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(a)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.
1.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IEG/Reimagining_Wikipedia_Mento…
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Nathan <nawrich(a)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(a)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(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