I'm comfortable with a meeting next week, but I think that the community and our research partners will want to hear something in the meantime. There would also be a benefit if we could hold some on wiki discussions as to the Omnibus survey or any other option.

Clearly one of our options would be to run an RFC to seek consent of the EN wiki community for us to resume Berkman and run similar things in the future. But even if we promised some sort of vanilla advert for it I doubt we would get consensus or anything close.

We could probably get consensus for an opt in research system so that those who wanted to could subscribe to some sort of research mailing list of questionnaires. But I don't think that opt in would give us the volume that researchers are likely to want and I fear we'd have skews.

If anyone can think of an alternative option I would suggest creating a draft such as I have at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Omnibus_Survey so that we and the community can consider it.

Another way to defuse current tension would be for Rcomm to invite a couple of the people who have been arguing against the Berkman survey to join us in our meeting next week.

Regards

WSC

On 12 December 2011 17:52, Dario Taraborelli dtaraborelli@wikimedia.orgwrote:

Hi WSC,

thanks for starting this, I agree we need to have a serious assessment of what happened with the Berkman incident and discuss alternative options (if any) for the future. I suggest that we hold an extraordinary RCom meeting some time next week to discuss these measures since we have other SR requests on hold.

If nobody objects I am going to start a doodle to find a date that suits most of us (cc:ing Dana). It'd be great if those among you heavily invested in SR discussions/reviews could make it.

Dario

On Dec 12, 2011, at 6:50 AM, WereSpielChequers wrote:

Dear All,

After the rather hostile response on the English language wikipedia to the Berkman survey I would like to revive my proposal from five months ago for an annual Omnibus survey. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Omnibus_Survey

I appreciate that this would put some constraints on the researchers and would actually cost the Foundation a bit of money. But unless someone else can come up with an alternative way of fairly throttling research surveys to the point where the community can accept them, I would suggest that this is the only viable option on the table other than a simple blanket ban on third party research surveys.

Regards

WereSpielChequers _______________________________________________ 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

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 13:50:24 -0500, Diederik van Liere dvanliere@gmail.com wrote:

Dear WSC,

I think we need to be very precise about what the Berkman controversy is about. My understanding is that the use of banners with logo's on

central

notice during the fundraiser and the kickback of donations is at the

heart

of the controversy. It is not about the legitimacy of the research institutes, nor is it about surveys as a research methodology, or the actual research questions. As such, I think that we need to discus how

to

to promote research studies but not debate the merits of Wikipedia

research

itself.

I think right now it is mostly about the lack of communication, and this is what we need to discuss as well. The main objections have been summarized at two pages on English Wikipedia,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Central_Notices

as well as on the Meta proposal page

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Dynamics_of_Online_Interactions_and_...

Cheers Yaroslav

I find very useful Dario's distinction and agree with the procedural he suggests, 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 Dario Taraborelli [dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org] Sent: 12 December 2011 21:08 To: The Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee mailing list Subject: Re: [RCom-l] The tragedy of the Commons

My feeling is that we shouldn't be conflating the two issues, as this would be confusing for the community:

1) review of Berkman banner and implementation of changes discussed on the list http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-December/070765.html

2) discussion of future approach towards SR, Omnibus survey etc

(1) needs to take place this week, I have a conference call (date/time still tbc) with the researchers and some community members, if any of you is willing to help with this please let me know off-list and I'll add you to the list of attendees. I don't feel there's a need to host an actual RCom meeting to review the proposed changes (which seem fairly uncontroversial and will be discussed on wiki). I would rather keep this opportunity to discuss (2) and the broader implications of the Berkman incident for the future.

Dario

On Dec 12, 2011, at 11:52 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 13:50:24 -0500, Diederik van Liere dvanliere@gmail.com wrote:

...

