I'd assumed the plan was to switch this off once they'd got 2,000 responses.
The more I think about this and the numbers involved, the more I move to the idea that we should be expanding our existing survey into an omnibus survey that carries questions for legitimate researchers like these.
That way the researchers would benefit from a larger more robust dataset and the editors benefit from questions not being duplicated, research not becoming spam and from greater confidence re privacy. The researchers would get more data - perhaps 5,000 individual but anonymised records with common questions such as age band, education level, motive for editing etc, and of course their own question or questions - dress size, operating system, number of times editor has been abducted by UFOs or whatever.
My experience is that if people are persuaded to do a survey they won't be bothered at the length so much as they are by questions they can't answer without looking something up or talking to someone else. But repeated surveys with similar questions are a turnoff.
WSC
On 26 June 2011 23:20, Daniel Mietchen daniel.mietchen@googlemail.com wrote:
Dear all,
I had a look at the documents and find their approach reasonable. What I am not convinced about is the necessity of running the notice for two weeks - I would expect that getting 2000 completed questionnaires (even for 25min) out of the whole population of all Wikimedians should take less time.
Anyway, I volunteer to take the survey and to report back to RCom as to how fit I see the survey design for the intended research purpose.
As for the implications of using CentralNotice this time, we could think of limiting the number and length of slots available for such purposes for a certain period of time.
Cheers,
Daniel
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Dario Taraborelli dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org wrote:
All, I received an urgent request by a team of researchers who have been waiting for several months for an approval to run a survey of Wikipedia editors [1]. The team includes researchers based at Harvard and Sciences Po. One RCom member (Mayo) is also involved in this project. The project aims to recruit participants by running banners for logged-in users on the English Wikipedia and the team previously sought community consensus for this recruitment method via a discussion on the Admin Noticeboard [2]. The planning of this project predates the creation of the Research Committee and the community discussion was not explicitly mentioned in the project page, as a result most people on RCom (myself included) were entirely unaware of it. Over the last weeks we have successfully been able to channel new recruitment requests to Meta, where RCom and community members can discuss proposed recruitment methods for various studies. I told Jérôme and Mayo from the Sciences Po/Harvard team that their project should be no exception and I would like to solicit RCom members to comment on this proposal over the next days. The request is sensitive not only for its tight timeline (there was apparently a commitment to get the banner campaign started today and the team has already allocated engineers to this project next week), but also because it would be the first time ever that we use the CentralNotice for research projects, and this is a decision that may have implications for future studies. I'd like to have your thoughts on this proposal via its discussion page by Monday night (Pacific time) at the latest. I am particularly interested in hearing on this from community members (such as Ziko, WereSpielChequers, Milos, Steven). Because of her direct involvement in the project, Mayo won't be participating in the discussion. I attach below a letter that Jérôme addressed to the Research Committee to document the history of this project. I look forward to hearing from you. Best Dario [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Dynamics_of_Online_Interactions_and_... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive... Begin forwarded message:
From: Jérôme HERGUEUX jerome.hergueux@sciences-po.org Date: June 22, 2011 6:28:19 PM PDT To: dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org Cc: Mayo.Fuster@eui.eu Subject: Follow up Mayo chat Reply-To: Jérôme HERGUEUX jerome.hergueux@sciences-po.org x-mailer: ContactOffice Mail
Dear Dario,
Thank you for helping us out with this!
Please find attached:
- A document explaining rapidly the history of our research project and
where we stand now. 2. The original code of the banner we prepared to advertize the study (normally the folks coding the banners at the Foundation should be aware of it).
I've linked to our Early research protocol discussion on AN in the link section of our Talk Page on Meta: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Dynamics_of_Online_Interactions... I'll try to add some relevant info to our research project template very soon.
Best,
Jérôme (User:SalimJah).
Tous les courriers électroniques émis depuis la messagerie de Sciences Po doivent respecter des conditions d'usages. Pour les consulter rendez-vous sur http://www.ressources-numeriques.sciences-po.fr/confidentialite_courriel.htm
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