I don't think that it is appropriate that those who benefit from
deregulation (e.g. No oversight for running surveys. No formalized
community review process.) make the decisions about what is worth
regulating. You'll notice that the proposed policy that Poitr calls
"instruction
creep" basically states that you do three things:
1. Document your research. Specifically, your methods of recruitment,
consent process, data storage and publication strategy.
2. Discuss your research -- with Wikipedians to make sure that you won't
cause a disruption
3. Proceed as consensus emerges.
We all seem to agree that this is good practice. Where is the rest of the
"instruction creep"? Where is the anti-researcher bend?
Poitr, you speculate about potential problems like people just coming
to say "IDONTLIKEIT",
but I have yet to see that happen in RCOM's process despite the fact that
we invite editors from the population being sampled to the conversation.
Even if it was true, I think that if some of your potential participants
don't like what you are doing, you ought to address their concerns.
I'm all for developing guidelines (note that Ethically researching
Wikipedia IS NOT a guideline). I've wrote my fair share of essays to help
researchers & Wikipedians find their way around research projects in
Wikipedia. E.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Research and and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EpochFail/Don%27t_bite_the_researchers.
However, I've watched good research projects fail because researchers
didn't have the wikipedian backgrounds that you guys do (Heather and
Poitr). See some examples of (IRB approved) studies running into
project-halting difficulties:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Research#Examples_…
These examples are what got me to start working on developing a process in
the first place.
If you really think that documenting your research and having a discussion
about it is too much instruction, then maybe you shouldn't be allowed to
contact Wikipedians. If you do think that every research project that does
recruitment should be documented and discussed, why not just say so?
-Aaron
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 3:50 AM, Heather Ford <hfordsa(a)gmail.com> wrote:
+1 on Piotr's comments.
And very, very happy to hear about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ethically_researching_Wikipedia
-- I think this is definitely the way to go: developing guidelines that we
*regularly point people to* when they have questions etc. And maybe
something that we as a group can work on in the coming months.
I'll reiterate my suggestions for goals here and add some of Piotr's and
others' comments:
1. developing ethical research guidelines for Wikipedia research
- by building on the WP:Ethically_researching_Wikipedia page and
regularly pointing people to it
2. finding ways of making responsible requests to the WMF for data that
they hold that might benefit research outside the WMF
- through an official process with guidelines from the WMF on response
times/ viable requests etc.
3. developing opportunities for researchers to collaborate and share what
they're doing with the wider research community
- reorganising the research hub and pointing to best case practices etc
(similar to the WP Global Education program, as Piotr suggests)
- actively recruiting WP researchers to join this list and visit the
research hub
- some other regular way of involving researchers such as inviting them to
showcase their work and have it recognised on the list, on the hub etc
- recognising outstanding research (through a prize perhaps as Aaron
suggested)
Looking forward to hearing Phoebe's suggestions!
Best,
Heather.
Heather Ford
Oxford Internet Institute <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk> Doctoral Programme
EthnographyMatters <http://ethnographymatters.net> | Oxford Digital
Ethnography Group <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115>
http://hblog.org | @hfordsa <http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa>
On 29 July 2014 09:04, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The good and bad news is that the status quo with
RCOM is likely to
remain unless someone in WMF, the Board, or the community is interested
enough in addressing the situation to put in some effort to make RCOM a
functioning organization.
At the moment I have the impression that WMF researchers are absorbing
most of the work that RCOM and some dedicated RCOM admin support could do,
like help with lit review and prevent outside researchers from using WMF
databases in ways that compromise user privacy. My perception is that the
current situation is inefficient for WMF and for outside researchers who
want to do good work with WMF or community resources, and also that RCOM
lacks the resources to respond in timely ways to requests for help with
outside research that could benefit Wikimedia. So, I there are reasons to
changs the status quo, and I hope WMF or the Board would be interested in
something like the proposal I made previously.
Phoebe, what do you think?
Pine
_______________________________________________
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