Dear WSC,

I think we need to be very precise about what the Berkman controversy is about. My understanding is that the use of banners with logo's on

central

...

notice during the fundraiser and the kickback of donations is at the

heart

...

of the controversy. It is not about the legitimacy of the research institutes, nor is it about surveys as a research methodology, or the actual research questions. As such, I think that we need to discus how

to

...

to promote research studies but not debate the merits of Wikipedia

research

...

itself.

I think right now it is mostly about the lack of communication, and this is what we need to discuss as well. The main objections have been summarized at two pages on English Wikipedia,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Central_Notices

as well as on the Meta proposal page

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Dynamics_of_Online_Interactions_and_...

Cheers Yaroslav

---

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

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.

Hi,

I don't feel comfortable discussing a research project without being able to take a close look at the study itself.

Mayo, could you please provide an access to your questionnaires/experiments - whatever methodology was used - only after I take a look at the study itself I will be able to join the discussion.

Thank you.

Best, Goran

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Dario Taraborelli < dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org> wrote:

Here's a link for a doodle poll, please let me know your availability as soon as possible so we can finalize a date for next week. I am planning to close this poll by *Saturday 9am PST*.

http://www.doodle.com/vb5w8ntrftmyp4w3

Thanks Dario

On Dec 12, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Fuster, Mayo wrote:

I find very useful Dario's distinction and agree with the procedural he suggests, 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 Dario Taraborelli [ dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org] Sent: 12 December 2011 21:08 To: The Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee mailing list Subject: Re: [RCom-l] The tragedy of the Commons

My feeling is that we shouldn't be conflating the two issues, as this would be confusing for the community:

1. review of Berkman banner and implementation of changes discussed on the

list http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-December/070765.html

2. discussion of future approach towards SR, Omnibus survey etc

(1) needs to take place this week, I have a conference call (date/time still tbc) with the researchers and some community members, if any of you is willing to help with this please let me know off-list and I'll add you to the list of attendees. I don't feel there's a need to host an actual RCom meeting to review the proposed changes (which seem fairly uncontroversial and will be discussed on wiki). I would rather keep this opportunity to discuss (2) and the broader implications of the Berkman incident for the future.

Dario

On Dec 12, 2011, at 11:52 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 13:50:24 -0500, Diederik van Liere

dvanliere@gmail.com wrote:

Dear WSC,

I think we need to be very precise about what the Berkman controversy is

about. My understanding is that the use of banners with logo's on

central

notice during the fundraiser and the kickback of donations is at the

heart

of the controversy. It is not about the legitimacy of the research

institutes, nor is it about surveys as a research methodology, or the

actual research questions. As such, I think that we need to discus how

to

to promote research studies but not debate the merits of Wikipedia

research

itself.

I think right now it is mostly about the lack of communication, and this

is what we need to discuss as well. The main objections have been

summarized at two pages on English Wikipedia,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Central_Notices

as well as on the Meta proposal page

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Dynamics_of_Online_Interactions_and_...

Cheers

Yaroslav

---

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

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

---

RCom-l mailing list RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l

ok just to clarify, I will be meeting this Thursday with a number of people (including non RCom members) to work on the actual changes for the Berkman banner, I don't expect RCom members to be involved unless they wish so.

The purpose of the RCom meeting next week is not to review these changes but to do a post-mortem of the Berkman incident and discuss best practices for subject recruitment requests in general.

Dario

On Dec 13, 2011, at 9:24 AM, c.note.lilly wrote:

Dario,

Is this just for those interested in the discussion about the study? Not the entire RCom? or you still would like to have all of RCom, just not call this an official RCom mtg since there will be outsiders (those against the survey?)

Cheryl *sorry, crazy end of the semester, working on catching up.

On 12/12/11 4:10 PM, Dario Taraborelli wrote:

...

Here's a link for a doodle poll, please let me know your availability as soon as possible so we can finalize a date for next week. I am planning to close this poll by Saturday 9am PST.

http://www.doodle.com/vb5w8ntrftmyp4w3

Thanks Dario

On Dec 12, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Fuster, Mayo wrote:

...

