Send Wiki-research-l mailing list submissions to
wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
wiki-research-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
wiki-research-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wiki-research-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: discussion about wikipedia surveys (Aaron Halfaker)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 08:45:17 -0700
From: Aaron Halfaker <ahalfaker@wikimedia.org>
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
<wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys
Message-ID:
<CAKP=3WyxNsz4C=s5K1+q00hw29E+AWg+ydJhk+tdH6Ls4CGUcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Kerry said:
>
> Because of the criticism of “not giving back”, could we perhaps do things
> to try to make the researcher feel part of the community to make “giving
> back” more likely? For example, could we give them a slot every now and
> again to talk about their project in the R&D Showcase? Encourage them to be
> on this mailing list. Are we at a point where it might make sense to
> organise a Wikipedia research conference to help build a research
> community? Just thinking aloud here …
This is a bit different than the main topic, so I wanted to break it out
into another reply.
We just had Nate Matias[0] from the MIT media lab present on his work at
the last showcase[1]. We also just sent out a survey about the showcase
that includes a call for recommended speakers at future showcases[2]. As
for a Wikipedia research conference, see OpenSym[3] (formerly WikiSym) and
Wikimania[4] (not as researchy, but a great venue to maximize wiki research
impact).
0. http://natematias.com/
1.
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Analytics/Research_and_Data/Showcase#July_2014
2.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2014-July/003574.html
3. http://www.opensym.org/os2014/
4. https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Aaron Halfaker <aaron.halfaker@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > Aaron, when I read that it is active because I had heard from others in
> your team about a year or two ago that this wasn't going to be the vehicle
> for obtaining permission going forward and that a new, more lightweight
> process was being designed.
>
> 1) If anyone told you that we are no longer active, they were wrong.
> 2) The "lightweight" process you refer to is what I linked to in enwiki
> in my previous response. See again:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Research_recruitment
>
> Generally, there seems to be a misconception that RCom == paid WMF
> activities. While RCom involves a relationship with the Wikimedia
> Foundation, our activities as part of RCom are 100% volunteer and open to
> participation from other Wikipedians (seriously, let me know if you want to
> help out!), and as such, our backlog tends to suffer when our available
> volunteer time does. FWIW, I became involved in this work as a volunteer
> (before I started working with the WMF). With that in mind, it seems like
> we are not discussing RCom itself which is mostly inactive -- so much as we
> are discussing the subject recruitment review process which is still
> active. Let me state this clearly: *If you send an email to me or Dario
> about a research project that you would like reviewed, we will help you
> coordinate a review. *Our job as review coordinators is to make sure
> that the study is adequately documented and that Wikipedians and other
> researchers are pulled in to discuss the material. We don't just welcome
> broad involvement -- we need it! We all suffer from the lack of it.
> Please show up help us!
>
> To give you some context on the current stats and situation, I should
> probably give a bit of history. I've been working to improve subject
> recruitment review -- with the goal of improving interactions between
> researchers and Wikipedians -- for years. Let me first say that *I'm
> game to make this better**.* In my experience, the biggest issue to
> documenting the a review/endorsement/whatever process that I have come
> across is this: there seems to be a lot of people who feel that minimizing *process
> description* provides power and adaptability to intended processes[1].
> It's these people that I've regularly battled in my frequent efforts to
> increase the formalization around the subject recruitment proposal vetting
> process (e.g. SRAG had a structured appeals process and stated timelines).
> The result of these battles is the severely under-documented process
> "described" in meta:R:FAQ <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:FAQ>.
>
> Here's some links to my previous work on subject recruitment process that
> will show these old discussions about process creep
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_instruction_creep>.
>
> -
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Subject_Recruitment_Approvals_Group
> -
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Subject_Recruitment_Approvals_Group
> -
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Research&oldid=354600173
> - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Research/Archive_1
> - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Research/Archive_2 --
> Note that this was actually an *enwiki policy* for about 5 hours
> before the RfC was overturned due to too few editors being involved in the
> straw poll.
>
> For new work, see my current (but stalled for about 1.5 years) push for a
> structured process on English Wikipedia.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Research_recruitment See also
> the checklist I have been working on with Lane.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Research_recruitment/Wikipedian_checklist
>
> When you review these docs and the corresponding conversations, please
> keep in mind that I was a new Wikipedian for the development of WP:SRAG and
> WP:Research, so I made some really critical mistakes -- like taking
> hyperbolic criticism of the proposals personally. :\
>
> So what now? Well, in the meantime, if you let me know about some subject
> recruitment you want to do, I'll help you find someone to coordinate a
> review that fits within the process described in the RCom docs. In the
> short term, are any of you folks interested in going through some
> iterations of the new WP:Research_recruitment policy doc?
>
> -Aaron
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:38 AM, Heather Ford <hfordsa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Agree with Kerry that we really need to have a more flexible process that
>> speaks to the main problem that (I think) RCOM was started to solve i.e.
>> that Wikipedians were getting tired of being continually contacted by
>> researchers to fill out *surveys*. I'm not sure where feelings are about
>> that right now (I certainly haven't seen a huge amount of surveys myself)
>> but I guess the big question right now is whether RCOM is actually active
>> or not. I must say that I was surprised, Aaron, when I read that it is
>> active because I had heard from others in your team about a year or two ago
>> that this wasn't going to be the vehicle for obtaining permission going
>> forward and that a new, more lightweight process was being designed. As
>> Nathan discusses on the Wikimedia-l list, there aren't many indications
>> that RCOM is still active. Perhaps there has been a recent decision to
>> resuscitate it? If that's the case, let us know about it :) And then we can
>> discuss what needs to happen to build a good process.
