WMF does not "own" me as a contributor; it
does not decide who can and
cannot recruit me for whatever purposes.
I don't think that it really should be about WMF. The WMF shouldn't enforce
anything. The community can formulate good practices for researchers and
_advise_ community members not to cooperate with researchers who don't
follow these practices. Not much more is needed.
--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
2014-07-17 8:24 GMT+03:00 Kerry Raymond <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com>om>:
> Just saying here what I already put on the Talk page:
>
>
>
> I am a little bothered by the opening sentence "This page documents the
> process that researchers must follow before asking Wikipedia contributors
> to participate in research studies such as surveys, interviews and
> experiments."
>
WMF does not "own" me as a contributor; it
does not decide who can and
> cannot recruit me for whatever purposes. What WMF
does own is its
> communication channels to me as a contributor and WMF has a right to
> control what occurs on those channels. Also I think WMF probably should be
> concerned about both its readers and its contributors being recruited
> through its channels (as either might be being recruited). I think this
> distinction should be made, e.g.
>
> "This page documents the process that researchers must follow if they wish
> to use Wikipedia's (WMF's?) communication channels to recruit people to
> participate in research studies such as surveys, interviews and
> experiments. Communication channels include its mailing lists, its Project
> pages, Talk pages, and User Talk pages [and whatever else I've forgotten]."
>
>
>
>
> If researchers want to recruit WPians via non-WMF means, I don’t think
> it’s any business of WMF’s. An example might be a researcher who wanted to
> contact WPians via chapters or thorgs; I would leave it for the
> chapter/thorg to decide if they wanted to assist the researcher via their
> communication channels.
>
>
>
> Of course, the practical reality of it is that some researchers (oblivious
> of WMF’s concerns in relation to recruitment of WPians to research
> projects) will simply use WMF’s channels without asking nicely first.
> Obviously we can remove such requests on-wiki and follow up any email
> requests with the commentary that this was not an approved request. In my
> category of [whatever else I’ve forgotten], I guess there are things like
> Facebook groups and any other social media presence.
>
>
>
> Also to be practical, if WMF is to have a process to vet research surveys,
> I think it has to be sufficiently fast and not be overly demanding to avoid
> the possibility of the researcher giving up (“too hard to deal with these
> people”) and simply spamming email, project pages, social media in the hope
> of recruiting some participants regardless. That is, if we make it too
> slow/hard to do the right thing, we effectively encourage doing the wrong
> thing. Also, what value-add can we give them to reward those who do the
> right thing? It’s nice to have a carrot as well as a stick when it comes to
> onerous processes J
>
>
>
> Because of the criticism of “not giving back”, could we perhaps do things
> to try to make the researcher feel part of the community to make “giving
> back” more likely? For example, could we give them a slot every now and
> again to talk about their project in the R&D Showcase? Encourage them to be
> on this mailing list. Are we at a point where it might make sense to
> organise a Wikipedia research conference to help build a research
> community? Just thinking aloud here …
>
>
>
> Kerry
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* wiki-research-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:
> wiki-research-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Aaron Halfaker
> *Sent:* Thursday, 17 July 2014 6:59 AM
> *To:* Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys
>
>
>
> RCOM review is still alive and looking for new reviewers (really,
> coordinators). Researchers can be directed to me or Dario (
> dtaraborelli(a)wikimedia.org) to be assigned a reviewer. There is also a
> proposed policy on enwiki that could use some eyeballs:
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Research_recruitment
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> phoebe ayers, 16/07/2014 19:21:
>
> > (Personally, I think the answer should be to resuscitate RCOM, but
> > that's easy to say and harder to do!)
>
> IMHO in the meanwhile the most useful thing folks can do is subscribing
> to the feed of new research pages:
> <
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NewPages&feed=atom…
> >
> It's easier to build a functioning RCOM out of an active community of
> "reviewers", than the other way round.
>
> Nemo
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>