I find very useful Dario's distinction and agree with the procedural he suggests, 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 Dario Taraborelli [dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org] Sent: 12 December 2011 21:08 To: The Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee mailing list Subject: Re: [RCom-l] The tragedy of the Commons

My feeling is that we shouldn't be conflating the two issues, as this would be confusing for the community:

1. review of Berkman banner and implementation of changes discussed on the list

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-December/070765.html

2. discussion of future approach towards SR, Omnibus survey etc

(1) needs to take place this week, I have a conference call (date/time still tbc) with the researchers and some community members, if any of you is willing to help with this please let me know off-list and I'll add you to the list of attendees. I don't feel there's a need to host an actual RCom meeting to review the proposed changes (which seem fairly uncontroversial and will be discussed on wiki). I would rather keep this opportunity to discuss (2) and the broader implications of the Berkman incident for the future.

Dario

On Dec 12, 2011, at 11:52 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:

...

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 13:50:24 -0500, Diederik van Liere dvanliere@gmail.com wrote:

...

Dear WSC,

I think we need to be very precise about what the Berkman controversy is about. My understanding is that the use of banners with logo's on

central

...

notice during the fundraiser and the kickback of donations is at the

heart

...

of the controversy. It is not about the legitimacy of the research institutes, nor is it about surveys as a research methodology, or the actual research questions. As such, I think that we need to discus how

to

...

to promote research studies but not debate the merits of Wikipedia

research

...

itself.

I think right now it is mostly about the lack of communication, and this is what we need to discuss as well. The main objections have been summarized at two pages on English Wikipedia,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Central_Notices

as well as on the Meta proposal page

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Dynamics_of_Online_Interactions_and_...

Cheers Yaroslav

---

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

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

---

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

Dear Goran,

It is not the intention of this RCOM meeting to discuss the study itself, the intention is to discuss lessons to be drawn from announcing large scale studies, in particular with in relationship to timing (fundraiser), method of announcement (central notice) and whether we should accept donations in return. Best, Diederik

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Goran Milovanovic < goran.s.milovanovic@gmail.com> wrote:

Any chances we are getting a link to the study? I find it completely out of line to discuss a study - or anything in relation to it - without ever being able to see the study itself.

Best,

Goran

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Dario Taraborelli < dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

ok just to clarify, I will be meeting this Thursday with a number of people (including non RCom members) to work on the actual changes for the Berkman banner, I don't expect RCom members to be involved unless they wish so.

The purpose of the RCom meeting next week is not to review these changes but to do a post-mortem of the Berkman incident and discuss best practices for subject recruitment requests in general.

Dario

On Dec 13, 2011, at 9:24 AM, c.note.lilly wrote:

Dario,

Is this just for those interested in the discussion about the study? Not the entire RCom? or you still would like to have all of RCom, just not call this an official RCom mtg since there will be outsiders (those against the survey?)

Cheryl *sorry, crazy end of the semester, working on catching up.

On 12/12/11 4:10 PM, Dario Taraborelli wrote:

Here's a link for a doodle poll, please let me know your availability as soon as possible so we can finalize a date for next week. I am planning to close this poll by *Saturday 9am PST*.

http://www.doodle.com/vb5w8ntrftmyp4w3

Thanks Dario

On Dec 12, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Fuster, Mayo wrote:

I find very useful Dario's distinction and agree with the procedural he suggests, 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 Dario Taraborelli [ dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org] Sent: 12 December 2011 21:08 To: The Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee mailing list Subject: Re: [RCom-l] The tragedy of the Commons

My feeling is that we shouldn't be conflating the two issues, as this would be confusing for the community:

1. review of Berkman banner and implementation of changes discussed on

the list

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-December/070765.html

2. discussion of future approach towards SR, Omnibus survey etc

(1) needs to take place this week, I have a conference call (date/time still tbc) with the researchers and some community members, if any of you is willing to help with this please let me know off-list and I'll add you to the list of attendees. I don't feel there's a need to host an actual RCom meeting to review the proposed changes (which seem fairly uncontroversial and will be discussed on wiki). I would rather keep this opportunity to discuss (2) and the broader implications of the Berkman incident for the future.

