Hello,
Some points from me:
* A huge amount of surveys is not only annoying to some or many Wikipedians, it also means that people are less likely to take part the next survey. It is good for research to have not too many surveys, although I am not sure whether we already have too many surveys.
* Some people will always complain about spam, whether via the sitenotice or the talk pages.
* Wikipedians may accept a survey that is very much related to Wikipedia. The problem with the Berkman/SciencesPo thing was that it hardly had to do with Wikipedia and it was perceived as something coming from "outside".
* The layout of the banner seems to me of less importance, although it was for many people.
So the key question is how much related must be a study to be eligible for the banner.
Kind regards Ziko
* I think that the way the banner looked was less important
2011/12/14 Fuster, Mayo Mayo.Fuster@eui.eu:
Hello!
> Asking about research recruitment on the next editor survey seems like a good idea.
I think this is a good idea. We can organize a discussion in next Wikimania to get feedback, too. I think on the base of that and analyzing the lessons from last experiences, we might be better able to come up with a more optimal recruitment set of options. Then to be suggested to the community to assure it fits with community view and that it does not have an incentive frame (in terms of costs and benefits) for researchers that makes better for researchers the option of going "wild" collecting data than the option of having a collaborative approach to the community view.
Alternatively we could see it as part of my alternative option of targeted research - unlike the Berkman survey Sarah did her targetting in such a way that she wasn't blocked as >spam.....
Let me do two clarifications on the Berkman case on the base of previous comments:
- Berkman/Science Po did not ask to use the central notice as a recruitment method on the first place. It was after consulting Admins noticeboard that this solution was suggested by them on the base that it was less spamming than the method of personal e-mails in talk pages (March 2010 AN discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard). The central notice was taking off because an admin of meta misunderstood
- The central notice was taking off for a misunderstanding of a meta Admin - he though we were doing 100% exposure and on that base that we had not respect the request to only make it visible to a limited number of editors as we had agreed, bad that was not the case (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Dynamics_of_Online_Interactions...
and http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-December/070758.html)
Cheers! Mayo
«·´`·.(*·.¸(`·.¸ ¸.·´)¸.·*).·´`·» «·´¨*·¸¸« Mayo Fuster Morell ».¸.·*¨`·» «·´`·.(¸.·´(¸.·* *·.¸)`·.¸).·´`·»
Research Digital Commons Governance: http://www.onlinecreation.info
Fellow Berkman center for Internet and Society. Harvard University. Postdoctoral Researcher. Institute of Govern and Public Policies. Autonomous University of Barcelona. Visiting scholar. Internet Interdisciplinary Institute. Open University of Catalonia (UOC). Member Research Committee. Wikimedia Foundation Ph.D European University Institute Visiting researcher (2008). School of information. University of California, Berkeley.
E-mail: mayo.fuster@eui.eu E-mail: mayofm@cyber.law.harvard.edu Twitter/Identica: Lilaroja Skype: mayoneti Phone United States: 001 - 8576548231 Phone Spanish State: 0034-648877748
Berkman Center 23 Everett Street, 2nd Floor Cambridge, MA 02138 +1 (617) 495-7547 (Phone) +1 (617) 495-7641 (Fax)
Personal Postal Address USA: The Acetarium http://www.acetarium.com/ 265 Elm Street - 4 Somerville, MA, USA 02144 ________________________________________ From: rcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [rcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Halfaker [aaron.halfaker@gmail.com] Sent: 14 December 2011 17:48 To: The Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee mailing list Subject: Re: [RCom-l] The tragedy of the Commons
Mayo, you bring up a very good point. I too feel that it is the minority of editors who are at all upset with research recruitment on Wikipedia. Asking about research recruitment on the next editor survey seems like a good idea.
I might also offer that the real problem here was the method of recruitment, not recruitment itself. This is something I hope to bring up in our meeting. I think that the study would have gone much more smoothly if we had a mechanism to request the participation of individual editors that did not appear in such a prominent place like the central notice banner, but instead was more like a personal request to an individual.
As we consider research recruitment, I want to make sure that the conversation is not framed around the supposition that recruitment itself is the problem. Instead, I think we are looking at a problem related to the method of recruitment and ensuring that method bother editors as little as possible.
-Aaron
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Fuster, Mayo <Mayo.Fuster@eui.eumailto:Mayo.Fuster@eui.eu> wrote: Hello!
I hope you are fine.
Dario I already moved in order that Goran has access to the survey.
WSC your comments and suggestions seems to strongly assume that there is a consensus on the need to "limiting the amount of surveying that Wikimedians are subjected to". Which is the base for this statement?. Do we have any strong indicator to stand that there is too much request or that this is not the case?. At least on the base of Berkman episode, I would not arrive to that conclusion. Certainly, it does not represent my interpretation: I don't think in the community there is a predominance of a rejection attitude. To me developing research is a way to contribute and beneficial to Wikipedia - but again, beyond each impression on community position and each own personal position on this. we don't have a strong indicator or elaborate analysis of the approach of the community toward research.
In something I think we need to reflect on is that in this stage of things - and from Berkman and Sarah experience- researchers can extract the conclusion that it is better to not get in contact with Rcom and it is better not to consult the community on your recruitment method - you would save much more time and effort . There is something that it is not working, if this is the case. In this regard, I would not think in terms of how to control and limit the amount of research developed (also because it would be very very difficult) but instead value and incentive that it is done in a way in concordance with how Wikipedians view about how should be done (in terms of recruitment process, in terms of open data, in terms of assuring the results arrive to the community, in terms of addressing questions relevant for wikimedia goals, etc) and that is design in a way that could be as much beneficial for the community as possible.
