Hi Mayo,
thanks for your feedback, comments inline
* I missed (in this case, but also in general in our conversation) that we have present the research promoted by Chapters and other promotors groups of Wikimedia, that even if they are not research teams in the more conventional sense, are developing valuable research. Just now I can think of four research projects developed by chapter groups. I think Meta:Research would have to talk also to them and to be a reference point for them to collaborate on the research they develop.
agreed, although there are also projects listed in the directory that are not about research at all, such as Linkypedia
* I think the resources now are a bit too much focus on English Wikipedia. To expand to other languages is an important part of the current strategic development (as far of the Strategic planning said). In this regard, to introduce in the new restructuring a "tag" or other form to give visibility to literature and resources on other wikipedians other than the English one would be good and in line with this strategic goal and facilitate to know how other wikipedians function. (By the way, I am co-editing a Journal special issue on wikipedia literature from a comparative perspective or from cases which are not the English one).
I don't have the feeling this is the case, but there is no reason why shouldn't include resources focused on non-English Wikipedias in the list and categorize them separately
* I am not sure where this would go, but I think a page dedicated to methodological lessons (not research results or research literature) would be very useful resources. To know which rate expect from a survey according to the results previous surveys rate responses, or to know what method works better for research specific type of editors is like honey to researchers, and a resource which systematize that knowledge would be an incentive to attract participation into Meta: Research. I would be happy to facilitate the systematization of methodological lessons.
I think most methodological discussions currently happen on the lists, but if you want to start adding method-related discussions on Meta, Meta:Research would be the obvious place to do so
* I think beyond these practical and design questions, I think it would be good to reflect a bit conceptually. The research resources hosted at Meta (and other channels) is not visible in itself, it is so much inserted in wikipedia editing identity that it is not perceived by research as a resource of their own as researchers. To build a Meta: research category is a good thing to solve that, but still I think we might want to reinforce the identity of a community around "wikimedia research commons" and transmit the message that you don't need to be or feel to be a wikipedia editor in order to participate and contribute to "wikimedia research commons". I recently wrote an article on international research resources and presented what in my view would be a "wikimedia research commons". The article is quiet long, so here I put the extracts only of this specific matter:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Lilaroja
I think an small campaign presenting "wikimedia resarch commons" to researchers and attract them to it (and not try to attract them to wikipedia in general as an starting point), explaining what it offer them as researcher and how they can contribute to the research commons might faciliatte the engaging of research into a collaborative community around s some short of "wikimedia resarch commons".
that's precisely the goal of this initiative. Whether we achieve this goal or not depends on: (1) how friendly the Meta:Research section will be to researchers who are not editors and (2) the benefits the community will perceive in being part of it. Building an open data repository, setting up a central scholarly reference pool (along the lines of the AcaWiki project currently discussed on the lists) and giving more visibility to one's research via WMF outlets should all provide strong incentives for participation.
* I think even in working progress RCom work, it would be better to work on Wiki. I think it is good that the RCom functioning could be tracked and particularly on referring the Meta: Research category I don't see any controversy or sensible issue for which not to work in this way.
just to clarify – there's nothing private or confidential about this proposal, I just want to get some informal feedback from RCom members before this goes public, so we can present to the community something a bit more structured than my own preliminary thoughts.
Cheers
Dario
--
Dario Taraborelli, PhD
Senior Research Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
http://wikimediafoundation.org
http://nitens.org/taraborelli