Dario

On Dec 12, 2011, at 11:52 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 13:50:24 -0500, Diederik van Liere

dvanliere@gmail.com dvanliere@gmail.com wrote:

Dear WSC,

I think we need to be very precise about what the Berkman controversy is

about. My understanding is that the use of banners with logo's on

central

notice during the fundraiser and the kickback of donations is at the

heart

of the controversy. It is not about the legitimacy of the research

institutes, nor is it about surveys as a research methodology, or the

actual research questions. As such, I think that we need to discus how

to

to promote research studies but not debate the merits of Wikipedia

research

itself.

I think right now it is mostly about the lack of communication, and this

is what we need to discuss as well. The main objections have been

summarized at two pages on English Wikipedia,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Central_Notices

as well as on the Meta proposal page

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Dynamics_of_Online_Interactions_and_...

Cheers

Yaroslav

---

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

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

---

RCom-l mailing listRCom-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://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

--

"Truth is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations." :: John von Neumann

---

http://www.milovanovicresearch.com

---

RCom-l mailing list RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l

Guys, I think there is some confusion caused by my previous mail, let me iterate on my previous proposal:

1) the plan for next week's RCom meeting is not to discuss this study, but the implications of the *recruitment strategy* we used for Berkman on future SR requests

2) the plan for this week's non-RCom meeting is to finalize the changes on the *recruitment banner* that were discussed on foundation-l. If anyone from RCom wants to join I'd be very happy to have some help. We are meeting via Skype on Thursday at 10am PST.

3) the actual experiment/survey has been reviewed by a number of RCom members (WSC, Daniel, myself at the very least) several months ago. The study itself didn't raise major issues and triggered a number of positive responses by those who took it. This said, it'd be helpful if Goran had a chance to take the experiment: Mayo do you mind creating a link for him? I don't think the researchers have any bandwidth to make further changes at the experiment at this time, but I might be wrong :)

Dario

On Dec 13, 2011, at 4:46 PM, Goran Milovanovic wrote:

Dear Diederik,

well, I didn't find the intention you cite defined anywhere in relation to the work of this RCOM.

On the contrary, previous experiences with reviewing studies here shows that the insight into the studies themselves were of crucial importance in respect to any conclusions drawn.

I am very much confused about the idea to discuss any research project without being able to see the project itself. Pardon me, but I can not imagine a less demanding request on the behalf of anything that calls itself a "Research Committee".

Thank you. Mayo, I hope the link will be provided soon. I am myself into choice experiments and decision making right now, so I will be glad to take a thorough look at the study before posting any comments in relation to the way it was advertised on Wikipedia.

Best regards, Goran

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Diederik van Liere dvanliere@gmail.com wrote: Dear Goran,

It is not the intention of this RCOM meeting to discuss the study itself, the intention is to discuss lessons to be drawn from announcing large scale studies, in particular with in relationship to timing (fundraiser), method of announcement (central notice) and whether we should accept donations in return. Best, Diederik

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Goran Milovanovic goran.s.milovanovic@gmail.com wrote: Any chances we are getting a link to the study? I find it completely out of line to discuss a study - or anything in relation to it - without ever being able to see the study itself. Best, Goran

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Dario Taraborelli dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org wrote: ok just to clarify, I will be meeting this Thursday with a number of people (including non RCom members) to work on the actual changes for the Berkman banner, I don't expect RCom members to be involved unless they wish so.

The purpose of the RCom meeting next week is not to review these changes but to do a post-mortem of the Berkman incident and discuss best practices for subject recruitment requests in general.

Dario

On Dec 13, 2011, at 9:24 AM, c.note.lilly wrote:

...

Dario,

Is this just for those interested in the discussion about the study? Not the entire RCom? or you still would like to have all of RCom, just not call this an official RCom mtg since there will be outsiders (those against the survey?)

