This an interesting clarification. I support framing RCOM's mission as
educational (teaching researchers about best practices), and even more
so clearly stating that its procedures are voluntary. In other words,
such a body should have an uncontroversial consultative/advisory role,
rather then be a gatekeeper of sorts. That said, I don't know if we need
a "body" at all. Why couldn't all of this be done under existing
community auspices such as WikiProject Research?
I still think our priority should be to redesign our research pages,
create a proper research portal with best practices (and hopefully some
carrot-like tools that help researchers, from certificates to how-tos
for grants/data to research tools) that we could then advertise among
most Wikipedia researchers.
IMHO one of RCOM's biggest fallacies was (is...) trying to frame itself
as a gatekeeper then a facilitator.
--
Piotr Konieczny, PhD
http://hanyang.academia.edu/PiotrKonieczny
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gdV8_AEAAAAJ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piotrus
On 7/29/2014 22:42, Aaron Halfaker 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
<mailto: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(a)gmail.com <mailto: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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:Wiki-research-l@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