F L wrote:
I'm a graduate student at the University of Michigan School of Information (and also an admin at Wikipedia, username Ffirehorse). I'm considering a long research paper on the dynamics of community at Wikipedia for a class on online communities that I'm taking this term.
My question is about protocol, and the reason I'm asking it is because I'm not having much success in locating on Wikimedia or Wikipedia any policy or guidelines on how to approach the community in terms of consent. Would a community-wide announcement be sufficient? As someone who is already a member of the community, while I'm doing the research, would it be advisable to post some sort of note on my user page that I'm also conducting research?
Or is the sort of activity that I'm proposing (i.e., researching Wikipedia while also contributing as a member) generally frowned upon? If so, I will drop the idea without hesitation.
The research I'm considering would be in the form of unobtrusive observation of norms, practices, routines, and other forms of community-forming activity on Wikipedia, and would not likely involve any direct interaction with Wikipedia users. I'd be happy to go into further detail about the specifics if need be.
Any guidance/feedback would be appreciated.
I'm not sure what kind of consent you're concerned about, but I would think that for research purposes, Wikipedia is pretty clearly a public arena that can be researched freely. Research about Wikipedia is certainly permitted, I would even say encouraged. There's even a fledgling WikiProject devoted to the idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikidemia
Researching while being a Wikipedia editor is not a concern, as long as your edits are legitimately focused on Wikipedia goals, and not designed to conduct a test or prove a point. A typical problem is people vandalizing articles to see how quickly the vandalism gets removed. Research by observation should be fine.
If you want to disclose on your user page that you're conducting research, you can invite anyone who has questions to contact you on your talk page. Also, if you let us know the results of your research, I'm sure that would be greatly appreciated.
--Michael Snow
Michael Snow (wikipedia@earthlink.net) [050210 14:34]:
Researching while being a Wikipedia editor is not a concern, as long as your edits are legitimately focused on Wikipedia goals, and not designed to conduct a test or prove a point. A typical problem is people vandalizing articles to see how quickly the vandalism gets removed. Research by observation should be fine.
Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:POINT is mandatory reading in this matter. Every example listed there actually happened.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Michael Snow (wikipedia@earthlink.net) [050210 14:34]:
Researching while being a Wikipedia editor is not a concern, as long as your edits are legitimately focused on Wikipedia goals, and not designed to conduct a test or prove a point. A typical problem is people vandalizing articles to see how quickly the vandalism gets removed. Research by observation should be fine.
Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:POINT is mandatory reading in this matter. Every example listed there actually happened.
A fine and noble policy, obviously. My only query - why is it classified under this peculiar "semi-policy" name. As a piece of common sense, it has been policy since the start of the project, by calling it "semi-policy" (which seems a bit likely something is "slightly unique") we asking for some troll to come and muck us around and then say "but its not official policy".
Pete
Pete/Pcb21 (pete_pcb21_wpmail@pcbartlett.com) [050211 09:45]:
David Gerard wrote:
Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:POINT is mandatory reading in this matter. Every example listed there actually happened.
A fine and noble policy, obviously. My only query - why is it classified under this peculiar "semi-policy" name. As a piece of common sense, it has been policy since the start of the project, by calling it "semi-policy" (which seems a bit likely something is "slightly unique") we asking for some troll to come and muck us around and then say "but its not official policy".
It wasn't ratified as official enforceable policy. It's a guideline, really. ("Guidelines" being for those with a clue, "policy", e.g. 3RR, being more mechanically appliable. Or something.) However, the Arbitration Committee has endorsed it a few times now, so we'll call it a *strong* guideline.
- d.