Perhaps Lane's involvement with RCOM would prevent submissions from going unanswered for months - this is a huge roadblock to researchers who are trying to do things ethically. On the other hand, if Lane were to accuse other researchers of harming the community for personal gain, as he has done off-list in this case, that too would be very problematic, IMO worse than any survey of this type. I would like to thank others for their feedback. Yes, we are aware of NOTAVOTE - the terminology is a bit problematic, but we are trying to get at the unique use of rationales that ideally constitutes the bulk of such non-vote discussions.
Message: 2 Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 15:43:48 +0300 From: "Amir E. Aharoni" amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] AFD survey Message-ID: <CACtNa8tHeMQRxjnsGHdHDG5B=BX0BsMe4HwSt0GVWp18= 84pQQ@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Good points, Lane. Such things were possibly discussed before, but it's the first time that I see it it spelled out like this.
This approach should be advertised a bit somehow, so that the researchers know how to do it ethically and for everybody's benefit, and so that the experienced Wikipedians would know not to start answering such surveys.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
2014-07-16 14:39 GMT+03:00 Lane Rasberry lane@bluerasberry.com:
Hello,
I feel that this is an unethical research project and I have told the researcher so. We exchanged several emails and were unable to understand each other. I asked them to please have their university ethics board contact me.
I asked the researcher about RCOM and other things. This person said they posted to RCOM, but "the Meta page states that submissions should receive responses within 1-2 weeks, and yet our messages went unanswered. We have institutional ethics approval, but that doesn't last indefinitely, and so after receiving no response we opted to go ahead."
I am not going to share more than this publicly, but in short, I talked with the researcher to the limit of their interest and they feel that
they
must proceed with the research. Their oversight is at http://www.uwo.ca/research/about/research_offices.html Their RCOM page is at <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:The_Use_of_Rationales_in_Wikipedia_...
My concern here, as with many surveys, is that the researcher greatly values their time and assigns less value to Wikipedia community time, and is comfortable asking for lots of volunteer time on the pretense of
helping
our community. This kind of research is, in my opinion, not helpful to Wikipedians because the questions make no sense due to having been
designed
by an outsider, and additionally so many people have these same questions and only want to target our most active and busiest and valuable volunteers. Furthermore there is no compliance here with community values in research. Bad surveys create "survey fatigue", in which volunteers are later disinclined to participate in good and useful community-approved research.
If anyone sees research problems in the future I am interested in talking about these things. I have been thinking of becoming more involved in supporting RCOM for some time.
The basic problem is that practically all researchers assume that the number of highly active Wikipedians is huge, and therefore, they imagine
no
problem for them to ask for any amount of volunteer time to be diverted from Wikipedia to their personal and private collection of survey data.
The
reality is that there are not more than hundreds or low thousands of Wikipedians who are active to the extent they imagine. This survey is targeting English AfD, where I imagine there are only low hundreds of at most of continually active participants, and the reality may be much
lower
participation than that.
I asked this researcher to discontinue the survey pending a check on the impact of it on the Wikipedia community. I said this because I feel they are out of compliance with even the soft suggestions in research that are available, and they know this.
yours,
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 6:53 AM, Srikanth Ramakrishnan < srik.ramk@wikimedia.in> wrote:
If the people who have created this survey can fix the problems raised
by
Fae, I'd be happy to share this with several language Wikipedians in
India.
I'm sure that at this point nobody would want to be part of it. On Jul 16, 2014 1:54 PM, "Tomasz Ganicz" polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
In Polish Wikipedia there is no voting for deletion for around 3-4 years. There is discussion and then final decission is made by one of admins who regularly maintains the deletion process.
2014-07-16 10:20 GMT+02:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki@gmail.com
:
Thanks. All questions were generic and about "Wikipedia", so I
answered
with the Italian Wikipedia in mind. Also note that it.wiki is
perhaps
the only wiki which switched deletions from voting to non-voting:
the
experiment was already done, you only need to measure and interpret
it.
:-) See
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-January/123334.html
I had problems with two questions:
- "Are you concerned that somebody would change or remove your
rationale? Please choose the most applicable response." This
question
assumes that removing a comment is bad; I would have answered "Yes
when
appropriate per law or policy" but there was no such option.
- "Do you read the rationales in the discussion before making the
final
decision?" This assumes that this is just a matter of personal
taste;
sometimes policy and process requires it, sometimes not. (For
instance
in the classic it.wiki deletion process, but certainly also in some specific sub-process triggers on en.wiki and others.)
Nemo
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
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz
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 <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia 206.801.0814 lane@bluerasberry.com _______________________________________________ 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
Message: 3 Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 09:49:34 -0400 From: "Marc A. Pelletier" marc@uberbox.org To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] AFD survey Message-ID: 53C682EE.8010705@uberbox.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On 07/16/2014 07:44 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
AFAIK deletion has never been a vote by policy on en.wiki.
No, but it almost always devolves to a vote de facto. Interestingly enough, that particular question (did you close discussions by counting show of hand vs evaluating the rationales) appears in the survey, which shows that they are at least aware of the dichotomy.
-- Marc