RCOM would perhaps be more active if there were clear terms for members?
best,
dj
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
I've spent a half hour or so going through this, and it looks like Nathan is on the money here. If RCOM is as inactive as it seems (except where it concerns the research of RCOM members) then it is no great surprise that external parties eventually try to do an end-run around it. Unless an explanation for this inactivity can be provided, I think that in its current form RCOM should be disbanded or at least radically retooled, because clearly it's not only ineffective, it's also preventing potentially legitimate research from going ahead.
Cheers, Craig
On 17 July 2014 11:06, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
And... unsurprisingly, Aaron has reverted the changes I referred to
above.
Not with any explanation, of course, other than "not true." Looking at
the
list of "reviewed" projects (where the review appears to constitute a
small
handful of questions on the talkpage), the RCOM has reviewed a total of
10
projects in its history. I'm excluding the one where Aaron himself is a co-investigator.
That might sound like a substantial amount, but in 2013 and 2014 the rate so far is 1 (one) per *year*. Meanwhile, the AfD request languished for 7 months without a peep from Aaron or someone on RCOM. Since we're on the subject, let's look at the research index and see what we can see.
# There is a "Gender Inequality Index" that has no comments from RCOM, posted a month ago. # We have "Modeling monthly active editors" submitted by Aaron himself. This is worth looking at[1] as evidently an example of what an RCOM
member
considers sufficient description of a research project. Specifically, nothing at all. # "Number of books read by WikiWriters" a page written by a high school student that should have been deleted but hasn't been, suggesting the submissions may not be closely monitored... # "Use of Wikipedia by doctors" submitted both to RCOM and to IEG in
March,
no comment by RCOM. # Chinese Wikivoyage, created in January, no comment by RCOM. # SSAJRP program - extensively documented, posted in October 2013, no comment from RCOM and no RCOM liaison. This research is ongoing. # Gender assymetry, posted in September 2013, no comment from RCOM. # Dynamics of inclusion and exclusion, August 2013, no comment or participation from RCOM.
I'm sure the list could go on, because the pattern is perfect - virtually the only projects to get participation from either Dario or Aaron are
those
managed by WMF staff members (and most often, Aaron himself is the investigator). But the inactivity of RCOM is not news to the WMF. In December of last year, Dario posted to rcom-l [2] that "The Research Committee as a group with a fixed membership and a regular meeting
schedule
has been inactive for a very long time." He then stated that "...the existence of a fixed-membership group with a recognized authority on any possible matter related to Wikimedia research and associated policies has ceased to be a priority." Another member of RCOM, WMF employee Jonathan Morgan, said in June on meta "I'm not sure what RCOM's mandate is these days." When asked in March how many projects RCOM had actually approved,
it
took Aaron four months to reply.[3]
So it is factually incorrect to suggest in documentation that RCOM
approval
is required for anything; it's clear that RCOM as a body does not
actually
exist. It may be argued that the approval of one of the two involved WMF employees is required. If that's the case, then at least based on public evidence they have been doing an absolutely woeful job of keeping up with this labor. I'll admit it's possible that all of the communication has
been
via e-mail, and in actuality Aaron and Dario have been very busy
providing
feedback to non-WMF researchers. If that's the case, or of I'm missing
some
other function that RCOM fulfills, I'd love to hear about it. Otherwise
it
appears that RCOM is primarily an obstacle to prevent non-WMF researchers from conducting research, a strange policy indeed.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Modeling_monthly_active_editors [2]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/rcom-l/2013-December/000600.html
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research_talk%3ASubject_recruit...
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe