Basically, it's a "best practices" kind of thing; you are telling This isn't quite right. For the last 3.5 years, new research which has the potential to disrupt Wikipedian activities (surveys, interviews and experiments) has been documented and discussed via a light-weight process involving describing the project on meta. This process of documentation and discussion is a means to public consent and I have yet to see a study that goes through that process fail to run successfully. While this process was recently scrutinized by a small group including Piotr, it's certainly not merely a "best practice"; people expect it to work like policy. We've had several researchers attempt to run surveys of English Wikipedia only to be stopped and told to follow this process on Meta before continuing. If you contact me or another researcher at the Wikimedia Foundation, we will help you negotiate this process. (Piotr, if you would like to reignite this discussion, I suggest we take it to a new thread.) However, it doesn't sound like this is what Xiangju is asking about. It sounds more like he is asking about documenting a study *after-the-fact*. Here, I think that meta has the potential to help you have a "broader impact" (jargon for affecting something other than your citation count). By listing your results on Meta, you enable Wikipedians to more easily take advantage of your work. You might even find that your citation rate goes up too since there are a lot of us academics working on wiki stuff who track and discuss research on Meta. I've actually had a few citations to reports I have authored primarily on Meta. Regretfully, those don't "count" yet. I imagine it would have been different if I had a DOI. -Aaron On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 3:30 AM, Piotr Konieczny <piokon(a)post.pl> wrote: > There are no constrains imposed on your research outside the > declaration that your project is in line with ethical requirements (more or > less required by most organizations anyway). > > Basically, it's a "best practices" kind of thing; you are telling > > -- > > Piotr Konieczny, PhDhttp://hanyang.academia.edu/PiotrKoniecznyhttp://scholar.google.com/cita… > > On 11/8/2014 07:39, Xiangju Qin wrote: > > Dear all, > > I'm Xiangju Qin, a PhD student at School of Computer Science & > Informatics, University College Dublin, Ireland. > > I just joint this Wikipedia research mailing list and know little > about it. I guess the members of this mailing list is a mixture of people > from Wikipedia (either admins or editors), people from the academia like > me. So what are the main purposes of this mailing list? Mainly discussing > research (projects or papers) about Wikipedia? > > I would also like to know the following question: > > When I emailed a Wikipedia editor about his feedbacks about our paper > (he made some comments about our paper in Wikipedia Signpost-Sep-24-2014), > he suggested me to add my project to Wiki-research page in order to get > suggestions/advice from Wikipedia people. > > I emailed my advisor about this. He said that he didn't understand the > implications of adding one's project to Wikipedia research page. I don't > know much about this either. Has any one in this mailing list add his own > project to the Wikipedia page? Has you found it helpful and gotten much > valuable suggestions/advice from the Wikipedia community about your project? > > Many thanks! > > Have a nice weekend everyone! > > Best wishes, > > > Xiangju > > -- > Xiangju Qin, PhD Student at UCD CSI > Email: qinxiangju(a)gmail.com or xiangju.qin(a)ucdconnect.ie > Address: School of Computer Science & Informatics, UCD, Belfield, Dublin > 4, Ireland > > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing listWiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://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 > >