Cheryl *sorry, crazy end of the semester, working on catching up.

On 12/12/11 4:10 PM, Dario Taraborelli wrote:

...

Here's a link for a doodle poll, please let me know your availability as soon as possible so we can finalize a date for next week. I am planning to close this poll by Saturday 9am PST.

http://www.doodle.com/vb5w8ntrftmyp4w3

Thanks Dario

On Dec 12, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Fuster, Mayo wrote:

...

I find very useful Dario's distinction and agree with the procedural he suggests, 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 Dario Taraborelli [dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org] Sent: 12 December 2011 21:08 To: The Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee mailing list Subject: Re: [RCom-l] The tragedy of the Commons

My feeling is that we shouldn't be conflating the two issues, as this would be confusing for the community:

1. review of Berkman banner and implementation of changes discussed on the list

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-December/070765.html

2. discussion of future approach towards SR, Omnibus survey etc

(1) needs to take place this week, I have a conference call (date/time still tbc) with the researchers and some community members, if any of you is willing to help with this please let me know off-list and I'll add you to the list of attendees. I don't feel there's a need to host an actual RCom meeting to review the proposed changes (which seem fairly uncontroversial and will be discussed on wiki). I would rather keep this opportunity to discuss (2) and the broader implications of the Berkman incident for the future.

Dario

On Dec 12, 2011, at 11:52 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:

...

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 13:50:24 -0500, Diederik van Liere dvanliere@gmail.com wrote:

...

Dear WSC,

I think we need to be very precise about what the Berkman controversy is about. My understanding is that the use of banners with logo's on

central

...

notice during the fundraiser and the kickback of donations is at the

heart

...

of the controversy. It is not about the legitimacy of the research institutes, nor is it about surveys as a research methodology, or the actual research questions. As such, I think that we need to discus how

to

...

to promote research studies but not debate the merits of Wikipedia

research

...

itself.

I think right now it is mostly about the lack of communication, and this is what we need to discuss as well. The main objections have been summarized at two pages on English Wikipedia,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Central_Notices

as well as on the Meta proposal page

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Dynamics_of_Online_Interactions_and_...

Cheers Yaroslav

---

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

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

---

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

--

"Truth is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations." :: John von Neumann

---

http://www.milovanovicresearch.com

---

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

--

"Truth is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations." :: John von Neumann

---

http://www.milovanovicresearch.com

---

RCom-l mailing list RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l

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

On 12 December 2011 18:50, Diederik van Liere dvanliere@gmail.com wrote:

Dear WSC,

I think we need to be very precise about what the Berkman controversy is about. My understanding is that the use of banners with logo's on central notice during the fundraiser and the kickback of donations is at the heart of the controversy. It is not about the legitimacy of the research institutes, nor is it about surveys as a research methodology, or the actual research questions. As such, I think that we need to discus how to to promote research studies but not debate the merits of Wikipedia research itself.

Best

Diederik

Sent from use my iPhone

On 2011-12-12, at 13:30, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:

I'm comfortable with a meeting next week, but I think that the community and our research partners will want to hear something in the meantime. There would also be a benefit if we could hold some on wiki discussions as to the Omnibus survey or any other option.

Clearly one of our options would be to run an RFC to seek consent of the EN wiki community for us to resume Berkman and run similar things in the future. But even if we promised some sort of vanilla advert for it I doubt we would get consensus or anything close.

We could probably get consensus for an opt in research system so that those who wanted to could subscribe to some sort of research mailing list of questionnaires. But I don't think that opt in would give us the volume that researchers are likely to want and I fear we'd have skews.

If anyone can think of an alternative option I would suggest creating a draft such as I have at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Omnibus_Survey so that we and the community can consider it.

Another way to defuse current tension would be for Rcomm to invite a couple of the people who have been arguing against the Berkman survey to join us in our meeting next week.

