A few clarifications on the RCom review procedure (cc'ing Lane as he was raising a
similar point here [1])
The current review process for subject recruitment (SR) requests (as well as other types
of research requests) has been set up since the creation of the Research Index. It has
been adopted since then by the Research Committee and by the Foundation as the de facto
standard process through which all such requests are processed – whether they are from
external researchers, WMF staff or community members. Despite the lack of a formal policy
– which is partly due to the fact that a broadly agreed solution on how to manage SR
requests has never been found in years [2] – this process was introduced and applied to
all SR proposals as the minimum requirement to:
• help document these requests and the credentials of their authors
• ensure that proposals are legitimate, and that recruitment messages are not used for
abuse
• ensure that they meet basic requirements of privacy, data retention and data licensing
• assess whether the proposed recruitment strategy and sampling requirements are sensible
• identify, wherever possible, redundant or potentially disruptive research
• point the researcher to existing work on the topic
• mitigate the "survey burnout" that affects our editor community
It should be stressed that, precisely due to the lack of a formal policy, the RCom has
never been in a position to grant any kind of "definitive approval" to recruit
participants: the best we can do is to flag a proposal as "reviewed" or help
identify and report patently abusive requests. All proposals that are submitted to our
attention are automatically marked as "pending review" via a dedicated template
(which will display a yellow SR icon and add the proposal to the appropriate category
[3]). We strive to provide the above kind of support and assessment to the different
requests we receive and once a project is reviewed we change the support flag to
"reviewed" . This is not to say that the process is 100% error-free or very
efficient (we unfortunately have little bandwidth to dedicate to this process and review
all requests in a timely way), but the review itself (if you haven't come across one
[4]) tends to be quite serious and exhaustive.
So to briefly answer Pine's questions:
- yes, going through RCom review is the standard procedure we expect all proposals to
comply with
- no, a proposal should not be removed from Meta if it hasn't been reviewed, it should
only be flagged as pending review using the WMF-support template. This also means that
Audrey fully complied with the expected procedure to submit a SR request.
- yes, there are privacy concerns, and this is the reason why we take the review of data
collection/retention/licensing terms in the proposal very seriously. As these surveys do
not fall under the WMF's privacy policy they are not reviewed by WMF Legal team unless
they are considered potentially abusive. The only privacy terms that apply are those
displayed on the landing page of a survey and our goal is to support best practices in
setting up these terms (for example, by making sure that these terms are explicitly
accepted by the participants before entering the survey/experiment, particularly in the
case of non-academic studies that are not backed by an explicit IRB approval).
Hope this helps address your concerns
Best,
Dario
[1]
I have concerns about this survey. I will address one
set of comments to Audrey, and a second set of comments and a question to the Research
Committee.
Audrey: thanks for your interest in Wikipedia. I suggest that you look at the other
research that has previously discussed motivations of Wikipedia contributors and factors
that can effect that motivation, such as
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Editors_Survey_2011 and
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_Summer_of_Research_2011/S….
On your research Meta page, I disagree with your characterization of extant literature as
“lacking,” because while it isn’t comprehensive it also shouldn’t be dismissed. Also, I am
wondering why you would use a 2006 source for information about Wikipedia user
contribution activity because 2006 was a long time ago in the context of Wikipedia’s
lifetime. Regarding surveys of Wikipedians in general, I am skeptical about the
reliability of surveys in measuring the motivations of Wikipedia contributors because so
many people are not the kind of dedicated volunteer who would be likely to read Research-l
or volunteer ten minutes of their time to participate in a study about their motives.
Also, you will need to consider bad actors like vandals, spammers, POV pushers, and PR
manipulators. Your survey might reveal interesting characteristics of certain classes of
editors, but I would be very surprised if your survey results were representative of the
entire population of Wikipedia editors. Another complicating factor is that motivations of
any single editor can change over time. Finally, and perhaps most significantly, I have
some procedural concerns. Did you discuss your survey with anyone in the Wikipedia
research community before you announced it here? Your page on Meta says that you “will
also request the Research Committee's support in recruiting subjects.” Your section on
“Wikimedia Policies, Ethics, and Human Subjects Protection” says nothing about
consultation with or approval of the Research Committee, and the most recent published
minutes from the Research Committee (that I was able to find) don’t appear to show that
your research was discussed by them. I think that they might have had valuable ideas that
could have helped you in designing your survey and understanding the existing work on
editor motivation. It is my understanding that Research Committee approval is required
before soliciting Wikipedia subjects for surveys (see my question below).
RCOM members: I would appreciate an official reply to the following concerns. Is it
policy that surveys which recruit participants (instead of passively examining editor
contributions) must be approved by RCOM before they are sent to Wikimedia mailing lists
and/or announced to the broader Wikimedia community (beyond a relatively limited scope
such as a single wikiproject, such as GOCE on EN, which might give its approval to the
survey only within the scope of that wikiproject)? I am under the impression from the
December 12, 2011 RCOM meeting minutes that RCOM approval is required for surveys such as
the one that Audrey made. My personal view is that surveyors should get RCOM’s approval
before making broad public announcements which recruit research participants, because even
well intended researchers can experience difficulties due to questionable assumptions
built into the design a study, a limited understanding about the Wikipedia community, or a
lack of knowledge about significant existing research. Also, there can be privacy and
copyright concerns regarding survey data, and those reasons alone seem sufficient to
require that RCOM’s approval is necessary in addition to the approval of any academic
institution that is associated with a survey. Also, I am under the impression that
permission from the WMF’s legal department is required, in addition to RCOM approval. In
the absence of RCOM approval and WMF Legal approval, should information about such an
unapproved survey be removed from Meta?
Thanks,
Pine
From: Audrey Abeyta
Sent: Saturday, 17 March, 2012 13:01
To: wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Motivations to Contribute to Wikipedia
Hello all,
I am an undergraduate student at the University of California, Santa Barbara, conducting
a senior honors thesis on users' motivations to contribute to Wikipedia. A more
detailed description of the project can be read here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Motivations_to_Contribute_to_Wikipe…
My project's success is dependent on the valuable responses of Wikipedia
contributors, which I am collecting through an online questionnaire. This brief
questionnaire is completely anonymous and should take approximately 10 minutes to
complete. If any of you are willing to complete this questionnaire, it can be accessed
here:
https://us1.us.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_8ixU9RkozemzC4s.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns.
Thank you in advance for your help!
Sincerely,
Audrey Abeyta
_______________________________________________
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