Yep. One of the things that ruffled my feathers about RCOM from early on was that without any official community or WMF support, it (or some of its members, perhaps not expressing themselves clearly) gave the impression that it holds (or should, or want) the power to decide what can and cannot be researched with regards to Wikipedia. So, at least as far as I am concerned, instead of looking like a best-practices-we-want-to-help body, it started to look like IRB/Godking-wannabe, offering nothing but promising to contribute to instruction/procedure creep.
--
Piotr Konieczny, PhD http://hanyang.academia.edu/PiotrKonieczny http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gdV8_AEAAAAJ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piotrus
On 7/18/2014 15:36, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
Jonathan Morgan, 17/07/2014 23:37:
But because we /look like /an official body, it's easy to blame us for failing to prevent disruptive research (if you're a community member), for "rubber stamping" research that we like (ditto), or for drowning research in red tape (if you're a wiki-researcher).
RCOM doesn't *look like* an official body, it claims to be one. With its current structure, it looks like a WMF staff committee. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Wikimedia_Committees#Staff_c...
If you don't want it to look official, it's easy: call it "interest group", add a "draft" template, add a "under pilot" warning, call it a subcommittee of the communications committee (a rather common format).
Nemo
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l