Regards

WSC

On 12 December 2011 17:52, Dario Taraborelli dtaraborelli@wikimedia.orgwrote:

...

Hi WSC,

thanks for starting this, I agree we need to have a serious assessment of what happened with the Berkman incident and discuss alternative options (if any) for the future. I suggest that we hold an extraordinary RCom meeting some time next week to discuss these measures since we have other SR requests on hold.

If nobody objects I am going to start a doodle to find a date that suits most of us (cc:ing Dana). It'd be great if those among you heavily invested in SR discussions/reviews could make it.

Dario

On Dec 12, 2011, at 6:50 AM, WereSpielChequers wrote:

Dear All,

After the rather hostile response on the English language wikipedia to the Berkman survey I would like to revive my proposal from five months ago for an annual Omnibus survey. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Omnibus_Survey

I appreciate that this would put some constraints on the researchers and would actually cost the Foundation a bit of money. But unless someone else can come up with an alternative way of fairly throttling research surveys to the point where the community can accept them, I would suggest that this is the only viable option on the table other than a simple blanket ban on third party research surveys.

Regards

WereSpielChequers _______________________________________________ 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

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.ru wrote:

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:46:48 +0000, WereSpielChequers 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.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l

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.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.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 WereSpielChequers [ 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> wrote: On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:46:48 +0000, WereSpielChequers <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 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

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

Hi Mayo,

I rather suspect that there isn't consensus on this committee to restrict researchers in their requesting community members to complete research questionnaires. However I do think there is significant support in the community to enforce existing spam policies on people indiscriminately approaching wikimedians to complete research surveys. Sarah Stierch's survey was targetted at the small minority of editors who have self identified as female, and the recent newpage patrol survey was supposed to be targetted at people active in the new page patrol process. I would consider them to be archetypical targetted surveys by Wikimedians asking relevant questions. Berkman by contrast was very broadly targeted, run by a third party and not obviously relevant to Wikimedia.

I came to the conclusion that we would need some sort of throttle on research surveying of wikimedians long before I drafted the Omnibus proposal back in July, so the trigger for my writing that was not Berkman, though obviously it was the trigger for resurrecting the idea. There have been many discussions that I've seen on wiki and on the mailing lists about various research surveys, and I'm fairly sure there is a consensus that some research is OK provided we can control the quantity or people can opt out of it. The difficult thing will be working out the acceptable level of research surveying before the community considers it to have been exceeded. Another difficulty will be to introduce a throttle system that in the longterm both the community and the research community can live with. For example there have been proposals in the past for an opt out or even an opt in mechanism, I consider that such proposals would be workable from the community's point of view, but I'm not sure that we'd get viable research samples, especially if the research was becoming more and more intensely targeted on a fast dwindling band of "consenting" wikimedians.

However if the rest of RCom considers that it isn't part of RCom's remit to limit the amount of surveying by bonafide researchers, and if some of you think that the community is broadly accepting of research; Then perhaps the best option would be to file an RFC on this and see what the community thinks.

WSC

On 14 December 2011 16:24, Fuster, Mayo 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.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 WereSpielChequers [ 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> wrote: On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:46:48 +0000, WereSpielChequers <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 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

Hi Aaron,

Most RFCs are about issues that most editors don't have strong opinions about.

The trouble with an unbiased sample is that running a referendum is only really effective when you've debated endlessly, you can all agree what the issue is that divides you, but you can't get consensus on a solution.

The drawback of a referendum is that you could probably get huge yes majorities for each of the following statements

1 Do you agree that we should allow legitimate researchers to contact Wikimedians via this site and ask them to take part in research?

2 Should there be some sort of filter or opt out mechanism to limit the frequency that individual wikimedians are so contacted?

That would still leave an open question as to how much contact is reasonable and by which mechanisms. I think that an RFC would be an effective way to hold such a discussion, though I will concede the possibility that the research lobby being somewhat more organised would have undue weight in such a discussion.