Cheers! Mayo
«·´`·.(*·.¸(`·.¸ ¸.·´)¸.·*).·´`·» «·´¨*·¸¸« Mayo Fuster Morell ».¸.·*¨`·» «·´`·.(¸.·´(¸.·* *·.¸)`·.¸).·´`·»
Research Digital Commons Governance: http://www.onlinecreation.info
Fellow Berkman center for Internet and Society. Harvard University. Postdoctoral Researcher. Institute of Govern and Public Policies. Autonomous University of Barcelona. Visiting scholar. Internet Interdisciplinary Institute. Open University of Catalonia (UOC). Member Research Committee. Wikimedia Foundation Ph.D European University Institute Visiting researcher (2008). School of information. University of California, Berkeley.
E-mail: mayo.fuster@eui.eumailto:mayo.fuster@eui.eu E-mail: mayofm@cyber.law.harvard.edumailto:mayofm@cyber.law.harvard.edu Twitter/Identica: Lilaroja Skype: mayoneti Phone United States: 001 - 8576548231tel:8576548231 Phone Spanish State: 0034-648877748
Berkman Center 23 Everett Street, 2nd Floor Cambridge, MA 02138 +1 (617) 495-7547tel:%2B1%20%28617%29%20495-7547 (Phone) +1 (617) 495-7641tel:%2B1%20%28617%29%20495-7641 (Fax)
Personal Postal Address USA: The Acetarium http://www.acetarium.com/ 265 Elm Street - 4 Somerville, MA, USA 02144 ________________________________________ From: rcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:rcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [rcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:rcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of WereSpielChequers [werespielchequers@gmail.commailto:werespielchequers@gmail.com] Sent: 14 December 2011 16:09 To: The Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee mailing list Subject: Re: [RCom-l] The tragedy of the Commons
Hi Yaroslav,
While I didn't see the actual survey I'm aware that it was run. I suspect that the community would have little problem differentiating between a Wikimedian surveying a targetted group of Wikimedians on currently contentious matters internal to the community as opposed to an outside researcher surveying a large proportion of the community and perhaps asking questions that don't seem very relevant. Sarah's survey could have been done as part of an Omnibus, and I'm sure if we had an Omnibus survey it would be an opportunity to do a followup.
Alternatively we could see it as part of my alternative option of targeted research - unlike the Berkman survey Sarah did her targetting in such a way that she wasn't blocked as spam.....
WSC
On 14 December 2011 14:58, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.rumailto:putevod@mccme.ru<mailto:putevod@mccme.rumailto:putevod@mccme.ru>> wrote: On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:46:48 +0000, WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers@gmail.commailto:werespielchequers@gmail.com<mailto:werespielchequers@gmail.commailto:werespielchequers@gmail.com>> wrote:
The controversy over Berkman is not in my view primarily a communication issue and it certainly isn't about the legitimacy of that survey. I
believe
that the community trusts RCom as a regulator of research to know
whether
research is legitimate or not.
A big part of the controversy is over advertising, and I'm not convinced that you can design a banner ad for a third party research survey that isn't seen by some as advertising for that third party. An Omnibus
survey
could be a Wikimedia one and therefore I would argue an internal ad
rather
than a third party one. Perhaps that isn't our only option, and maybe
there
are alternative ways to solve that, one way would be to change policy to allow advertising for bona fide research. But that would be a difficult
one
to sell to the community, particularly on the heels of a fundraising
drive
where "Wikipedia doesn't take ads" was a core message.
The other aspect of being a regulator of research is the issue of how we control the amount of research requests made to the community. To my
mind
that is fundamental to what we should be doing, and it is a major reason for my being on this committee. But this is almost an opposite thought process to "promoting research".
There are two proposals that I've made as to how we do this, one would
be
to contact everyone once a year with an Omnibus survey, the other rather more complex one is to throttle back research surveying by volume and
limit
each campaign to a small subset of the community. The two approaches can
be
hybridised by rewarding institutions that collaborate by allowing them
to
use our systems to approach a larger proportion of editors. One reason
why
I was opposed to the Berkman survey was that it was the worst of both worlds - one single research project going to all or almost all of our
most
surveyed community.
I'm not convinced that the community currently has confidence in RCom to regulate the amount of research requests that wikimedians and especially English language Wikipedians are exposed to. Nor am I convinced that everyone on this committee regards that as our responsibility. To my
mind
this gives us a couple of possibilities, one would be to try and agree a mechanism for limiting the amount of surveying that Wikimedians are subjected to, and then sell that to the community via a request for comment. One option in any such request for comment could be for the community to agree not to put any constraints on researchers, but I'd be surprised if that option got consensus however strongly it was promoted
by
some members of RCom. The other possibility would be to clarify that the remit of this committee is to promote legitimate research by vetting proposals and otherwise communicating with the community; and to inform
the
community that if it wants to put constraints on legitimate researchers contacting wikimedians via the site then it needs a an additional
process
other than RCom.
WereSpielChequers
Thanks for your ideas, which I find very much reasonable. I have an immediate objection though. Not all research goes through RCom, and we have no means to stop any single person or organization from sending a hundred messages to talk pages. For instance, recently it was a survey with the purpose of understanding the role of the female editors, or whatever the purpose was (It is difficult for me to find a link immediately, but it can be done, I guess it was run by Sarah Stierch and colleagues). They did not bother to go to RCom, and I could imagine what the response were if we demanded that for instance this survey would become part of Omnibus. Since it looks almost inevitable that we have to go and ask the community opinions at some stage, we probably also need to ask this question: Should every research requiring subject recruitment be regulated (reviewed) by RCom in advance, or may be the community (first robably of en.wp) just does not want any regulation of the subject recruitment.
Cheers Yaroslav
RCom-l mailing list RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
RCom-l mailing list RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
RCom-l mailing list RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l