Thanks. Can you explain why you continue to solicit submissions for your review, and promise a 1-2 week turn around time, when it appears that the review process rarely occurs and many (if not most) submissions are not reviewed?On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Aaron Halfaker <aaron.halfaker@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't believe there is any claim of authority for RCOM. At least I was not involved in making claims that it is required and I do not see it as such. In fact, I have argued in the past that studies run by Wikipedians won't gain much from the process[1]. However, I do recommend that academics -- especially those who do not otherwise engage with Wikipedians -- to work with an RCOM member to coordinate a review in order to ensure that you won't see massive push-back when you start recruiting on Wikipedia -- as studies tended to see when they were run before the process.On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Aaron, what's the source of authority for RCOM (or its members acting independently) to perform a review procedure and claim it is required?On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Aaron Halfaker <aaron.halfaker@gmail.com> wrote:Re. RCOM and review processes, these are two different things. RCOM is an old, defunct WMF sanctioned working group of staff, researchers and Wikipedians. If we want to revive RCOM, it seems like this should be discussed in another thread._______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l