Hola! Thanks WereSpielChequers. To me it makes sense WereSpielChequers distintion, however, again, I think it would be needed to add a specification in the document 8or a link to a glossary where to explain the terminology), otherwise other readers might not understand it. Cheers! Mayo
>I would suggest that we restrict participant to people who have chosen
>to participate, for example by completing a questionnaire. I don't
>like the term data subject but for want of a better one it probably is
>worth using that where people have not chosen to participate in a
>study, but usually one could be specific and refer to editors, admins,
>RFA candidates or whatever group one is studying.
«·´`·.(*·.¸(`·.¸ ¸.·´)¸.·*).·´`·»
«·´¨*·¸¸« Mayo Fuster Morell ».¸.·*¨`·»
«·´`·.(¸.·´(¸.·* *·.¸)`·.¸).·´`·»
Research Digital Commons Governance: http://www.onlinecreation.info
Ph.D European University Institute
Research collaborator. Institute of Govern and Public Policies. Autonomous University of Barcelona.
Visiting researcher. School of information. University of California, Berkeley.
Phone Italy: 0039-3312805010 or 0039-0558409982
Phone Spanish State: 0034-648877748
E-mail: mayo.fuster@eui.eu
Skype: mayoneti
Postal address: EUI - Badia Fiesolana
Via dei Roccettini 9, I-50014 San Domenico di Fiesole (FI) - Italy
-----Missatge original-----
De: rcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org en nom de WereSpielChequers
Enviat el: dg. 24/10/2010 16:36
Per a: The Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee mailing list
Tema: Re: [RCom-l] RS: [Request for input] Developing a research policy
I think there is an important difference depending on whether people
know they are taking part in a study.
To my mind a participant is someone who has agreed to participate in a study.
A data subject is someone who may not be aware of the research, but is
one of the subjects being researched.
Consent obviously varies between the two, as therefore does what is
reasonable to include in the research, and whether it is reasonable to
pseudonymise or anonymise the results.
For example Wikipedians are aware that their editing is public on the
Internet. But calculating league tables from that editing and even
analysing those patterns by time of day or day of the week is not
necessarily something that people think they've agreed to, even if by
the letter of the relevant disclaimers arguably they have.
So as a result of longstanding Wikipedia consensus editors can choose
to have their total number of edits anonymised at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits
- though they can't opt out of having their total included in that
research.
However looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ADMINSTATS
where statistics are collected on admin actions; It does not have such
an opt out mechanism. I suspect this is because the assumption is that
when you take an action as an administrator you are open for more
scrutiny than when you take an action as an editor.
But knowing what days and what time of day editors edit is far more
contentious, and if you look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/nominate#Reminders
at least one of those tools operates with an opt in that can be
withdrawn.
I would suggest that we restrict participant to people who have chosen
to participate, for example by completing a questionnaire. I don't
like the term data subject but for want of a better one it probably is
worth using that where people have not chosen to participate in a
study, but usually one could be specific and refer to editors, admins,
RFA candidates or whatever group one is studying.
Regards
WereSpielChequers
On 24 October 2010 01:52, Fuster, Mayo <Mayo.Fuster@eui.eu> wrote:
> Hello!
>
> In my own Ph.D. research, I refer to my "informants" as participants of the
> research for epistemological reasons. So I prefer participants.
> Nevertheless, informant is not only restricted to FBI :-), it is the
> "hegemonic" concept used in sociology or political science. We have to
> balance if we prefer participants because it is how better characterise it
> in our view, or if we priories a concept that will be more easily
> recognised. Perhaps a solution is to put in the first occasion: participant
> or informant and from that, to put only participant.
>
> Cheers! Mayo
>
> «·´`·.(*·.¸(`·.¸ ¸.·´)¸.·*).·´`·»
> «·´¨*·¸¸« Mayo Fuster Morell ».¸.·*¨`·»
> «·´`·.(¸.·´(¸.·* *·.¸)`·.¸).·´`·»
>
> Research Digital Commons Governance: http://www.onlinecreation.info
>
> Ph.D European University Institute
> Research collaborator. Institute of Govern and Public Policies. Autonomous
> University of Barcelona.
> Visiting researcher. School of information. University of California,
> Berkeley.
>
> Phone Italy: 0039-3312805010 or 0039-0558409982
> Phone Spanish State: 0034-648877748
> E-mail: mayo.fuster@eui.eu
> Skype: mayoneti
> Postal address: EUI - Badia Fiesolana
> Via dei Roccettini 9, I-50014 San Domenico di Fiesole (FI) - Italy
>
>
>
>
> -----Missatge original-----
> De: rcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org en nom de Luca de Alfaro
> Enviat el: dt. 19/10/2010 22:48
> Per a: riedl@cs.umn.edu; The Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee mailing
> list
> Tema: Re: [RCom-l] [Request for input] Developing a research policy
>
> I agree on the preference for participants!
> Luca
>
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 1:28 PM, John Riedl <riedl@cs.umn.edu> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> >
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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