WSC

On 15 December 2011 14:44, Aaron Halfaker aaron.halfaker@gmail.com wrote:

WSC,

I don't think an RFC would be an appropriate mechanism for determining the community's feelings towards proposals that most editors don't have strong feelings about. See, the problem with the discussion style of poll is that it is strongly biased towards those who hold (or will form) a strong opinion on the matter. Although I've seen this to be (generally) a very efficient mechanism for making decisions about content and policy in Wikipedia, I'd like to assert that what we really need is an unbiased sample of editor opinion -- or at least as close to truly unbiased as we can get.

-Aaron

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 6:52 AM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hi Mayo,

I rather suspect that there isn't consensus on this committee to restrict researchers in their requesting community members to complete research questionnaires. However I do think there is significant support in the community to enforce existing spam policies on people indiscriminately approaching wikimedians to complete research surveys. Sarah Stierch's survey was targetted at the small minority of editors who have self identified as female, and the recent newpage patrol survey was supposed to be targetted at people active in the new page patrol process. I would consider them to be archetypical targetted surveys by Wikimedians asking relevant questions. Berkman by contrast was very broadly targeted, run by a third party and not obviously relevant to Wikimedia.

I came to the conclusion that we would need some sort of throttle on research surveying of wikimedians long before I drafted the Omnibus proposal back in July, so the trigger for my writing that was not Berkman, though obviously it was the trigger for resurrecting the idea. There have been many discussions that I've seen on wiki and on the mailing lists about various research surveys, and I'm fairly sure there is a consensus that some research is OK provided we can control the quantity or people can opt out of it. The difficult thing will be working out the acceptable level of research surveying before the community considers it to have been exceeded. Another difficulty will be to introduce a throttle system that in the longterm both the community and the research community can live with. For example there have been proposals in the past for an opt out or even an opt in mechanism, I consider that such proposals would be workable from the community's point of view, but I'm not sure that we'd get viable research samples, especially if the research was becoming more and more intensely targeted on a fast dwindling band of "consenting" wikimedians.

However if the rest of RCom considers that it isn't part of RCom's remit to limit the amount of surveying by bonafide researchers, and if some of you think that the community is broadly accepting of research; Then perhaps the best option would be to file an RFC on this and see what the community thinks.

WSC

On 14 December 2011 16:24, Fuster, Mayo 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.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 WereSpielChequers [ 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> wrote: On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:46:48 +0000, WereSpielChequers <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 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

---

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

Hello!

I agree with Dario's initiative to have an special meeting to reflect on the experience and see which lessons can be extracted from the several agents involved and which new opportunities opened up specially in terms of the Rcom goals. My concern is that I am both member of Rcom and I am collaboration with the Berkman center/Science Po in the research project, so I want to double check with you if you consider opportune my participation or instead you see better that I step aside for the meeting.

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 Dario Taraborelli [dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org] Sent: 12 December 2011 18:52 To: The Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee mailing list Subject: Re: [RCom-l] The tragedy of the Commons

Hi WSC,

thanks for starting this, I agree we need to have a serious assessment of what happened with the Berkman incident and discuss alternative options (if any) for the future. I suggest that we hold an extraordinary RCom meeting some time next week to discuss these measures since we have other SR requests on hold.

If nobody objects I am going to start a doodle to find a date that suits most of us (cc:ing Dana). It'd be great if those among you heavily invested in SR discussions/reviews could make it.

Dario

On Dec 12, 2011, at 6:50 AM, WereSpielChequers wrote:

Dear All,

After the rather hostile response on the English language wikipedia to the Berkman survey I would like to revive my proposal from five months ago for an annual Omnibus survey. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Omnibus_Survey

I appreciate that this would put some constraints on the researchers and would actually cost the Foundation a bit of money. But unless someone else can come up with an alternative way of fairly throttling research surveys to the point where the community can accept them, I would suggest that this is the only viable option on the table other than a simple blanket ban on third party research surveys.

Regards

WereSpielChequers _______________________________________________ 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.