A few clarifications on the RCom review procedure (cc'ing Lane as he was raising a similar point here [1])
The current review process for subject recruitment (SR) requests (as well as other types of research requests) has been set up since the creation of the Research Index. It has been adopted since then by the Research Committee and by the Foundation as the de facto standard process through which all such requests are processed – whether they are from external researchers, WMF staff or community members. Despite the lack of a formal policy – which is partly due to the fact that a broadly agreed solution on how to manage SR requests has never been found in years [2] – this process was introduced and applied to all SR proposals as the minimum requirement to:
• help document these requests and the credentials of their authors
• ensure that proposals are legitimate, and that recruitment messages are not used for abuse
• ensure that they meet basic requirements of privacy, data retention and data licensing
• assess whether the proposed recruitment strategy and sampling requirements are sensible
• identify, wherever possible, redundant or potentially disruptive research
• point the researcher to existing work on the topic
• mitigate the "survey burnout" that affects our editor community
It should be stressed that, precisely due to the lack of a formal policy, the RCom has never been in a position to grant any kind of "definitive approval" to recruit participants: the best we can do is to flag a proposal as "reviewed" or help identify and report patently abusive requests. All proposals that are submitted to our attention are automatically marked as "pending review" via a dedicated template (which will display a yellow SR icon and add the proposal to the appropriate category [3]). We strive to provide the above kind of support and assessment to the different requests we receive and once a project is reviewed we change the support flag to "reviewed" . This is not to say that the process is 100% error-free or very efficient (we unfortunately have little bandwidth to dedicate to this process and review all requests in a timely way), but the review itself (if you haven't come across one [4]) tends to be quite serious and exhaustive.
So to briefly answer Pine's questions:
- yes, going through RCom review is the standard procedure we expect all proposals to comply with
- no, a proposal should not be removed from Meta if it hasn't been reviewed, it should only be flagged as pending review using the WMF-support template. This also means that Audrey fully complied with the expected procedure to submit a SR request.
- yes, there are privacy concerns, and this is the reason why we take the review of data collection/retention/licensing terms in the proposal very seriously. As these surveys do not fall under the WMF's privacy policy they are not reviewed by WMF Legal team unless they are considered potentially abusive. The only privacy terms that apply are those displayed on the landing page of a survey and our goal is to support best practices in setting up these terms (for example, by making sure that these terms are explicitly accepted by the participants before entering the survey/experiment, particularly in the case of non-academic studies that are not backed by an explicit IRB approval).
Hope this helps address your concerns
Best,
Dario
[2]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Committee/Areas_of_interest/Subject_recruitment_processesOn Mar 18, 2012, at 3:40 AM, En Pine wrote:
I have concerns about this survey. I will address one set
of comments to Audrey, and a second set of comments and a question to the
Research Committee.
Audrey: thanks for your interest in Wikipedia. I suggest
that you look at the other research that has previously discussed motivations of
Wikipedia contributors and factors that can effect that motivation, such as
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Editors_Survey_2011 and http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_Summer_of_Research_2011/Summary_of_Findings. On your research Meta page, I disagree with your
characterization of extant literature as “lacking,” because while it isn’t
comprehensive it also shouldn’t be dismissed. Also, I am wondering why you would
use a 2006 source for information about Wikipedia user contribution activity
because 2006 was a long time ago in the context of Wikipedia’s lifetime.
Regarding surveys of Wikipedians in general, I am skeptical about the
reliability of surveys in measuring the motivations of Wikipedia contributors
because so many people are not the kind of dedicated volunteer who would be
likely to read Research-l or volunteer ten minutes of their time to participate
in a study about their motives. Also, you will need to consider bad actors like
vandals, spammers, POV pushers, and PR manipulators. Your survey might reveal
interesting characteristics of certain classes of editors, but I would be very
surprised if your survey results were representative of the entire population of
Wikipedia editors. Another complicating factor is that motivations of any single
editor can change over time. Finally, and perhaps most significantly, I have
some procedural concerns. Did you discuss your survey with anyone in the
Wikipedia research community before you announced it here? Your page on Meta
says that you “will also request the Research Committee's support in recruiting
subjects.” Your section on “Wikimedia Policies, Ethics, and Human Subjects
Protection” says nothing about consultation with or approval of the Research
Committee, and the most recent
published minutes from the Research Committee (that I was able to find) don’t
appear to show that your research was discussed by them. I think that they might
have had valuable ideas that could have helped you in designing your survey and
understanding the existing work on editor motivation. It is my understanding
that Research Committee approval is required before soliciting Wikipedia
subjects for surveys (see my question below).
RCOM members: I would appreciate an official reply to the
following concerns. Is it policy that surveys which recruit participants
(instead of passively examining editor contributions) must be approved by RCOM
before they are sent to Wikimedia mailing lists and/or announced to the broader
Wikimedia community (beyond a relatively limited scope such as a single
wikiproject, such as GOCE on EN, which might give its approval to the survey
only within the scope of that wikiproject)? I am under the impression from the
December 12, 2011 RCOM meeting minutes that RCOM approval is required for
surveys such as the one that Audrey made. My personal view is that surveyors
should get RCOM’s approval before making broad public announcements which
recruit research participants, because even well intended researchers can
experience difficulties due to questionable assumptions built into the design a
study, a limited understanding about the Wikipedia community, or a lack of
knowledge about significant existing research. Also, there can be privacy and
copyright concerns regarding survey data, and those reasons alone seem
sufficient to require that RCOM’s approval is necessary in addition to the
approval of any academic institution that is associated with a survey. Also, I
am under the impression that permission from the WMF’s legal department is
required, in addition to RCOM approval. In the absence of RCOM approval and WMF
Legal approval, should information about such an unapproved survey be removed
from Meta?
Thanks,
Pine
Sent: Saturday, 17 March, 2012 13:01
Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Motivations to Contribute to
Wikipedia
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l