>>
>> One immediate requirement that I've been talking to others about is
>> finding ways of making the case to the WMF as a group of researchers for
>> the anonymization of country level data, for example. I've spoken to a few
>> researchers (and I myself made a request about a year ago that hasn't been
>> responded to) and it seems like some work is required by the foundation to
>> do this anonymisation but that there are a few of us who would be really
>> keen to use this data to produce research very valuable to Wikipedia -
>> especially from smaller language versions/developing countries. Having an
>> official process that assesses how worthwhile this investment of time would
>> be to the Foundation would be a great idea, I think, but right now there
>> seems to be a general focus on the research that the Foundation does itself
>> rather than enabling researchers outside. I know how busy Aaron and Dario
>> (and others in the team) are so perhaps this requires a new position to
>> coordinate between researchers and Foundation resources?
>>
>> Anyway, I think the big question right now is whether there are any plans
>> for RCOM that have been made by the research team and the only people who
>> can answer that are folks in the research team :)
>>
>> 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 17 July 2014 08:49, Kerry Raymond <kerry.raymond@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, I meant the community/communities of WMF. But the authority of
>>> the community derives from WMF, which chooses to delegate such matters. I
>>> think that “advise” is a good word to use.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kerry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> *From:* Amir E. Aharoni [mailto:amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il]
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, 17 July 2014 5:37 PM
>>> *To:* kerry.raymond@gmail.com; Research into Wikimedia content and
>>> communities
>>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > WMF does not "own" me as a contributor; it does not decide who can
>>> and cannot recruit me for whatever purposes.
>>>
>>> I don't think that it really should be about WMF. The WMF shouldn't
>>> enforce anything. The community can formulate good practices for
>>> researchers and _advise_ community members not to cooperate with
>>> researchers who don't follow these practices. Not much more is needed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
>>> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
>>> “We're living in pieces,
>>> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-07-17 8:24 GMT+03:00 Kerry Raymond <kerry.raymond@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> Just saying here what I already put on the Talk page:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am a little bothered by the opening sentence "This page documents the
>>> process that researchers must follow before asking Wikipedia contributors
>>> to participate in research studies such as surveys, interviews and
>>> experiments."
>>>
>>> WMF does not "own" me as a contributor; it does not decide who can and
>>> cannot recruit me for whatever purposes. What WMF does own is its
>>> communication channels to me as a contributor and WMF has a right to
>>> control what occurs on those channels. Also I think WMF probably should be
>>> concerned about both its readers and its contributors being recruited
>>> through its channels (as either might be being recruited). I think this
>>> distinction should be made, e.g.
>>>
>>> "This page documents the process that researchers must follow if they
>>> wish to use Wikipedia's (WMF's?) communication channels to recruit people
>>> to participate in research studies such as surveys, interviews and
>>> experiments. Communication channels include its mailing lists, its Project
>>> pages, Talk pages, and User Talk pages [and whatever else I've forgotten]."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If researchers want to recruit WPians via non-WMF means, I don’t think
>>> it’s any business of WMF’s. An example might be a researcher who wanted to
>>> contact WPians via chapters or thorgs; I would leave it for the
>>> chapter/thorg to decide if they wanted to assist the researcher via their
>>> communication channels.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course, the practical reality of it is that some researchers
>>> (oblivious of WMF’s concerns in relation to recruitment of WPians to
>>> research projects) will simply use WMF’s channels without asking nicely
>>> first. Obviously we can remove such requests on-wiki and follow up any
>>> email requests with the commentary that this was not an approved request.
>>> In my category of [whatever else I’ve forgotten], I guess there are things
>>> like Facebook groups and any other social media presence.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Also to be practical, if WMF is to have a process to vet research
>>> surveys, I think it has to be sufficiently fast and not be overly demanding
>>> to avoid the possibility of the researcher giving up (“too hard to deal
>>> with these people”) and simply spamming email, project pages, social media
>>> in the hope of recruiting some participants regardless. That is, if we make
>>> it too slow/hard to do the right thing, we effectively encourage doing the
>>> wrong thing. Also, what value-add can we give them to reward those who do
>>> the right thing? It’s nice to have a carrot as well as a stick when it
>>> comes to onerous processes J
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Because of the criticism of “not giving back”, could we perhaps do
>>> things to try to make the researcher feel part of the community to make
>>> “giving back” more likely? For example, could we give them a slot every now
>>> and again to talk about their project in the R&D Showcase? Encourage them
>>> to be on this mailing list. Are we at a point where it might make sense to
>>> organise a Wikipedia research conference to help build a research
>>> community? Just thinking aloud here …
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kerry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> *From:* wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:
>>> wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Aaron
>>> Halfaker
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, 17 July 2014 6:59 AM
>>> *To:* Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> RCOM review is still alive and looking for new reviewers (really,
>>> coordinators). Researchers can be directed to me or Dario (
>>> dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org) to be assigned a reviewer. There is also a
>>> proposed policy on enwiki that could use some eyeballs:
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Research_recruitment
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <
>>> nemowiki@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> phoebe ayers, 16/07/2014 19:21:
>>>
>>> > (Personally, I think the answer should be to resuscitate RCOM, but
>>> > that's easy to say and harder to do!)
>>>
>>> IMHO in the meanwhile the most useful thing folks can do is subscribing
>>> to the feed of new research pages:
>>> <
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NewPages&feed=atom&hidebots=1&hideredirs=1&limit=500&offset=&namespace=202
>>> >
>>> It's easier to build a functioning RCOM out of an active community of
>>> "reviewers", than the other way round.
>>>
>>> Nemo
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/attachments/20140717/c9e37193/attachment.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
End of Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 107, Issue 35
************************************************